|
|
|
|
|
by whatpad
2864 days ago
|
|
Your argument would hold water if "victim vs perpetrator" were entirely black and white. Is Verizon not a partial victim for having an unreasonable customer that thinks $39/mo is sufficient for their mission critical communications bottleneck? Isn't Verizon partially a victim of politicians drumming up anger when the government itself contributed to the error by failing to read a contract? You can't just assign the victim label and be done with your argument. There is nuance and shared responsibility. Not everything is an exercise in identifying the victim, therefore the other is the perpetrator, therefore the 'victim' is absolved. |
|
I think this goes back to the "don't sell an unlimited plan if you're going to insist on limits". Verizon didn't have to call it an unlimited plan, they chose to.