I agree.
> and out of place on HN.
I disagree.
Why should we be discouraged from calling out what appears to be (at best) amoral behavior?
Look at the TOS and you can see that they are very strict about how they allow customers to use the platform. Before considering something amoral we should always do some digging:
> CUSTOMERS WHO USE THE SERVICES > Upcall reserves the right to terminate access to the Upcall platform and terminate services for any reason allowed under the Agreement, or if Customer is determined by Upcall in its sole discretion to have violated any law or any provision herein.
> Customer will remain responsible and ensure that all data submitted through Upcall to Freelancer Users are compliant. This includes, without limitation, ensuring that Customer has the proper consent, established business relationship (“EBR”) or other exemption to call the telephone numbers submitted. This also includes ensuring that any scripting submitted, or product offered therein, complies with applicable laws.
> As applicable by Customer’s industry, Customer will maintain standards necessary to comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations and ordinances, including, without limitation, CI Level , 1, and HIPAA, and Financial Services Modernization Act rules and regulations..
> Customer will ensure that its processes and scripts comply with call recording law, timezone (“curfew”) laws, rules, regulations, ordinances and licensing obligations.
> Customer is solely responsible and liable for compliance with all caller ID and “spoofing” rules at all times.
> Any Upcall Customer who makes use of the Services (“Customers”) of Upcall or its Freelancer Users must ensure that its products and marketing are in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including without limitation, all state, federal and international: (1) product-specific offer regulations; (2) Do-Not-Call (“DNC”) list prohibitions, including by obtaining a SAN and providing that to Upcall upon request; (3) licensing and bonding requirements; (4) consumer cancellation rights; (5) wireless calling restrictions; (6) restrictions on the use of automatic telephone dialing systems and pre-recorded messages; (7) opt-out rules; (8) mandatory disclosures (9) intellectual property rights and restrictions; and (10) document retention regulations. Customer agrees that it has read and understands the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”) and the FCC’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), and all other applicable laws and regulations. Customer should review these rules with Customer’s own legal counsel to ensure that Customer understands and is fully compliant. Upcall does not assume responsibility for ensuring that Customer’s marketing meets applicable legal requirements. Rather, Upcall is relying on Customer and Freelancer, as the marketing experts, for that expertise and legal compliance. Upcall will not assume any liability if Freelancer or Customer suffers any loss due to an actual or alleged law violation. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, Customer shall indemnify and defend Upcall (including for its attorney’s fees) from and against any actual or alleged TCPA or other law violation related to the calls or Services provided hereunder.
Just because it's a valid, high-quality product doesn't make it amoral.
---
And I would argue that their TOS doesn't prove your point, but does the opposite. Let's look at one example line:
> Customer will ensure that its processes and scripts comply with call recording law, timezone (“curfew”) laws, rules, regulations, ordinances and licensing obligations.
My reading of that line is, "we will punt any questions of the legality or morality of what we do back to you, the guy giving us the dollars."
> Customer is solely responsible and liable for compliance with all caller ID and “spoofing” rules at all times.
How can the customer be responsible for something that's entirely out of their hands? Do I, as a customer, dictate which number Upcall's calls will appear to be coming from? (I honestly don't know, I haven't read tehir FAQs.)
This whole thing reads like an Uber-style "move fast and break laws" manifesto.
I get where your coming from, as we’ve seen a lot of the moving fast / breaking stuff.
However, do we blame FB for someone misusing it? Do we hold YouTube responsible for what people say? We don’t entirely, as they’re platforms. In this case it is the same - UpCall is positioning themselves as a platform that the customer has to ensure they are compliant in order to use.
That said - I’m not sure how long or well it’ll work; as we can see this is a divisive subject :)
Yes! We do if they make it trivially simple to abuse their platform, either because they didn't bother thinking it through, or because they wanted money more than a clear conscience. (A concrete example is their recent ability to exclude minorities from housing listings.)
> Do we hold YouTube responsible for what people say?
We certainly are starting to get irate with their insistence on promoting neo-nazi and fascist channels. We're wondering why children are being shown videos of Peppa Pig drinking bleach.
> That said - I’m not sure how long or well it’ll work; as we can see this is a divisive subject :)
That's true, and I'm certainly coming at this from the view of loathing the shitbags who call up my stepfather and try to con him out of money, or call me up and imply that they're working with my credit card company. I don't have a business, so I have no need to call people for marketing purposes.
