▲ | gus_massa 3 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
That's nice until you get a false accusation and there is no formal procedure to appeal the ban. | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | Alive-in-2025 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
And this problem of no appeal possible hits you lots of places online. youtube copyright strikes (great way to attack your enemies), reddit bans, twitter bans. YouTube bans are a killer for a lot of people who support themselves that way. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
▲ | mothballed 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
There's also no way to 'appeal' the shrinkage they charge you for at the store on behalf of the thieves, so still seems better to me. In either case, you can shop elsewhere (or alternatively here, seek a different insurer) if you don't agree. That is, the insurance is the appeal. It's allowing you to appeal that you're not a thief so you shouldn't pay full shrinkage premiums. And even if you think one insurer is wrong, you can go with another one, even while shopping at the same store -- providing you more appeal options than before when previously all you could do was just leave and go somewhere else if you disagreed. | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | gruez 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
You can still have an arbitration system like how credit card chargebacks are handled. | |||||||||||||||||
|