Political party Push Bill to Outlaw Bots From Snatching Up Online Goods

[poochyena]

9 hours ago, Sauron said:

Making sure you're a "real gamer" is significantly more involved than making sure you're human.

How so?

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, Stahlmann said:

They are literally the manifestation of greed imo.

And what is Wall Street? 

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, poochyena said:

How so?

We've been developing tests to prevent bot abuse for a while now, captcha being one of the most common. You can also check for anomalous speed in ordering goods, prevent you from ordering more than a handful of parts, checking for multiple orders going to the same location (or handful of locations) in a short time... suffice it to say you can make it a LOT harder to bulk purchase consumer goods from retail stores just by looking at ordering patterns. Not so if you want to determine whether someone is a gamer.

[poochyena]

31 minutes ago, Sauron said:

We've been developing tests to prevent bot abuse for a while now, captcha being one of the most common. You can also check for anomalous speed in ordering goods, prevent you from ordering more than a handful of parts,

Right, but clearly that didn't solve the issue.

31 minutes ago, Sauron said:

checking for multiple orders going to the same location (or handful of locations) in a short time.

This sounds more involved, specifically for things like concert tickets where its very likely for multiple tickets be bought with people of the same or nearby address. Its definitely possible to investigate orders to determine if they were performed by bots, but I believe thats a very involved process.

[Sauron]

Just now, poochyena said:

Right, but clearly that didn't solve the issue.

It wasn't really attempted. Stores don't really mind if their stock flies off the shelves, regardless of who's buying it or why. Have you ever been asked by Amazon to verify a captcha before purchase?

1 minute ago, poochyena said:

This sounds more involved, specifically for things like concert tickets where its very likely for multiple tickets be bought with people of the same or nearby address.

Depending on what the product is you can set sensible limits. Buying half a dozen tickets at a time won't get you very far as a scalper.

2 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Its definitely possible to investigate orders to determine if they were performed by bots, but I believe thats a very involved process.

Many online stores already have the capabilities for this type of check. You can definitely automate it. The only issue would be setting reasonable limits for each product, since I may have legitimate reasons to order 100 packs of nails but not 100 GPUs. You can get around that by requiring some extra steps and verifications for a person buying more than the general limit.

[poochyena]

5 minutes ago, Sauron said:

It wasn't really attempted. Stores don't really mind if their stock flies off the shelves, regardless of who's buying it or why. Have you ever been asked by Amazon to verify a captcha before purchase?

but, then, if the companies don't care, then how could this law possibly be enforced? Only companies have any data on purchases

[AmazingCincy]

Instead of passing yet another law that restricts freedoms (even freedoms that not everyone likes), how about we (the market) make bots easier for the common consumer to use?  It wouldn't take long for the scalpers to stop.  The first time they get stuck with a room full of stuff they can't sell for a profit, they will change their behavior.

 

The base human urge is to ban everything we don't like.  I'd argue that it is way better to make bad behaviors obsolete, when we can.  Just my two cents.

[Sauron]

5 minutes ago, poochyena said:

but, then, if the companies don't care, then how could this law possibly be enforced? Only companies have any data on purchases

Companies are gonna care if they are forced to by law just like social networks have to enforce legal limitations on their platforms, even if it would make them more money not to.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, AmazingCincy said:

Instead of passing yet another law that restricts freedoms (even freedoms that not everyone likes), how about we (the market) make bots easier for the common consumer to use?  It wouldn't take long for the scalpers to stop.  The first time they get stuck with a room full of stuff they can't sell for a profit, they will change their behavior.

 

The base human urge is to ban everything we don't like.  I'd argue that it is way better to make bad behaviors obsolete, when we can.  Just my two cents.

Then the scalper rents a botnet and orders every gpu in the time it takes your pathetic single internet connection to send a single packet to the store. Now what? Do we just have to escalate storefront abuse to the nuclear level to protect a behavior nobody has a legitimate reason to engage in?

[GodOfROG]

17 hours ago, Arika S said:

Ban the bots and people make the bots better to avoid detection.

 

making them illegal wont change anything.

Jail time can stop the bot.

[poochyena]

17 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Companies are gonna care if they are forced to by law just like social networks have to enforce legal limitations on their platforms, even if it would make them more money not to.

Forced to do what though? They can't know if someone is using bots on their website unless they take action to stop it. Unless the law enforces use of captcha I guess.

[Stahlmann]

2 hours ago, Donut417 said:

And what is Wall Street? 

I don't know much about it. But from the little knowledge i have i'd say it falls in the same category as scalpers for me.

[Sauron]

24 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Forced to do what though? They can't know if someone is using bots on their website unless they take action to stop it. Unless the law enforces use of captcha I guess.

They can be forced to take preventative measures. Be it captcha or something else, so long as it satisfies the criteria set by the relevant authorities. You're not going to catch every bot, the goal should be to make bot use inefficient enough that it's not worth it anymore.

[aisle9]

13 hours ago, Sauron said:

Not a problem, you can block outgoing shipments purchased through suspicious means.

Since when is it illegal for the government to regulate business operations? If you can somehow argue this would be inconstitutional it's 

Can’t find the undo button on mobile. My response to that would be:

 

 Shore me how it’s necessary and proper for the government to tell a private company that it has to restrict 100% legal purchasing activity that is not discriminatory against any protected class. 
 

Gamers are not a protected class.

 

 Even if somehow that does go through, care to prove that a bot made the purchase?

 

 The correct answer is not regulation. It’s consumerism. Vote with your mouse. Buy from LTT, buy the first one you see, don’t bother with the upgrade this year, whatever. Trying to outlaw GPU bots is an lol prospect and a failure from the start. 

[Elisis]

7 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

Shore me how it’s necessary and proper for the government to tell a private company that it has to restrict 100% legal purchasing activity that is not discriminatory against any protected class. 

Other than that it's anti-consumer? Much of the role of the government in scenarios like this is to prevent such practices. 

[aisle9]

Just now, Elisis said:

Other than that it's anti-consumer? Much of the role of the government in scenarios like this is to prevent such practices. 

How is it anti-consumer?

 

 Aren’t the bot operators consumers themselves?

[Elisis]

1 minute ago, aisle9 said:

How is it anti-consumer?

 

 Aren’t the bot operators consumers themselves?

Because it artificially inflates prices for true consumers. No, bot operators are not real consumers as they act more as resellers.

[aisle9]

Just now, Elisis said:

Because it artificially inflates prices for true consumers. No, bot operators are not real consumers as they act more as resellers.

Ah, ok. So what tangible harm is being done here? Really? A gamer can’t afford to upgrade their R9 280X? Yeah, that sucks, but a high-end GPU is not an essential good for 99.9995% of the population. There is zero benefit to unfairly restricting legitimate business activity unless it’s creating undue hardship or discriminatory.

 

Gamers are not a protected class, and playing games at 1080p is not a hardship.

[Elisis]

Just now, aisle9 said:

Ah, ok. So what tangible harm is being done here? Really? A gamer can’t afford to upgrade their R9 280X? Yeah, that sucks, but a high-end GPU is not an essential good for 99.9995% of the population. There is zero benefit to unfairly restricting legitimate business activity unless it’s creating undue hardship or discriminatory.

 

Gamers are not a protected class, and playing games at 1080p is not a hardship.

Literally nobody is talking about "protected classes". The consumer must be protected at a higher priority than the concerns of companies that have literal billions to spend. That should always be true regardless of class.

[adarw]

2 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

Ah, ok. So what tangible harm is being done here? Really? A gamer can’t afford to upgrade their R9 280X? Yeah, that sucks, but a high-end GPU is not an essential good for 99.9995% of the population. There is zero benefit to unfairly restricting legitimate business activity unless it’s creating undue hardship or discriminatory.

 

Gamers are not a protected class, and playing games at 1080p is not a hardship.

"

Market manipulation is the act of artificially inflating or deflating the price of a security or otherwise influencing the behavior of the market for personal gain. Manipulation is illegal in most cases, but it can be difficult for regulators and other authorities to detect, such as with omnibus accounts. "

 

scalping is price manipulation.

[aisle9]

2 minutes ago, Elisis said:

Literally nobody is talking about "protected classes". The consumer must be protected at a higher priority than the concerns of companies that have literal billions to spend. That should always be true regardless of class.

A lot of the time, yes. Interfering with legitimate business operations so that Johnny Teamkiller can play Rainbow Six in 8K for Christmas is not one of those times.

 

 Seriously, extending your logic, companies would never be able to sell anything for any more than what they paid for it. That’sa great way to make sure none of us have anything to buy.

 

Just now, adarw said:

"

Market manipulation is the act of artificially inflating or deflating the price of a security or otherwise influencing the behavior of the market for personal gain. Manipulation is illegal in most cases, but it can be difficult for regulators and other authorities to detect, such as with omnibus accounts. "

 

scalping is price manipulation.

Wrong. That refers to stock and securities trading, not graphics cards. JFC

[Elisis]

2 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

Seriously, extending your logic, companies would never be able to sell anything for any more than what they paid for it. That’sa great way to make sure none of us have anything to buy.

No? All it is is placing a cap on what a product would be sold at. Like Antitrust law does. There is legal precedent for matters like this.

 

Why do you feel that the rights of companies should be of a higher priority than those of consumers?

[IkeaGnome]

1 minute ago, aisle9 said:

Wrong. That refers to stock and securities trading, not graphics cards. JFC

Even if it wasn't stock trading and securities, that would be a hard one to prove. That would be so far into "tin foil hat" territory it's funny.

[Sauron]

21 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

 Shore me how it’s necessary and proper for the government to tell a private company that it has to restrict 100% legal purchasing activity that is not discriminatory against any protected class. 

I'm not sure why it being legal would be relevant here, we're talking about making it illegal.

 

As for why, without going too much into the politics, the government should be interested in the well being of its citizens; scalpers artificially inflating the price of goods people might need is not conducive to that good. It's not just graphics cards that get scalped, and even if it were it's not just "gamers" who want them; some people need them to work, believe it or not.

 

Since scalping brings exactly 0 value to society and arguably worsens problems like inflation, on top of making goods unattainable for people who need them, I think it's perfectly reasonable to regulate against them.

18 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

How is it anti-consumer?

 

 Aren’t the bot operators consumers themselves?

No, by definition they are not. If you intend to resell the goods for profit you're not a consumer, you're a useless middle man.

29 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

 Even if somehow that does go through, care to prove that a bot made the purchase?

If you purchased 100 graphics cards 200 milliseconds after they became available I think it's a safe enough assumption. That's the only reason you'd use a bot anyway.

6 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

 Seriously, extending your logic, companies would never be able to sell anything for any more than what they paid for it. That’sa great way to make sure none of us have anything to buy.

No, because manufacturers and retailers are not in competition with consumers for goods. This is really basic stuff about how the market works. If you want to purchase in bulk you should strike a supply deal with the manufacturer, like retailers do. While I have... opinions... about how the market works in general, it's certainly a lot better when it doesn't include a pointless middle man between the retailer and the consumer.

[poochyena]

30 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

Aren’t the bot operators consumers themselves?

no, they are resellers.