Mission statement: Difference between revisions

Line 27:

# 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 ~~that~~ are not met with meaningful consequences, to trap their customers in unfavorable positions. They rely on complexity & fatigue to prevent resistance.

"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:'''

Line 46:

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 ~~that~~ serve to educate users about the different forms of consumer abuse.

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.'''

Line 53:

== 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.

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. <br>

*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 how Intel denied customer warranty replacements for its 14th generation 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 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pMrssIrKcY Asus' warranty policies here].

Line 90:

Line 88:

* 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 ~~that covers~~ 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 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 they are expected to remain consistent with the Mission Statement, and the broad rules of thumb established here.

Line 117:

Line 115:

This wiki is not a place for product recommendations, and cannot be 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 that is 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.

'''The only acceptable reason to include a product in an article that is 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 is by selling your personal data"'': it would be acceptable to point 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 to point to a company in that same industry, ~~that provides~~ repair information without legal consequence.

* If a company says ''"we cannot make xyz repair information available due to laws regarding consumer safety": ''it is acceptable to point to another company in that same industry, who provide such repair information, without legal consequence.

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 # 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 that are not met with meaningful consequences, to trap their customers in unfavorable positions. They rely on complexity & fatigue to prevent resistance.
+"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:'''
@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 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 that serve to educate users about the different forms of consumer abuse.
+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.'''
@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 == 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.
+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. '''&nbsp;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. <br>
 *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 how Intel denied customer warranty replacements for its 14th generation 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 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pMrssIrKcY Asus' warranty policies here].
@@ Line 90: / Line 88: @@
 * 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 that covers 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 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 they are expected to remain consistent with the Mission Statement, and the broad rules of thumb established here.
@@ Line 117: / Line 115: @@
 This wiki is not a place for product recommendations, and cannot be 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 that is 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.
+'''The only acceptable reason to include a product in an article that is 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 is by selling your personal data"'': it would be acceptable to point 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 to point to a company in that same industry, that provides repair information without legal consequence.
+* If a company says ''"we cannot make xyz repair information available due to laws regarding consumer safety": ''it is acceptable to point to another company in that same industry, who provide such repair information, without legal consequence.