Jump to content

Mission statement: Difference between revisions

From Consumer_Action_Taskforce
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
changed to markdown
Tag: Reverted
finalised move of inclusion policy to its own page, and linked this to otehr pages
 
(38 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<markdown>**The mission of this wiki is to document a new generation of consumer
__NOTOC__
exploitation that bears no resemblance to issues of the 1950s-1990s. Our
===LOST AND LOOKING TO HELP? SEE: [[How to help|'''How to help''']]===
focus are the issues that often go unnoticed by review sites, tech
press, and traditional consumer protection publications.**


## Consumer protection - then vs. now!
'''The mission of this Wiki is to document a new generation of consumer exploitation that bears no resemblance to issues of the 1950s-1990s. We focus on the issues that often go unnoticed by review sites, tech press, and traditional consumer protection publications.'''


### Old consumer protection
==Consumer protection has changed==
 
===What is "old" consumer protection?===


30 years ago, consumer advocacy dealt with more visible problems:
30 years ago, consumer advocacy dealt with more visible problems:
#Unsafe products
#Misleading labels
#Materially false advertising
#Bait & switch pricing
#Not delivering goods after payment
#Lead in toys
#Discrimination


1.  Unsafe products
===What is "new" consumer protection?===
2.  Misleading labels
3.  False advertising
4.  Bait & switch pricing
5.  Not delivering goods after payment
6.  Lead in toys
7.  Discrimination
 
### New consumer protection
 
Today's consumers face different forms of exploitation that strike at
the heart of what it means to *own* something, and are deliberately
designed to be difficult to understand or resist. Above all, unlike the
issues above, these issues are *not even illegal*.
 
Modern businesses have mastered the art of silent control. They can:
 
1.  Remotely disable products you “own” through cloud services.
2.  Collect personal data without meaningful disclosure & sell that data
    to others without legitimate consent.
3.  Prevent you from cancelling their services by creating systems where
    signing up takes one click, but cancelling requires navigating an
    obstacle course of sending certified mail and endless phone trees.
4.  Redefine the meaning of the word “purchase” and “own” on page 21 of
    an end user license agreement, creating legal justification for
    removing items you have “purchased” in your library.
5.  Create wilful barriers towards repair, leaving otherwise functional
    devices to die.
6.  Manipulate you into forced arbitration by sending you an email and
    pretending that not replying to this email constitutes agreement to
    a new terms of service.
 
"Old" style consumer protection covers exposing and pursuing companies
which break **existing** laws. Modern consumer protection efforts exist,
and are distinct, because **the consumer protection laws which currently
exist are not fit for purpose**. Companies are able to exploit legal
loopholes, or legally dubious strategies which are not met with
meaningful consequences, to trap their customers in unfavorable
positions. They rely on complexity & fatigue to prevent resistance.
 
**These abuses of the consumer have a common thread:**
 
-  Take away the consumer's right to say **"NO"**
-  Take away the consumer's right of *ownership*
-  Take away the consumer's right to privacy.
 
### Where we step in
 
This wiki exists to document and expose these practices, making visible
what companies work hard to keep obscure. By creating a centralized
knowledge base of modern consumer exploitation tactics, we aim to help
consumers understand how their rights are being systematically violated
through technology, psychology, deliberately complex legal mechanisms,
as well as the ineffective governmental bodies that allow it to happen.
 
**Our goal is to bring clarity to these new practices that companies
intentionally make opaque, and to provide consumers with the information
they need to recognize and fight back against new forms of
exploitation.**
 
## How this wiki will be used
 
It is expected that the wiki will be contributed to by a wide variety of
people, both technical and non-technical, who share a desire to see
consumers be treated more fairly. It will enable this by being quick and
easy to contribute to, with a low barrier to entry for contributors.
This barrier to entry should be maintained at the minimum level
neccesary to combat spam and bad actors.
 
The base focus of the wiki is expected to be on issues frequently
discussed on Louis Rossmann’s channel, and those adjacent to the
right-to-repair movement, though this may grow to a more
all-encompassing definition of consumer protection over time. The
minimum desired goal is to have a site which records, in a helpful and
searchable format, the specific issues and topics which have been
discussed on Louis’ channel over the years, with factual citations.
 
Ideally, it should aim to grow and act as a one-stop-shop, where a user
can discover how the companies they buy products from are working
against their interests behind the scenes, and what they can do about
it. It should serve to highlight how consumer rights have been eroded
over the years, and give people the knowledge and tools to fight back
against the tide. It will feature both factual documentation relating to
specific instances of consumer abuses, articles which track the
consumer-protection-related activities of large companies and certain
individuals, as well as articles and content which serve to educate
users about the different forms of consumer abuse.
 
The Wiki will aim to be viewed as a legitimate source which, though not
perfect, can generally be relied upon to provide accurate information,
in a similar vein to other Wiki-projects. **It is crucial for the Wiki
to take steps to avoid causing harassment or financial harm to companies
as a result of false or misleading information. It will enable this by
attracting an excellent team of moderators, and giving them powerful and
effective tools to combat spam and misinformation. If problems arise in
this area, we will treat them with the utmost seriousness, as they may
jeporadize the entire project.**
 
In seeking this legitimacy, it is important that the appropriate tone is
used. The exact tone which is appropriate for a given article will be
defined in the Editorial Guidelines (along with the range of acceptable
tones for the wiki as a whole), and will vary based on the type of
article. In general, we will aim for professionalism. A project like
this cannot obtain or maintain legitimacy if every article comes across
as being written by someone with an axe to grind, or by someone who is
more interested in proving a point than in the truth.
 
## What makes something appropriate to record within the Wiki?
 
The line between systematic abuse of customers and an unlucky streak of
bad customer experiences is blurry, and can be particularly hard to find
for a user who’s just been on the receiving end of bad service. The
following guidelines should help you determine whether a particular
incident is appropriate for inclusion on the Wiki.
 
##### An incident is to be included in the Wiki when one or both of the following is true:
 
-  It fits into the niche of "new" consumer protection - e.g.,
    revocation of rights of ownership, or widespread changes of the
    terms of the sale. If it is only possible because of these new
    mechanisms of consumer abuse, then it can be included here. **A
    story relating to a single customer, or a small handful of
    customers, only rises to the level of being included here if it is
    relevant to "modern" consumer protection.** Even if it only affected
    a single customer, the very fact that *these things can happen in
    the first place* means that they need to be documented. 
-  It is a large-scale consumer abuse. **An old-style consumer
    protection story only belongs here if it is a systemic practice that
    is happening to a large group of people.** For example, consider
    Intel's denying of customers warranty replacements for their 14th
    gen CPUs. This practice, even if it is an *"old"* style
    anti-consumer practice (selling a defective product, and ignoring
    warranties en masse), is something that is systemic & widespread,
    beyond an individual anecdotal experience. Another relevant example
    is [Asus' warranty policies
    here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pMrssIrKcY).
 
See the description at the beginning of the Mission Statement to learn
what is meant by *"new"* and *"old"*consumer issues.
 
##### A practice does not belong here if it belongs in a Yelp review:
 
Louis had a [bad
experience](https://www.google.com/maps/uv?pb=!1s0x8644cbf181de7b69%3A0x89b66cb17b9bcd78!3m1!7e115!5sGoogle%20Search!15sCgIgAQ&cr=lr_f3&hl=en&imagekey=!1e10!2sAF1QipP24WKlhz4nCCR4pu4lgIKn6l2FLn0Jo6bBu62P&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib37GH49WKAxU07ckDHeI7DT8Q9fkHKAB6BAgBEFk)
with a bad technician, salesman, and service writer at Caliber
Collision. They lied on timeframes, and they did a poor job of
installing new parts on his car. This, however, is not to be included on
the Wiki.
 
Instead, this is an issue to be settled elsewhere, by contacting the
local consumer protection/licensing bureau (for instance, [Department of
Consumer Affairs in New York
City](https://www.nyc.gov/site/dca/index.page)), and by providing
feedback on Yelp or Google.
 
1.  This does not fit any of the categories above of removing privacy,
    rights of ownership, taking away the right to repair, or forcing
    anyone into a terms of service agreement in a sneaky way.
2.  There is no evidence that what they did is systemically pushed onto
    all customers.
 
##### Hyper-local, run-of-the-mill issues do not belong here.
 
A plumber who repeatedly ghosts work, disappears & sets up a new company
when people go looking for a refund is not worthy of report here. The
story of [Eugene the
contractor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50ByeqNgYjQ&list=PLkVbIsAWN2lucdpXqcM4qW6ev60OSXdw4&index=16)
belongs on a personal blog, Yelp, and Google. Reports on his behavior
should be made to local, city, state, and federal authorities where they
apply. A contractor who sets up a new company any time someone looks for
a refund after being ripped off may be an anti-consumer scammer, and it
may well be that knowing about him would prevent future people from
getting scammed. However, *this is simply too small and local to warrant
inclusion in a wiki whose purpose is* *specifically to inform consumers
about the modern landscape of consumer protection issues*.
 
For information on the types of article the wiki is expected to contain,
please see our [Article Types](Article_Types "wikilink") page. For a
quick guide on what you can do to help, please see our [How to
help](How_to_help "wikilink") guide!
 
## Editorial guidelines
 
Detailed below are the two main 'tones' which are acceptable within the
wiki, as well as examples of the article types in which they should be
used.
 
### Factual, non-accusatory, and legally safe
 
-  Factual statements in articles should only be made where they
    directly reference a source. Direct inferences from these statements
    may be made, in a non-accusatory manner.
-  Source commentators often bring opinions, rants, and diatribes that
    add commentary & entertainment value; that is for their content.
    This is a repository of information, and to be taken seriously, it
    must avoid coming off as the expression of an individual's
    personality.
-  Articles should not include language directly condemning specific
    companies or named individuals. Instead, this should be achieved
    this by citing others – ‘it has been claimed that this practice
    amounts to x or y’, and by use of qualifiers ‘This shares
    characteristics with x’. 
-  No attribution of malice to the subjects of criticism, unless such
    malice has been established in a legal context or by a legitimate
    regulatory body. Even then, it should always be stated indirectly:
    'The supreme court found that Company X...', rather than 'Company X
    did...' 
-  This will be the appropriate tone for most articles surrounding
    specific instances of anti-consumer behaviour, and for articles
    concerning companies or individuals.
 
### 'Nice Louis'
 
-  The way Louis would speak in a Senate hearing. Passionate advocacy,
    but avoiding strong language, or causing unnecessary offense. Where
    argumentation is used, it is clear and direct.
-  No direct attacks on named individuals or companies, but likely to
    be strong condemnation of specific practices, while citing the
    companies that do them. Malice may be attributed to bad and proven
    offenders, in a formal and calm manner.
-  This is the appropriate tone for explanatory theme articles which
    cover larger issues relating to consumer protection, and is not
    specifically related to individual practices by individual
    companies, except where these are used as examples.
-  This tone is not appropriate for the more factual accounts expected
    of individual Incidents.


Minor revisions may be made to these guidelines from time to time, but
Today's consumers face different forms of exploitation that strike at the heart of what it means to ''own'' something, and are deliberately designed to be difficult to understand or resist. Above all, unlike the issues above, these issues are usually ''not even illegal''.
they are expected to remain consistent with the Mission Statement, and
the broad rules of thumb established here.


#### The 'Granny rule' (or, the 'Senator rule')
Modern businesses have perfected the art of subtle control. They are able to:
#Remotely deactivate products you "own" via cloud services.
#Alter a purchased item into a significantly different version after the sale.
#Gather personal data without adequate disclosure and sell it without proper consent.
#Hinder service cancellation by designing systems where signing up is a single click, but canceling involves navigating a complex process of sending certified mail and enduring endless phone menus.
#Change the definitions of "purchase" and "own" deep within an end user license agreement, providing legal grounds to remove items you have "purchased" from your library.
#Intentionally create obstacles to repair, causing otherwise functional devices to become unusable.
#Coerce you into forced arbitration by sending an email and assuming that not responding signifies agreement to new terms of service.


The Wiki aims to be a widely accessible source where the general
"Old" style consumer protection covers exposing and pursuing companies that break '''existing''' laws. Modern consumer protection efforts exist and are distinct, because '''the consumer protection laws that currently exist are not fit for purpose'''. Companies are able to exploit legal loopholes, or legally dubious strategies which are not met with meaningful consequences, to trap their customers in unfavorable positions. They rely on complexity & fatigue to prevent resistance.
consumer can learn about the issues that affect them, and where relevant
regulatory or political figures can be directed for a full explanation
of the issues they have sight over. In general, a good rule of thumb to
use when writing for the Wiki will be 'would I be comfortable showing
this article to my grandmother?'


This has two main implications:
'''These abuses of the consumer have a common thread:'''
*Take away the consumer's right to say '''"NO".'''
*Take away the consumer's right of ''ownership.''
*Take away the consumer's right to privacy.


-  **Avoid using inflammatory language.** This includes quotations:
===How we're taking action===
    swear words should be censored, and where a supporting quotation is
    required for an article, writers should try to choose ones that
    convey the relevant information without appearing combative.
-  **Avoid unnecessary technical detail.**This is not a tech Wiki, and
    as far as possible, writers should avoid diving into technological
    detail. Where technical explanations are required to properly
    articulate the events of an Incident (for example, describing the
    events of the Honey scandal would require an explanation of site
    tracking via links, and Cookies), care should be taken to ensure
    that they are as accessible as possible. The use of jargon should be
    avoided, and technical terms should be defined in each article where
    they appear.


**Examples of unacceptable content includes:**
This Wiki exists to document and expose these practices, making visible what companies work hard to keep obscure. By creating a centralized knowledge base of modern consumer exploitation tactics, we aim to help consumers understand how their rights are being systematically violated through technology, psychology, deliberately complex legal mechanisms, as well as the ineffective governmental bodies that allow it to happen.


-  Strong and unfiltered language
'''Our goal is to bring clarity to these new practices that companies intentionally make opaque and to provide consumers with the information they need to recognize and fight back against new forms of exploitation.'''
-  Deep dives into the technical functionality of a product at the
    centre of an Incident
-  Unsourced 'facts', and excessive use of disreputable sources
-  The tone and language Louis might use in a rant video
-  Direct insults to specific individuals or companies, or direct
    attribution of malice to said individuals or companies
-  This wiki is not for "*Pissed off Louis"* - that's for YouTube, and
    has no place here


**We will be especially vigilant against potentially harmful content,
==How this Wiki will be used==
and take strong action againt users who:**


-  Advocate for direct action against malicious companies or
It is expected that the Wiki will be contributed to by a wide variety of people, both technical and non-technical, who share a desire to see consumers be treated more fairly. It will enable this by being quick and easy to contribute to, with a low barrier to entry for contributors. This barrier to entry should be maintained at the minimum level necessary to combat spam and bad actors.
    individuals within articles themselves
-  Add false or misleading information to the Wiki, particularly that
    which may be damaging to companies or individuals
-  Invent sources or quotes
-  Write articles which feature a blasé attitude toward the expression
    of extremely strong, or even violent, sentiment towards named
    individuals and companies


### Editorial Q&As
The base focus of the Wiki is expected to be on issues frequently discussed on Louis Rossmann’s channel, and those adjacent to the right-to-repair movement, though this may grow to a more all-encompassing definition of consumer protection over time. The minimum desired goal is to have a site that records, in a helpful and searchable format, the specific issues and topics that have been discussed on Louis’ channel over the years, with factual citations.


##### Is it acceptable to, in an article detailing the faults with a particular product, direct users towards alternative products which do not share these issues?
Ideally, it should aim to grow and act as a one-stop-shop, where a user can discover how the companies they buy products from are working against their interests behind the scenes, and what they can do about it. It should serve to highlight how consumer rights have been eroded over the years and give people the knowledge and tools to fight back against the tide. It will feature factual documentation relating to specific instances of consumer abuse, articles that track the consumer-protection-related activities of large companies and certain individuals, as well as articles and content which serve to educate users about the different forms of consumer abuse.


This wiki is not a place for product recommendations, and cannot be
The Wiki will aim to be viewed as a legitimate source that, though not perfect, can generally be relied upon to provide accurate information, in a similar vein to other Wiki-projects. '''It is crucial for the Wiki to take steps to avoid causing harassment or financial harm to companies as a result of false or misleading information. It will enable this by attracting an excellent team of moderators, and giving them powerful and effective tools to combat spam and misinformation. If problems arise in this area, we will treat them with the utmost seriousness, as they may jeopardize the entire project.'''  
turned into a place for sneaky guerilla advertising, or the promotion of
contributors' pet projects.


**The only acceptable reason to include a product in an article which is
In seeking this legitimacy, it is important that the appropriate tone is used. The exact tone that is appropriate for a given article will be defined in the Editorial Guidelines (along with the range of acceptable tones for the wiki as a whole) and will vary based on the type of article. In general, we will aim for professionalism. A project like this cannot obtain or maintain legitimacy if every article comes across as being written by someone with an axe to grind or by someone who is more interested in proving a point than the truth. Please see the [[Wiki Content Policies]] page for more guidance here, as well as the [[Consumer Action Taskforce:Editorial guidelines|Editorial guidelines]] page.
not focussed on said product, is to directly demonstrate that an
anti-consumer practice is unnecessary**. This exception is made in order
to combat the way that unscrupulous companies will attempt to muddy the
water, by claiming that their practices are necessary for the product to
be viable. We do not want a company to be able to defend a practice as
*"necessary"* on the basis of made-up justifications of economic
viability or legal necessity, and as such it is acceptable to mention a
competing product or business, ONLY for the purpose of comparing &
contrasting how another business in the same space is able to provide
the product or service without screwing the customer.


-  If a company says *"the only way we can offer a $500 OLED television
The full, official, collection of CAT Wiki policies can be found [[Consumer Action Taskforce:CAT policy index|here]]. This page can also be accessed via the sidebar.  
    is by selling your personal data"*: it would be acceptable to point
[[Category:CAT]]
    to a company that does not include such terms in their EULA/TOS, and
    which provides the same product at the same price point.
-  If a company says *"we cannot make xyz repair information available
    due to laws regarding consumer safety":*it is acceptable point to a
    company in that same industry, who provide repair information
    without legal consequence.</markdown>

Latest revision as of 20:34, 11 February 2025

LOST AND LOOKING TO HELP? SEE: How to help

The mission of this Wiki is to document a new generation of consumer exploitation that bears no resemblance to issues of the 1950s-1990s. We focus on the issues that often go unnoticed by review sites, tech press, and traditional consumer protection publications.

Consumer protection has changed

What is "old" consumer protection?

30 years ago, consumer advocacy dealt with more visible problems:

  1. Unsafe products
  2. Misleading labels
  3. Materially false advertising
  4. Bait & switch pricing
  5. Not delivering goods after payment
  6. Lead in toys
  7. Discrimination

What is "new" consumer protection?

Today's consumers face different forms of exploitation that strike at the heart of what it means to own something, and are deliberately designed to be difficult to understand or resist. Above all, unlike the issues above, these issues are usually not even illegal.

Modern businesses have perfected the art of subtle control. They are able to:

  1. Remotely deactivate products you "own" via cloud services.
  2. Alter a purchased item into a significantly different version after the sale.
  3. Gather personal data without adequate disclosure and sell it without proper consent.
  4. Hinder service cancellation by designing systems where signing up is a single click, but canceling involves navigating a complex process of sending certified mail and enduring endless phone menus.
  5. Change the definitions of "purchase" and "own" deep within an end user license agreement, providing legal grounds to remove items you have "purchased" from your library.
  6. Intentionally create obstacles to repair, causing otherwise functional devices to become unusable.
  7. Coerce you into forced arbitration by sending an email and assuming that not responding signifies agreement to new terms of service.

"Old" style consumer protection covers exposing and pursuing companies that break existing laws. Modern consumer protection efforts exist and are distinct, because the consumer protection laws that currently exist are not fit for purpose. Companies are able to exploit legal loopholes, or legally dubious strategies which are not met with meaningful consequences, to trap their customers in unfavorable positions. They rely on complexity & fatigue to prevent resistance.

These abuses of the consumer have a common thread:

  • Take away the consumer's right to say "NO".
  • Take away the consumer's right of ownership.
  • Take away the consumer's right to privacy.

How we're taking action

This Wiki exists to document and expose these practices, making visible what companies work hard to keep obscure. By creating a centralized knowledge base of modern consumer exploitation tactics, we aim to help consumers understand how their rights are being systematically violated through technology, psychology, deliberately complex legal mechanisms, as well as the ineffective governmental bodies that allow it to happen.

Our goal is to bring clarity to these new practices that companies intentionally make opaque and to provide consumers with the information they need to recognize and fight back against new forms of exploitation.

How this Wiki will be used

It is expected that the Wiki will be contributed to by a wide variety of people, both technical and non-technical, who share a desire to see consumers be treated more fairly. It will enable this by being quick and easy to contribute to, with a low barrier to entry for contributors. This barrier to entry should be maintained at the minimum level necessary to combat spam and bad actors.

The base focus of the Wiki is expected to be on issues frequently discussed on Louis Rossmann’s channel, and those adjacent to the right-to-repair movement, though this may grow to a more all-encompassing definition of consumer protection over time. The minimum desired goal is to have a site that records, in a helpful and searchable format, the specific issues and topics that have been discussed on Louis’ channel over the years, with factual citations.

Ideally, it should aim to grow and act as a one-stop-shop, where a user can discover how the companies they buy products from are working against their interests behind the scenes, and what they can do about it. It should serve to highlight how consumer rights have been eroded over the years and give people the knowledge and tools to fight back against the tide. It will feature factual documentation relating to specific instances of consumer abuse, articles that track the consumer-protection-related activities of large companies and certain individuals, as well as articles and content which serve to educate users about the different forms of consumer abuse.

The Wiki will aim to be viewed as a legitimate source that, though not perfect, can generally be relied upon to provide accurate information, in a similar vein to other Wiki-projects. It is crucial for the Wiki to take steps to avoid causing harassment or financial harm to companies as a result of false or misleading information. It will enable this by attracting an excellent team of moderators, and giving them powerful and effective tools to combat spam and misinformation. If problems arise in this area, we will treat them with the utmost seriousness, as they may jeopardize the entire project.

In seeking this legitimacy, it is important that the appropriate tone is used. The exact tone that is appropriate for a given article will be defined in the Editorial Guidelines (along with the range of acceptable tones for the wiki as a whole) and will vary based on the type of article. In general, we will aim for professionalism. A project like this cannot obtain or maintain legitimacy if every article comes across as being written by someone with an axe to grind or by someone who is more interested in proving a point than the truth. Please see the Wiki Content Policies page for more guidance here, as well as the Editorial guidelines page.

The full, official, collection of CAT Wiki policies can be found here. This page can also be accessed via the sidebar.

Retrieved from "https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Mission_statement&oldid=8829"