I agree with this, as long as he mentions the fact that there are other cheaper alternatives. Then people can choose what they want. If some, fully informed are willing to pay that much for this service, then ... why not ?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Many people are not technically inclined. The people he is suckering is your grandfather for example. Do you think this is morally correct, even if your argument is sound logically
"Then people can choose what they want. If some, fully informed are willing to pay that much for this service"
Well...
"Do you think this is morally correct"
Yes. Could it be any more obvious that it is?
(Doesn't make it not stupid, fyi.)
So this is moral and the grandpa is stupid. The not tech-savvy are ignorant, not stupid. Taking advantage of someone because of their ignorance is morally wrong in my opinion.
Lets make a more clear cut example. Ripping an old person off by charging him 5x the market price of medicine because he does not know any better, he can't 'google'
You're being disingenuous.
He can't be both:
" the grandpa, not tech-savvy are ignorant "
and
"fully informed"
Do you see the problem?
I said I think FULLY INFORMED customers are willing to pay that much, then it is not immoral.
I don't think this service would have had (hardly?) any fully informed customers. So it was a dumb plan.
" because he does not know any better, he can't 'google'"
This person would not qualify as "fully-informed", and thus, has no bearing on my comment or on this discussion.
PS - Again, I think this service was a very dumb idea. But not a scam. Just dumb and a PR nightmare.
Dump?
If Jerry can do such a dump act twice, then he is not trust worthy either.
So, whether the act was unintentional and dump or intentional and malicious, this person is to be questioned and not fully trusted.
Why do we keep supporting the stupid and unhelpful above the smart and helpful?
"Why do we keep supporting the stupid and unhelpful above the smart and helpful?"
Because this is a social media platform, and Facebook is making billions upon billions off the stupid and unhelpful.
Follow the money.
lol
Not quite sure how I am being insincere or not candid, but I agree the service was a bad idea. Individuals can only decide for themselves what they perceive his intent to be
You're calling out the users as "Grandpa", but then talking about fully informed customers. They can't be the same thing.
Otherwise, I'm on board with all you said in this comment.
Thank you @boontjie. "FULLY INFORMED customers" would never pay $50 for something they could get for free!
yep