• TrickDacy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Yeah I’m sure changing negative reviews is a factor here and totally wouldn’t have been an incentive for future good behavior

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Their incentive is money. All this is teaching them is that they need to find a different approach to do the same thing.

      The AAA outfits are trash and should die.

        • barsquid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Sorry, the argument is they should have zero consequences for trying something reviled because they abandoned it later? And that will make them not try similar things later, because of reasons?

          • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            The “argument” is that a few people said people should reward them doing the right thing eventually but others somehow think that’s evil or some weird ass shit.

            It’s not complicated, as much as Internet weirdos want it to be

            • barsquid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              They are being rewarded for doing the right thing simply by people not continuing to refund.

              • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                Ok it’s just weird to me that people like you have some moral objection to a slightly different attitude applied to reviews. It’s not something worth talking about.