[kposehn]

While your commentary around privacy and security is valid (they could indeed reference that more clearly), referring to them outright as an “Amoral SaaS service [you] kind of want to die” is extremely judgmental and out of place on HN.

[crsv]

I disagree. I think I laid out a fair argument for my opinion, and I believe I have the right to express that opinion in our lovely open internet as much as they have a right to be a thing in the first place. Me wanting this to cease to exist isn't calling in to question their right to be there in the first place. I think if we ever lose our voice in calling out things that seem detrimental to our society at large for the sake of not seeming "judgemental", then we've devoided all platforms of value - especially HN.

[kposehn]

My issue is that you made a blanket judgement of something with seemingly little input or reasoning. Why do you feel that way? Go into some detail at the very least, instead of just dismissing it out of hand.

The security questions could be answered by then more easily instead of having to dig - I get that. But that’s not enough imho.

You have the right to express your opinion, for sure. But when you make a blanket judgement with little you’re going against HN guidelines:

> Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

[gitgud]

In my opinion, he did outline a few reasons for why he felt that way, albeit concise.

The HN guidelines do not expect everyone to be positive. Negative feedback that's justified is important in any community.

[dsr_]

At this point, anyone starting a business to be an outbound call-center or to send email on behalf of third parties should be assumed to be a bad actor, and the burden of proof is on them.

This wasn't a blanket judgement without input. This was a judgement based on the available evidence, and particularly pointing at holes where one would expect a white hat to have solid documents.

I wonder if this is one of those startups where YC said "this team is solid, they'll likely pivot into something worthwhile".

[pavel_lishin]

> is extremely judgmental

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?

[kposehn]

Just because we hate those damn robe calls doesn’t mean this isn’t a valid, high quality product.

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.

[pavel_lishin]

> Just because we hate those damn robe calls doesn’t mean this isn’t a valid, high quality product.

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.

[voidmain]

In other words, they encourage^Wallow you to use their service to break the law, and then disclaim responsibility when caught?

[kposehn]

(Replying to pavel_lishin - thanks for being civil!)

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 :)

[pavel_lishin]

> However, do we blame FB for someone misusing it?

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.

[kposehn]

My point is the ease of abuse. None of us have used it or seen any evidence of abuse via their platform - we shouldn’t judge something before it’s had a chance to prove itself.

That said - I absolutely totally agree with your sentiment about those abusing the system. 100%. But, UpCall (likely) isn’t them.

[pavel_lishin]

I disagree. I think that when it comes to a service like this, the onus should be on them to prove that they've thought about the abuse situation, and have taken steps to prevent it.

[detaro]

People dislike legal telephone spam too.

[nvr219]

how is "extremely judgmental" out of place on HN

[kposehn]

Shallow dismissals are agains the guidelines as noted in my other comment.

I’m all for not liking something, but we shouldn’t do it with a wave of the hand. We’re better than that.

[pavel_lishin]

The comment you responded to didn't seem shallow to me at all.