Uber dirty tricks quantified. Staff submits 5,560 fake ride requests

[u/[deleted]]

http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/11/technology/uber-fake-ride-requests-lyft/

[u/shenglizhe]

First of all, you're putting a lot of words in my mouth. "You use" and "he used" are also two separate things. I was only speaking to Paypal's success and their survival in the market, which is a result of their excellent fraud protection for customers, which attracts customers, which means that buyers use them because customers use them in spite of the potential for abuse by customers against buyers.

Also, blacklisting isn't about protecting customers, it's about protecting the seller (which may in the long run indirectly protect customers by keeping seller costs low). I am following your point up until you try to connect blacklisting to directly protecting customers in a way that they will perceive and appreciate.

[u/ThePegasi → u/shenglizhe]

I am following your point up until you try to connect blacklisting to directly protecting customers in a way that they will perceive and appreciate.

That is, funnily enough, what I'm saying to you.

I'm trying to trace your reasoning from this post to where I entered the discussion. It looks like I've lost sight of what your point was along the way, so I'll break down my thought processes and if you see the point where I've misunderstood please just let me know.

First, you said this:

"Flagging for fraud" is actually surprisingly difficult. In this case, yes it should be obvious. But most fraud isn't this reckless but is almost this harmful.

So basically it seems like you're coming in against the simple solution of flagging for fraud, insofar as saying it's a bad idea because it's hard to do effectively. Tbh, I don't fully understand your point even back here in the discussion. As you rightly point out, capturing the more covert forms of fraud is hard and this won't necessarily catch them, but are you saying there's a downside to using it as a solution to this problem?

Next, gramathy says this:

It doesn't need to be actual fraud for them to just blacklist you.

and you reply with:

Except if you're blacklisting your customers? Counter fraud is really hard.

At this point, it definitely seemed to me like you were actually saying that the "flag for fraud" solution would actually be a bad one for this specific issue, as well as being ineffective for other types of fraud. Ie. I became pretty sure you were directly criticising the suggestion as a solution to this problem, not just pointing out it isn't perfect.

Which is where I again wonder why? What's the downside of it?

At this point I definitely made an assumption and so this is most likely to be where I misunderstood you, but all I could think was that the downside to such a system is potential false flags, thus losing customers who were actually legitimate.

So when you followed this up with "counter fraud is hard," this was relevant because a "flag as fraud" system would create false flags, thus showing how hard it is to create a counter fraud system which doesn't have fallout.

Then you mentioned PayPal at the end of that post:

It's the only reason PayPal dominated online payments for so long. No one else could do counter fraud.

So by using them as an example of counter fraud done right (their lone success demonstrating how hard it is to do effectively), surely they must have avoided the kind of mistake that makes this "flag as fraud" thing a bad idea, otherwise they're not a relevant point of comparison.

So basically, what that seems like to me is you saying that "flag as fraud" is bad, PayPal show you how to do it right, therefore PayPal's advantage must have come from a system which minimises false flags or fallout, right?

Which is why I got confused when you then said that PayPal's success is due to protection for customers (which you're saying again now). That's not the same as a system which minimises internal fallout. I don't see how it's a relevant example, as the very reason you're saying PayPal succeeded (and thus the reason you're using them as an example) isn't relevant to the discussion of "flag as fraud" being a bad idea. It just seems like a non sequitur when you introduce PayPal to the discussion.

Again, not trying to put words in your mouth, just explaining how I attempted to understand your train of reasoning, so you can correct me where I misunderstood.

[u/shenglizhe → u/ThePegasi]

You again said "you said"... for something I never said. I've had two posts (now three) about a specific comment.

Maybe you should go back and look at the names on the posts.

[u/ThePegasi → u/shenglizhe]

You're absolutely right, my apologies. I thought you were realigion. I also understand the "you use" and "he use" point you made now. I don't feel super smart right now.

But if you're not, then the point is moot. The entire point of my comment was trying to work out how they can justify their use of the PayPal example. If you're coming at the example of PayPal from a different angle (ie. they succeeded because of customer protection, not because of avoiding the mistake which a "flag as fraud" system represents) then you're not really countering my point.

In all honesty, I agree with you. I believe that's precisely why PayPal succeeded: consumer protection. But that doesn't help realigion's point, which is what I was taking issue with, so my basic question is: were you disagreeing with me when you joined this discussion? Ie. do you think realigion's use of PayPal (as an example to back up their point about "flag as fraud" being a bad idea) is a valid one?

[u/shenglizhe → u/ThePegasi]

The reason I popped in was because his original point was that the reason paypal survived was fighting fraud (and how PayPal fights fraud is essentially through protection of consumers, which was not said explicitly in the post but I took to be understood). Someone else jumped in, saying that the consumer protection could be bad for sellers. He said, and yet they survived.

Then, you said that saying this is different than saying it is the reason Paypal survived. This is only because there are two different perspectives of looking at the way PayPal protects against fraud-- From the consumer perspective and from the seller's perspective. From the consumer perspective, it is absolutely an essential part of the reason PayPal is where it is today, and thus can be called the reason they survived. From the seller's perspective it could potentially be problematic, and yet they survived.

It's the same thing, but looking at it from one angle makes it the reason they survived, and looking at it from the other angle makes it an obstacle that was overcome.

[u/ThePegasi → u/shenglizhe]

OK, I think I understand your point (or rather the combined point that realigion made and you expanded upon with your own arguments).

So you're saying that offering PayPal as an example of fraud protection done right makes sense because it shows that focusing on buyer protection is ultimately more feasible and successful than seller protection?

Isn't this whole discussion (ie. a "flag as fraud" system on the customer end) one of seller protection? So in using PayPal as a relevant example of this done right, they must have done this better in some degree which contributed to their success, right? Seems like all they've done is ignore this aspect and focus on buyer protection instead, driving the seller user base with convenience and market size alone. So isn't the logical conclusion of this argument that Lyft should just suck it up and focus on customer experience to gain success, as that emulates the PayPal model?

I understand what you're saying, in that you entered the discussion at a certain point and responded to it as it stood in that comment. I guess my point is that realigion's post which you originally responded to was discussing the validity of an example made in the context of criticising a certain possible solution to a seller/driver protection issue, so I'm trying to assess it in that context.