Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Unfadable1 t1_j6inq90 wrote

Reply to comment by cannibal_man in FCC Threatens to Disconnect Twilio for Illegal Robocalls by BasedSweet

Your personal emotions aside, this is easier said than done since plenty of non-robo call businesses rely on Twillio for their back-end. IT security is man-made, and therefore there is no silver bullet when it comes to stopping workarounds.

Not sure why you support all the jobs and small businesses this move would actually crush…

13

Hookstomped t1_j6ipmle wrote

That’s not actually how this works. It’s not like Twilio’s network is being used without them knowing. By allowing Developers to build instantly without checking their backgrounds or company information, They are actively opening their APIs to thousands of unknown companies without enough due diligence. Hence they can fire up 1000’s of numbers and spam the heck out of everyone. Others in the space have a far more rigorous approach to ensuring this doesn’t happen. I worked in Cloud Telephony for 10 years and was responsible for $150M of Twilios connectivity. They are absolutely a problem.

9

Unfadable1 t1_j6j0qz3 wrote

Anyone can get around the checks through simple botting. You’re asking to resolve an unsolvable problem by burning the building down.

IMO your personal experience works more as a hindrance than a boon in this exact scenario. Objectively, you’re probably too close to it, tbh.

2

Hookstomped t1_j6juj93 wrote

Listen Telephony isn’t new, offering it to the world through an open API with free credits to enable developers causes this problem within the ecosystem. Twilio is an abstraction layer on top of actual telecom infrastructure. There are 100’s of companies that operate in this space with far less TCPA complaints/violations.

To your misguided and uniformed metaphor, this is more similar to putting a sign up in your front yard that you’re not home and leaving the back door to your house open, and then wondering why dirty mike and the boys turned it into a fuck shack.

3

psynautic t1_j6kgqah wrote

my whole company would rapidly collapse if this happened lol

2

cannibal_man t1_j6ixr6t wrote

> Not sure why you support all the jobs and small businesses this move would actually crush…

Lol, well now that's a first. 😄

Not sure why you're defending a bunch of spammers who consistently defy FCC rules & regulations.

They made their bed. Now let 'em lie on it.

−6

Unfadable1 t1_j6j06kf wrote

I’m not supporting anything, because I’m not taking a biased/jaded/obtuse perspective on the matter, no matter how I feel personally about robocalls.

See the difference?

2

cannibal_man t1_j6j0v1w wrote

Nope. No sympathy for any of them. None, whatsoever.

If anything, their CEOs belong in jail. And they wouldn't be the first.

−8

Unfadable1 t1_j6j12uy wrote

You simply don’t understand the issue beyond what you’ve read, so technically your opinion is literally moot, although I hate to say that because obviously arguing opinion at all is mostly a fools errand.

This isn’t a black-and-white issue, but headlines and blogs won’t teach you that, because that’s not engaging, and clicks rule.

Your suggestion is like banning alcohol manufacturers because kids get access through back-channels and drive drunk. Nice making your acquaintance, nonetheless.

FWIW: I don’t use twillio, but know plenty of non-robo-call companies (that have hundreds of thousands of customers who also are) relying heavily on it. It’s as simple as that. 🤷🏿‍♂️

2

Velgus t1_j6jex6s wrote

People in this thread are just raging at things that their only understanding of comes from a single article combined with their hatred for robocalls. They seem to think that Twilio exclusively works with/for these spam robocall farms - your prohibition analogy is a good one.

There are plenty of legitimate things Twilio is used for. A company a friend of mine works for, for example, uses Twilio to remind patients of their upcoming appointments/procedures, and vitally, if they have to take drugs, or fast, or such, before coming in.

12

618smartguy t1_j6ju9t0 wrote

>They seem to think that Twilio exclusively works with/for these spam robocall farms - your prohibition analogy is a good one.

What's giving you this impression? I have no problem thinking a business should be shut down if they are massively profiting off unethical behavior, regardless of what else they are doing. Who cares if they are doing good too? Seems to me like their good deeds are actually bad deeds if ultimately they are allowed to continue operating based on the argument you are presenting.

−1

Velgus t1_j6kihjt wrote

Your basic argument is again, just like their prohibition analogy.

Twilio isn't performing good or bad deeds in this context - they're offering a service. The service is being taken advantage of by good and bad actors. By the logic you're presenting, we might as well shut down all telecommunications entirely, or any form of electronic communication that could be used by bad actors. Who cares if good stuff is being done with it if bad actors are being supported as well?(/s)

Sure, I'm fine with penalizing Twilio for not making sufficient efforts to block bad actors. In fact they SHOULD be made to provide information and proof on the efforts they take to mitigate bad actors, and penalized if those efforts are not sufficient. But bad actors will always find loopholes and ways to get through - it's not a one-time-fix scenario.

Any penalties should be financial however, not just outright shutting down the company. And it's totally fine if penalties are steep - I'm in the camp that believes corporate fines should be a % of revenue, instead of a flat amount, so they can't be written off as a "cost of doing business".

Shutting them down entirely for simply being a telecommunication service/API doesn't address the root of the problem in any case, since bad actors would just move to various other platforms (MessageBird, Plivo, etc.), which would debatably have even less capacity/capability for detecting bad actors, due to being smaller and having less potential resources to put towards doing so.

4

ontopofyourmom t1_j6kffm7 wrote

The innocent third parties who depend on them need time to switch to other platforms

3

DTHCND t1_j6lpk2a wrote

> Your suggestion is like banning alcohol manufacturers because kids get access through back-channels and drive drunk.

Or better yet, it's like banning cars because some people drive drunk. Like cars, Twilio is a critical utility for a lot of legitimate businesses and individuals.

1

cannibal_man t1_j6j2k1d wrote

You protest too much. Lol, you sound like a Twilio employee being disingenuous here.

When it comes to spam, they gotta play hardball. Not like the old days playing cozy with Ajit Pai.

It's a new FCC now....

−4

Unfadable1 t1_j6ja1s8 wrote

Totally get it. I don’t expect you to believe we’re on the same side. ;)

You’ve shown your bias/emotion drives your decisions in this regard, and I’ve shown that mine doesn’t.

Nice meeting you, and good luck in the rest of your day!

7

cannibal_man t1_j6jdw10 wrote

Oh I get it too, bruh. Some people like to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, and when the mood strikes me, I like to do that too.

But in this particular case, you are desperately defending the indefensible. Pick better battles to fight, next time.

And have a nice day to you too.

0

Unfadable1 t1_j6jhd1u wrote

What exactly are you fooling yourself into thinking I’m defending?

3

cannibal_man t1_j6jhnxd wrote

Well, since I've gotten totally bored with you, I'll leave you to ponder that.

0