Submitted by BasedSweet t3_10opq9o in technology
Unfadable1 t1_j6j12uy wrote
Reply to comment by cannibal_man in FCC Threatens to Disconnect Twilio for Illegal Robocalls by BasedSweet
You simply don’t understand the issue beyond what you’ve read, so technically your opinion is literally moot, although I hate to say that because obviously arguing opinion at all is mostly a fools errand.
This isn’t a black-and-white issue, but headlines and blogs won’t teach you that, because that’s not engaging, and clicks rule.
Your suggestion is like banning alcohol manufacturers because kids get access through back-channels and drive drunk. Nice making your acquaintance, nonetheless.
FWIW: I don’t use twillio, but know plenty of non-robo-call companies (that have hundreds of thousands of customers who also are) relying heavily on it. It’s as simple as that. 🤷🏿♂️
Velgus t1_j6jex6s wrote
People in this thread are just raging at things that their only understanding of comes from a single article combined with their hatred for robocalls. They seem to think that Twilio exclusively works with/for these spam robocall farms - your prohibition analogy is a good one.
There are plenty of legitimate things Twilio is used for. A company a friend of mine works for, for example, uses Twilio to remind patients of their upcoming appointments/procedures, and vitally, if they have to take drugs, or fast, or such, before coming in.
618smartguy t1_j6ju9t0 wrote
>They seem to think that Twilio exclusively works with/for these spam robocall farms - your prohibition analogy is a good one.
What's giving you this impression? I have no problem thinking a business should be shut down if they are massively profiting off unethical behavior, regardless of what else they are doing. Who cares if they are doing good too? Seems to me like their good deeds are actually bad deeds if ultimately they are allowed to continue operating based on the argument you are presenting.
Velgus t1_j6kihjt wrote
Your basic argument is again, just like their prohibition analogy.
Twilio isn't performing good or bad deeds in this context - they're offering a service. The service is being taken advantage of by good and bad actors. By the logic you're presenting, we might as well shut down all telecommunications entirely, or any form of electronic communication that could be used by bad actors. Who cares if good stuff is being done with it if bad actors are being supported as well?(/s)
Sure, I'm fine with penalizing Twilio for not making sufficient efforts to block bad actors. In fact they SHOULD be made to provide information and proof on the efforts they take to mitigate bad actors, and penalized if those efforts are not sufficient. But bad actors will always find loopholes and ways to get through - it's not a one-time-fix scenario.
Any penalties should be financial however, not just outright shutting down the company. And it's totally fine if penalties are steep - I'm in the camp that believes corporate fines should be a % of revenue, instead of a flat amount, so they can't be written off as a "cost of doing business".
Shutting them down entirely for simply being a telecommunication service/API doesn't address the root of the problem in any case, since bad actors would just move to various other platforms (MessageBird, Plivo, etc.), which would debatably have even less capacity/capability for detecting bad actors, due to being smaller and having less potential resources to put towards doing so.
ontopofyourmom t1_j6kffm7 wrote
The innocent third parties who depend on them need time to switch to other platforms
DTHCND t1_j6lpk2a wrote
> Your suggestion is like banning alcohol manufacturers because kids get access through back-channels and drive drunk.
Or better yet, it's like banning cars because some people drive drunk. Like cars, Twilio is a critical utility for a lot of legitimate businesses and individuals.
cannibal_man t1_j6j2k1d wrote
You protest too much. Lol, you sound like a Twilio employee being disingenuous here.
When it comes to spam, they gotta play hardball. Not like the old days playing cozy with Ajit Pai.
It's a new FCC now....
Unfadable1 t1_j6ja1s8 wrote
Totally get it. I don’t expect you to believe we’re on the same side. ;)
You’ve shown your bias/emotion drives your decisions in this regard, and I’ve shown that mine doesn’t.
Nice meeting you, and good luck in the rest of your day!
cannibal_man t1_j6jdw10 wrote
Oh I get it too, bruh. Some people like to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, and when the mood strikes me, I like to do that too.
But in this particular case, you are desperately defending the indefensible. Pick better battles to fight, next time.
And have a nice day to you too.
Unfadable1 t1_j6jhd1u wrote
What exactly are you fooling yourself into thinking I’m defending?
cannibal_man t1_j6jhnxd wrote
Well, since I've gotten totally bored with you, I'll leave you to ponder that.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments