• Wooki@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Its a 100% refund with a 10% fine. Dont conflate the refunded fraudulent sales with the fine.

      • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Which then makes whatever business practice is causing damage actually cost the company money. That’s the point. If the bottom line is dollars, making it so that illegal or unethical practices CANNOT make you money, because you’ll be fined more than the amount you made. Or, if you REALLY want to split hairs, sure, you’ll be forced to refund 100%, and then fined 10% on top of that. If that’s REALLY the distinction you want to make, go for it. It’s the same in the end.

          • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Who actually cares what you call it? The point is, you remove whatever money they got from being shitty, and then hit them with a fine.

            Do you think 10% on top of the “refund” is not enough? I think that’s got more teeth than any fines we use today. I can get behind it not being a steep enough penalty, but say that, instead of arguing over “refund” versus “fine” and “earnings” versus “acquisitions” or whatever terminology bugbear you have.

            • Wooki@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              And here in lies the problem.

              You conflate earnings from fraud, still. Fines are a deterent, a burden with the goal to stop the behaviour. 10% of a few sales even a million dollars revenue is still very little for a company this size.

              • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                Okay so you take issue with the 10% part. We can talk about that, for sure. I think 10% is low too. But you’re attacking me as if I’m thinking it’s all well and good they’re doing this shit. It’s not. We’re on the same page philosophically, you just really don’t like the specific terminology I’m using, and would rather argue than try to get to a common ground. Take care, bud.