Laws Vs Ethics Vs Genuine Bargains - Where Do You Draw The Line?

Camelface on 21/05/2024 - 14:31
Last edited 24/05/2024 - 08:29

Hi ladies and gentlemen, Camelface here with a rather sensitive topic.

We all love a good bargain, but some deals or money-saving practices can stretch legal boundaries or present ethical dilemmas.

I have categorised them into three groups below and have attempted to provide some examples or context under each:

Genuine bargains

There are plenty of examples in the deals section for this one. Here we're talking about product discounts, free offers, coupon codes, cashback referrals, etc., which are legitimate and genuine.

—————————————————- Line 1 ——————————————————-

Unethical conducts or supporting unethical businesses. Knowingly lying or cheating to get bargains

This is rather a grey area, and I have no doubt some of you may not agree with me. To provide some context to explain what I mean here:

  • You use your child's school or education account to get the education discount on a laptop or a similar item, but the item is actually for your use.
  • Promote or purchase through grey imports, which can lead to potential tax evasions.
  • Promote or purchase from companies that are known to have unethical business conducts such as employee exploitations, environmental negligence or poor production practices.
  • There's a popular item which is 50% off, and when you go to the shop, only 2 items are left. You grab both.

—————————————————- Line 2 ——————————————————-

Stealing or illegal conducts towards saving money

Stealing means taking what is not given to you or what is not yours. Again, some context below:

  • You use a VPN to Turkey or India to get a cheaper Netflix subscription.
  • Buy or promote items that are not legally allowed in the state or the country (e.g. electric scooters)
  • Promote ideas or practices that are illegal (e.g. certain DIY advices in the forums)

My question is, where do you draw the line? Please use the voting options below, and thanks for the participation and the feedbacks.

—- Closing comment —-

Dear all, thanks for joining the conversation and providing feedbacks. There were many insightful comments. Obviously we're not here to judge anyone, and all the viewpoints are respected and acknowledged.

I've requested the moderators to close this thread now.

Poll Options expired

  • 41
    Anything above line 1
  • 33
    Anything above line 2
  • 195
    I don't draw lines. If it's profitable, and if I don't get caught, I'll take that.
General Discussion

Comments

  • payless69 on 21/05/2024 - 15:49
    +1

    Is it unethical to block HN click and collect parking spots to bludge on their free coffee degustations with no intention to buy?
    Then get all the demos and later buy that stuff elsewhere because they offer pricebeat?
    Or shall I feel guilty because of his mismanagement of covid money?

    • Camelface on 21/05/2024 - 16:10
      -3

      Is it unethical to block HN click and collect parking spots to bludge on their free coffee degustations with no intention to buy? Yes, I think so.
      Then get all the demos and later buy that stuff elsewhere because they offer pricebeat? Unethical.
      Or shall I feel guilty because of his mismanagement of covid money? It's up to you to feel guilty, but I suggest not.

  • godofpizza on 21/05/2024 - 16:11

    does parking in free 2 hours spots(only to move and come back again to avoid buying a ticket) has it own group?

    • Jimothy Wongingtons on 21/05/2024 - 16:12

      or those who park in loading zones for more than the 20 min allocation (i have to wonder if anyone in commercial vehicle or similar has ever got done for overstaying?)

      • Camelface on 21/05/2024 - 16:16

        I think it's unethical, but can be illegal as well - and that's why you get fined.

  • trapper on 21/05/2024 - 16:20
    +2

    None of your 'Stealing or illegal conducts' are actually stealing or illegal.

    Only one of your 'Unethical conducts' could arguably be considered unethical.

  • JimB on 21/05/2024 - 16:37
    +6

    I'm a mixed bag.
    As long as it doesn't hurt a small business or individual, my ethics can easily be blurred.

    • VPN or pirating. Don't do it myself, but I couldn't care less.
    • Counterfeit goods. won't condone as it's usually controlled by very unsavory people using exploited workers.
    • DIY simple electrical or plumbing. Have done this in the past. I'm not calling out an electrician to replace a dead GPO or a plumber to replace a mixer.
    • Fare evasion. I started doing this out of spite recently because my state government badly mis-manages our state's budget. I now pay a few thousand dollars extra in state taxes compared to last year while they throw money left right and Centre to union run projects.
    • warning other drivers of speed cameras. Yup happy to do so. It's turned from safety to revenue raising.
    • setting up multiple accounts to get free food/deals- no.
    • 7-11 fuel lock. Happy to hack.
    • using education discounts. Haven't done so yet but would without a second thought.
    • using my neighbour's bin after they place it on the nature strip. For sure, happy for them to use mine once out.
  • Cluster on 21/05/2024 - 16:45
    +10

    Getting cheaper Netflix by registering in another country is stealing? Not even close.

    Nothing was stolen. I paid for the service. Now the corporation wants me to buy the product in Australia instead of Turkey, but my question is, why should I? If I choose to buy a product in another country then I've stolen nothing. Recently I bought Brita Maxtra cartridges from Amazon UK as they were cheaper than in Australia. Did I steal those cartridges?

    Also why is it okay for corporations to travel the world, looking for the cheapest labour and tax havens to manufacture products for us, but when I as the average consumer do it, it's classified as "stealing"?

    • Camelface on 21/05/2024 - 18:22
      -4

      Purchasing an item vs subscribing to a service have different T&C s involved.

      • trapper on 21/05/2024 - 18:56
        +13

        T&C's are not the law.

          • gromit on 22/05/2024 - 09:36
            +8

            @Camelface: no, T&C's are quasi contractual agreements. amusingly many of them actually violate consumer rights or laws.

            • goldiep on 23/05/2024 - 23:27

              @gromit: These days, terms and conditions are just defining how much of your data your expected to divulge (that again, the corporation utilises for the own benefit) as a result of using the service, buried in litigious diatribe to force the user to commit to pressing the "I agree" button.

              It's the "everyone else is doing it, why can't we" mentality for the corporations.

        • jv on 23/05/2024 - 23:22
          -1

          T&C's are not the law.

          look up contracts.

  • DingoBilly on 21/05/2024 - 16:49
    +2

    The things you put under Line 2 are pretty trivial/no-one cares about. But some of the stuff above the line are a bit dodgy.

    At least, supporting a company that's known to exploit people seems much worse than buying a dumbass electric scooter or saving $5 a month on a Netflix subscription lol.

  • brendanm on 21/05/2024 - 17:30
    +3

    Your ideas are whack.

    • MomentOfTruss on 23/05/2024 - 13:00
      +1

      Or since his post is very black and white thinking OP could be autistic.

  • localhost on 21/05/2024 - 18:11

    Well consider this: why price for Netflix for example is different here compared to Turkey? Is there are local office here with more staff? Local servers? What Netflix pays as taxes here?
    See how much they paid 2021 - https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/netflix-s-australi…

    Oh, I know why the price is different - because they think Australia can 'handle' $25/month price, it's not a problem.

    • Camelface on 21/05/2024 - 21:26

      I don't use Netflix, simply because I can't afford it.

  • original15 on 21/05/2024 - 19:38
    +1

    Thought thread title said “lawns vs ethics” and genuinely came here to see what tricks you had to help my lawn through winter

    • Camelface on 21/05/2024 - 21:30
      +1

      There're ethics in lawn care as well, like take care when using weed killers, because they kill birds and other living creatures.

  • [Deactivated] on 21/05/2024 - 19:43
    +2

    This: "You use a VPN to Turkey or India to get a cheaper Netflix subscription." isn't illegal

    • D3HUN on 22/05/2024 - 09:32

      Hang on, was it not the big corporations themselves pushing hard for globalisation?

      Like free movement of people, goods and free markets?

      People are just using the power of global access - as they should. Or we should buy local only? (well, Netflix is US based, so then…)

    • OzBarAnon on 22/05/2024 - 11:26
      +2

      It's not illegal, but it is a violation of ToS that the user agrees to upon signing up. I'd warrant that being put in a category of "doing something you actively know is against the rules (even if not criminal)."

  • AustriaBargain on 21/05/2024 - 21:24
    -3

    I'd still from Donald Trump, or Rupert Murdoch, or a Neo Nazi Grand Wizard. Absolutely I would. Donald Trump would use the money for evil, Murdoch owes me and my extended family thousands in reparations for News Corp existing, and if you should always punch a Nazi then stealing from them must be okay too. Stealing isn't always wrong.

    • Camelface on 22/05/2024 - 06:45

      Let me ask a question; imagine you're the rich person, and someone is stealing money from you. How would you feel?

      • Rent a cynic on 22/05/2024 - 10:04
        +1

        Trick question, they don’t have feelings.

    • OzBarAnon on 22/05/2024 - 11:24

      I'd steal from you lol

  • n3ck3ntry8bort0rgasm on 21/05/2024 - 21:34
    +1

    under Line 1
    1. I don't have a child. (0)
    2. I purchase the grey import option from Amazon AU sometimes because it's cheaper. (1)
    3. going by howmany deals are posted I think literally everyone on this site has bought from a store like this including me. (1)
    4. what? I have done this so many times. it's specifically the number 2 though. like I never usually need more than one of something I find on sale, but if theres only 2 left. why not grab one extra as a spare? if there was 6 or something I would probably only grab 2 maximum. you have to also think from what would others do perspective. if you were walking to where the item was and a person was power walking in front and gaining distance, do you think they would only take 1 if they wanted more? do you think if they grabbed two and you politely asked if you could have 1 because they have 2, they would give you one? I don't think so. people are selfish especially when it comes to shopping. (nobody has ever asked me btw, they usually accept defeat then and there and just walk off)
    I would never grab 6 because I just know I won't use 6. usually by the time what you have wears out there is another 50% deal to be found anyway. (1)

    so yeah 3/4.

    under Line 2
    1. I don't do the VPN thing but also don't see any problem with it. afaik there are also risks. I remember reading a comment saying they paid a year and their account got blocked. (1)
    2. I never had this problem. probably a very low chance and it would surprise me or I would just not have this issue. (0)
    3. yeah I agree don't share dodgy DIY hacks. one good example of this was all the youtube diy videos telling you how to use the transformer from a broken microwave to create super high voltage "wood burning art" (0)

    so 1/3.

    just being honest I think this was the type of reply you were after not trying to start a discussion about them or anything.

    ok quick story time. I first read this as "where do you draw the line?" as in for others. and I was going to mention the time there was this tiktok hack posted where you could claim infinite $50 giftcards. it just required a lot of effort with multiple phones. one user seemed to have multiple phones ready and just churned thousands and that's just how much they revealed. who knows maybe they didnt like chinese tech companies anyway they seemed to have no problem with doing it. so was I going to say they crossed a line or was I going to draw a line for them? no as far as I care they can make their own decisions, seemed like they were prepared anyway so likely seeking hacks like this. also remember they revealed that they found a loop hole and all you needed was two phones and two sims.
    anyway pretty sure they posted under a different username asking how to get their account unlocked after it being blocked with thousands of giftcard credit remaining. can't say it was or wasn't them but I had a feeling it was them. 😂

  • JIMB0 on 21/05/2024 - 21:50
    +4

    I wouldn't steel a car, but I would download one.

  • So Was Red on 21/05/2024 - 23:09
    +1

    One time at an SLS club for lunch my group was significantly undercharged.
    One of us made a donation to cover their meal
    One of us fed the difference into the pokies
    One of us spent the difference on drinks
    One of us enjoyed their almost-free schnitty and beer combo
    No points for guessing I was the latter.

  • snivy on 21/05/2024 - 23:46

    There's a popular item which is 50% off, and when you go to the shop, only 2 items are left. You grab both.

    That one is really weird, unless there's a strict 1 item per customer rule most are happy to clear the stock, at least in my experience as both customer and seller.

    • toasty on 22/05/2024 - 01:12
      +2

      Thou shalt not @Broden all the (50% off) items!

      Especially when you know your fellow OzBargainers might want to “avail” of the bargain too.

    • yoquierotaco on 22/05/2024 - 13:02

      agree the 50% off is a weird example, at least to me.

      maybe something along the line of covid period when people were stockpiling toilet paper?People grabbing all the toilet paper they can grab when there was limited supplies (and some store started having strict item per customer rules)? I could see an argument where someone might see this as "unethical"

      • beach bum on 23/05/2024 - 17:15

        Like the latest Amazon $1 freebie where people were doing 300+ orders last Friday night ?

        • yoquierotaco on 24/05/2024 - 21:19
          +2

          $1 Amazon would fall under this, but that was an obvious bug that people took advantage of. A store that advertised 50% off of a “popular” item with no indication of limitations would not fall in this same category IMO

  • Axelstrife on 22/05/2024 - 02:08

    The high seas would be my line specificly Movies and TV shows but it doesnt fit under line 2.
    I am not saving money since i have a 100TB Unraid server and pay for multiple indexers and providers which the cost is close to that of subscribing to all the streaming services and i dont do it to save money, i do it for conveinance of having everything in one place and having things not even available since they have removed them from everywhere.

    Stealing or illegal conducts towards saving money

    doesnt really fit with this description.

  • morebunnings on 22/05/2024 - 06:02

    The whole VPN thing really grinds my gears. A digital service costs what it costs. The region pricing is made up bullshit to extract more money.

    • Camelface on 22/05/2024 - 07:20
      +1

      Price discrimination is a well-known economic practice.

    • OzBarAnon on 22/05/2024 - 11:23
      -1

      This isn't entirely true. Hardware hosting costs can vary from one country to another. For example, if Netflix has servers stored in South America to more readily serve customers located in that continent, they're probably paying a different amount for that hosting compared to doing the same in Western Europe.
      For places with generally weaker currency, it will probably cost them less to have hardware setup there, and thus the amount of money that needs to be gained from that region would be lower to cover costs and still make some profit.
      Moreover, the most income (when adjusted for currency value) probably comes from West anyway as these countries have higher disposable income. If all they did was provide a uniform cost for every region, either poorer regions would get locked out entirely (hence they don't get access to the service, and the company also makes less money), or they just sink because getting paid in Argentinian pesos doesn't cover the costs to operate in NA.

      • morebunnings on 22/05/2024 - 11:50
        +1

        Last year Netflix spent approx. $1billion on AWS services/hosting vs $17 billion on content creation, so the hosting costs are really moot when it comes to calculating subscription prices. Their revenue was $33 billion, so hosting costs were about 3%.

        Even if you take costs into account, Azure (the platform Netflix uses) charges about 3x as much for bandwidth in South America vs the USA region.

        • Camelface on 22/05/2024 - 13:16

          Agree with this one. Online services and the underlying infrastructure are expensive in Australia, thus the services.

  • Kiro on 22/05/2024 - 06:09
    +1

    As the late great Kerry packer said. If you are not minimising your tax, you should get your head read.
    Why give your money to a government that doesn't spend it properly.

    My take is "making the system work for you" and with this you do what you can do in a legal standpoint to reduce your costs.

    Will I steal, no
    Will I use a VPN to get a cheaper rate, yes
    Will I falsify a bargain to get a price match, no
    Will I look for sale items and get other companies to price match/ beat, yes.

    It's a fine line but I dare say there is more EOF an issue regarding companies providing a service or sale of item at a substantially inflated rate or hiking subscription services with no positive gain to consumers.
    Onething I see is certain companies raising prices of electronic equipment to a higher RRP and then marketing a big sale with supposed huge savings xx% off.

  • IndigoHarlequin on 22/05/2024 - 07:32
    +5

    There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.

    • payless69 on 22/05/2024 - 08:43

      And there is also ZERO environment protection under communism!

      • Kiro on 22/05/2024 - 11:10
        +1

        Must crrrrush capitalism!

        • payless69 on 22/05/2024 - 14:26

          Last referendum is proof how well the present system works.
          Imagine if journalists have to tell us the truth?

    • trapper on 22/05/2024 - 11:39

      Under democracy the people decide what is ethical, and make it the law.

      In theory anyway ;)

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 22/05/2024 - 07:37

    this is worded 'fairly' poorly it isnt illegal to use a VPN and the system is geared to 'screw' consumers 9 times out of 10

    you might argue it is somewhat unethical - i personally do not agree that is it

    DYI is not unethical at all maybe some electrical work but otherwise this is just dumb

    stealing is walking into a shop feeling your pockets and walking out or jumping in a taxi and doing a runner when you're ment to pay at the end - i personally draw the line at blanket stealing like that but otherwise nothing you have posted here is illegal bar maybe selling band items in your state but that runs the risk of being charged pretty easily

    • OzBarAnon on 22/05/2024 - 11:12

      Regarding the VPN thing, I do think it's dishonest and unethical to ostensibly agree to a set of ToS knowing full well that you intend to break them. Is it illegal? Well it's not criminal, but it is a breach of contract that the user willfully signs.

      • Trying2SaveABuck on 22/05/2024 - 15:51

        What contract? i have never signed a contract? i have agreed to the T&Cs which is drafted by the business but i have never signed a contract with say Disney Plus.

        It is NOT illegal to use a VPN

        I would argue it is more unethical to geoblock content and charge people more because of where they live or the 'race' they are - if anything that is unethical and should illegal

        • OzBarAnon on 22/05/2024 - 22:34
          +1

          I never said using a VPN was illegal. I explicitly said it wasn't criminal. Arguing over the semantics of what technically classifies as a contract is pathetic. The fact of the matter is that you're dishonorable. You agree to a terms of use and you willingly violate them.
          No one is being charged more because of their race, unless you're suggesting a black man in New York is being charged a different price compared to a white man in New York. There's nothing unethical about regional pricing.

  • Poor Ass on 22/05/2024 - 08:20
    +1

    I'm surprised no one has commented on people who hide gift cards at woolies or coles yet

  • spurf on 22/05/2024 - 09:00

    I think you are looking at this wrong. There is no "ethics" in capitalism and the reason it mostly works is it depends on parties working in their own self-interest and within the bounds of the relevant law. Other systems fail because they rely on unreliable human qualities such as compassion. For example, is Teltra acting unethically making thousands of people reduntant during a cost‐of- living crisis or are they acting rationally to maximising shareholder value?

  • Kayrhcp on 22/05/2024 - 09:08
    +4

    All I see is bargain 1, bargain 2 and bargain 3.

    • D3HUN on 22/05/2024 - 09:33

      That is the spirit!

  • gromit on 22/05/2024 - 09:39

    can't select as the groupings are not logical, you have some fairly mild and definitely NOT illegal stuff in the 3rd category and stuff in the 2nd category that is not remotely unethical.

  • Hangryuman on 22/05/2024 - 10:15

    I believe 'insider trading' is illegal and unethical in public company shares dealings

    but in other news, this is how most business is done …

    • Camelface on 22/05/2024 - 10:24

      True, but the purpose of this thread wasn't to fix the world.

      • gromit on 22/05/2024 - 11:02
        +4

        this thread had a purpose?

    • UltimateAI on 22/05/2024 - 11:57

      I personally believe all SHORT-SELLING is unethical and drives unethical behaviour, but like you said "in other news, this is how all stock portfolios" are run.

  • xers on 22/05/2024 - 11:32

    As long as (1) I'm not directly harming someone who's disadvantaged (taking from small struggling businesses or charities for the poor) and (2) there's little to no chance of me suffering from any repercussions then everything else is fair game.

    I don't steal physical goods (because of point 2) but I pirate almost all digital contents that I consume (only things I buy legally are PS5 games because you can't pirate them yet). I use the VPN tricks for all the subscriptions that I do pay for. I use multiple emails/phone numbers/card numbers to abuse free trials and referrals. The list goes on…

  • UltimateAI on 22/05/2024 - 11:56
    +3

    Will not answer as the groupings make zero sense and you have made numerous incorrect facts with the options clearly demonstrating preconceived ideas.
    - In NSW at least buying Electric Scooters is LEGAL. Outside of the TRIAL areas it is illegal to ride them on public roads\paths.
    - In Australia (after all this is Ozbargain) it is not illegal to use a VPN or otherwise to access lower prices\rates. It would however be a violation of a providers T&C, but that does not make it illegal. What is funnier, is if you ever read T&C for most services or software you have purchased highly likely you are in violation of various clauses, many are insane. MOST are not enforceable via law and break numerous local regulations\erode consumer rights.
    - Perhaps you are also confusing ethics with manners. If there are two items left on discount and someone purchase both, ethics doesn't come into play. Perhaps they could have been more "considerate" but who is to determine that their need for both isn't valid. Ethics would only come into play if they demonstrated over consumption.
    - Companies that sell "Grey imports" have to abide by all TAX laws. A dodgy seller is a dodgy seller, regardless of selling grey imports. Remember ACL applies to the seller, so also applies for Grey imports.

  • justworld on 22/05/2024 - 17:20
    +1

    I'll pirate if it's more convenient to pirate than to pay for the subscription. This is why I pay for Spotify but I pirate films, netflix and Kayo (live sports).

    I don't ever feel guilty about this, nor do I feel guilty about exploiting loopholes so I can claim greater deductions for vehicle and property expenses.

    Tax is very high in this country - so I get some back when I can.

    • Camelface on 22/05/2024 - 18:20

      Taxes are high, so as the living standards and the quality of facilities. Also, we look after who're in need better than many other countries.

  • OzzyOzbourne on 22/05/2024 - 18:09

    Another option.. Not line 1 or 2, but also not no lines

  • maverickjohn on 22/05/2024 - 18:48

    The DIY part has got me stumped. Why is that illegal?

    • Camelface on 22/05/2024 - 21:58

      It's just an example. Not all DIY work are illegal.

  • drfuzzy on 22/05/2024 - 21:21
    -1

    The guy who obtained $1.6m cash by exploiting a bug in the ATM network only was prosecuted because he went on TV and boasted about it.
    The bank knew all about it and intended to let him get away with it.
    He got a short jail sentence based on his full televised admission alone and not from a complaint to the police by the bank.

    • Bold Eagle on 23/05/2024 - 10:38
      +1

      Go and read the story again! The banks were none the wiser until his guilt got the better of him and he confessed to the crimes and he had to show them how he exploited them!

  • randomvis on 22/05/2024 - 22:45

    A true oz bargainer uses torrents.

    With streaming services you are not technically buying the product— you are only buying a temporary license.

  • OzzyOzbourne on 22/05/2024 - 22:47
    +1

    Politicians operate unethically on a much larger scale

  • jaimex2 on 23/05/2024 - 00:44
    +2

    As you get older and understand how the world works you realise even if you were a full time criminal you would be small time compared to the 'legal' exploits used by the wealthy and powerful.
    ie -

    Feel bad about using a VPN to save $9 on Youtube premium and One?

    Google channels billions daily through tax havens - your Australian purchase gets funneled through Ireland.

  • Bold Eagle on 23/05/2024 - 10:35

    It's all well and good to try and define ethical boundaries for consumers but if we put that up against the clear lack of ethics of modern corporations, their cruelty, corruption and callous disregard for the masses and their obvious greed?!? They started the financial exploitation!

    Using Netflix as an example and their price hikes recently;
    https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/1cun4vc/another_…

    The Colesworth duopoly and their blatant collusion. I could spends hours compiling hundreds of examples but then we get someone come and spin 'the consumers need to have ethics - won't someone think of the shareholders' BS.

    Go and read 'The Shock Doctrine' and then realise it is being enacted en-masse by global corporations, see that every Australian and most global citizens are being unethically financially exploited for a very small percentages benefits and then maybe you to will conclude 'the gloves are off'!

  • PurchaseAnxiety on 23/05/2024 - 13:18

    The only 'deals' I don't really like are the (rare) ones where it's obviously intended to benefit those in need. The idea of a service or product being overwhelmed by Ozbargainers feels a bit icky in that situation.

    Otherwise, I subscribe to this belief: Big corporations will exploit any loophole they can to save money, so I have no issue with consumers returning the favour.

  • node modules on 23/05/2024 - 13:18
    +1

    im a capitalist so no lines / morals

  • tasty-falafel on 23/05/2024 - 13:58
    +2

    If you're doing line 3 and above you are grade-A scum, in the same realm as those who steal from people.

  • Bold Eagle on 23/05/2024 - 14:03
    +2

    If we consider OP's premise it is taking the longest manufactured workflow humans can possibly create and then focusing solely on the final step, the consumption (ignoring the waste disposal aspects) and proclaiming that the consumers must have ethics, ignoring absolutely everything that came before that point. All of the environmental damage, the wage theft, the enslavement and exploitation of the many to favor the few. That is, ignoring the ingredient producers/synthesizers, the refiners, the manufacturers, the workers, their CEO's, the ecological footprint, the middle men, the retailers, etc., etc. but then drilling in on the consumer and questioning only them on their ethics!

    Absolutely and utterly ludicrous sentiment that benefits only a very small minority (CEO's and the middle men) whilst striving to vilify the consumers! Good old gaslighting 101 at it's finest!

    • goldiep on 23/05/2024 - 23:19

      Thank you for concisely documenting my thoughts on the OP!

      *Naughty consumer sharing a Netflix login with your parents 😆

    • Camelface on 24/05/2024 - 06:39
      -1

      gaslighting is about abusive targeted behaviour against an individual, but here we're having a general discussion on a valid topic. Obviously, there're different viewpoints, and we're not going to judge anyone here. There is no way I'm declaring that I'm perfectly ethical, but we all want to be law-abiding citizens and generally good people, and this thread shows most people are.

      Having said that, I do agree with you that looking at ethics from consumption point of view is not entirely accurate. For an example, we go to restaurant to have a nice meal, and there's nothing ethically wrong with that. However, the staff who severed the meal would've been underpayed. If we start going down in that rabbit hole, I think we'll go crazy.

      That's why I think we can't fix this world, but we can always do the right thing for the betterment of the society and towards our fellow humans and other beings. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

  • foxpants on 23/05/2024 - 15:29

    Buy or promote items that are not legally allowed in the state or the country (e.g. electric scooters)

    Buying them and using them on private property isn't illegal at all, it's only using them in public, and then imo it depends how they're used. For instance it could be illegal but not unethical. Example (based on laws in WA) - using an e-scooter capable of exceeding 25kph (the way the law is written) but not actually exceeding 25kph at all when riding (this may be due to the scooter being more desirable in other areas, like features, weatherproof, range etc). That's one where the law is written in a daft manner imo, a speed limit is fine, the way it's based around device capability is bad and could stand to be revised and more fleshed out at a minimum.

  • aimbotjesus on 23/05/2024 - 16:34
    +1

    Making multiple accounts to access deals multiple times seems a bit much for me. eg. Some people using multiple uber accounts to buy a weeks+ worth of meals seems excessive.

  • hasher22 on 23/05/2024 - 18:36

    Corporations know people are benefiting from such discounts such as EDU emails, multiple accounts such as first time discounts etc….. they still get revenue from it and they would rather have a customer that purchases 10 times with a 10% off first time code than nothing at all.

    The other ethics of it from the consumer is that it's ok to rought a corporation such as colesworth cause they produce billions of PROFIT each year while the smaller guys don't have the bullying power and buying power they have

    It just comes down to the consumer and how media or the world have shaped their ideas and thoughts on what is ethical. I mean, I lean towards, eff the corporations with their billions of profit, if I can rought them somehow without getting caught, I would.

  • drick on 23/05/2024 - 19:01
    +1

    I believe a lot companies have little problem dancing over and back across the lines when it suits them and will justify anything in the pursuit of a bit more profit.
    Everything from paying their suppliers less, mistreating their employees, raising prices and/or reducing pack size, importing goods from questionable sources, selling sub-quality, or dangerous goods, and all the time damaging the environment and paying as little tax as possible.

    • Camelface on 23/05/2024 - 19:26
      -1

      That may be true, but that doesn't stop us doing the right thing?

      • drick on 23/05/2024 - 20:21
        +1

        True, I'd imagine a lot of people do just that. however, OZB exists because people aren't happy to pay full and want more.
        But, I know where you're coming from and if we drop to their level it gives them justification to drop further still.

  • cocomelon on 23/05/2024 - 19:30
    +2

    Anything to get back from corporate greed, count me in. Especially the banking sector

  • goldiep on 23/05/2024 - 23:15

    I suppose, at some level, everyone is doing 'something'. Not that it's justifiable, but the end users of products and services are usually getting screwed somewhere in the pursuit of profit and the desire to appease shareholders (tax evasion in overseas countries, poor investment in data security and the management of client personal details, Qantas in general, the whole (profanity) industry of consulting (PWC, Etc.), Coca-Cola with the water bullshit) - it's just that these guys are big enough to only care IF they are caught or really screw up, and only then do something to appease the moral outcry of society.

    I say (profanity) them; I wouldn't steel from a store, but have no hesitation "paying" for an equivalent entertainment service I can obtain using VPN from an overseas location. I can't even understand why the Australian cost is so much more, but would think it comes down to "because we can" of the service provider. It's the same with the education store example - I don't see the harm; the vendor is still making a sale.

    I was just thinking today about how unscrupulous banks are - it makes me physically ill about some of their practices. Imagine if they took a portion of their advertising budget and randomly paid off the mortgage of 2 or 3 citizens a year, and siphoned 0.5% of their profit to cancer research (unless they do this and I'm unaware)? Would go along way towards their facade of being a seemingly good corporate citizen and would surely push others to use their services out of choice (rather than necessity).

    I hate capitalist ideology and the rise of the "consumer" and the (profanity) most demeaning de-humanising statement ever, "cost of living" - it's just that it seems not as shit as some of the other economic and political systems.

  • Ozykins on 24/05/2024 - 07:59
    +1

    Turn this on its head. What's the ethical position of:

    Selling a laptop or a similar item to one group of people - and still making money out of it - but also selling to another group of people at a far higher price simply because you can get away with it.

    Promote or purchase through grey imports. If it's within the law, why not? "Can lead to potential tax evasions" A hypothetical situation.

    Promote or purchase from companies that are known to have unethical business conducts such as employee exploitations, environmental negligence or poor production practices. - Would you avoid flight on a Boeing aircraft with their growing exposure of what appears to be mismanagement and cavalier attitude to safety? Would you avoid Amazon with their notoriety in industrial relations?

    There's a popular item which is 50% off, and when you go to the shop, only 2 items are left. You grab both. - The shop has managed to sell the stock it was desperate to unload.

    Netflix charge a high price in one country "because they can" and a lower price in another country - for precisely the same product. Not THATS unethical.

    Buy or promote items that are not legally allowed in the state or the country (e.g. electric scooters) - usually it is use of said items in a public space, rather than ownership. E-scooters are fine on your own land.

    Promote ideas or practices that are illegal (e.g. certain DIY advices in the forums) - agreed.

    I'm just surprised no-one has mentioned AdBlock et al.

    • Camelface on 24/05/2024 - 08:20

      Thanks for the feedback. Yes some examples are hypothetical, and mentioned only to provide a context. Grey imports don't go throght official channels, so there's a potential, but don't think it would be the case always. And I don't have a real world example for that.

  • rogerwilko on 24/05/2024 - 08:13

    Hah, more information please. Your border lining on suppressing freedom of speech. People are allowed to be curios on DIY house projects and how they might work for interest or research.

    Promote ideas or practices that are illegal (e.g. certain DIY advices in the forums)

    • Camelface on 24/05/2024 - 08:17

      There's nothing wrong with DIY work. This was just to provide a context around an activity that requires a licensed tradesperson to perform.

      I understand the examples I've given may not be entirely accurate or suitable. It was to provide a context.

  • imme1386 on 24/05/2024 - 13:39
    -1

    Reading the 3rd option
    There is nothing illegal in obtaining a cheaper price by going elsewhere,
    that would imply if i went to bigw at one location and then drove to bigw at another location to get it cheaper im commiting fraud?
    thats effectively what vpn is doing, using a different store from the same company to obtain a cheaper price,
    i wouldnt call this fraud but poor management by the company,
    Exploiting software i wouldnt say is illegal but may go against their terms of service and ban you for it.

    Buying items that are said to be illegal in a state, you would need to define its use, driving an un registered car is illegal on public roads but not on a private road farm or race track, obtaining an illegal use item but using it in a legal way is not illegal, the state government even said electric scooters are illegal in nsw but aslong as you ride it on private property its legal to own and use.

    Buying the last 2 items is not illegal but could be considered an ahole move but isnt illegal or morally unethical

    if you would rephrase the question 3 as

    Obtaining or promoting the use of software by means of piracy - illegal
    how ever in Australia in 2001 a court ruled if a software was downloaded through a 3rd party site there was no way to determine if it was a legal purchase or not and if its not re distributed it was perfectly fine to do so. (Promoting the method to obtain it through those 3rd party sites could be considered morally unethical but is still not illegal as its not false advertising nor is it illegal to showcase something you obtained thats publically accesible on the internet)

    There is a lot of grey area when it comes to your questions most are in the grounds of moral ethics but no legal reprecussions unless ur advertising the use of an illegal item how to obtain it and how to use it in an illegal maner, remember guns are legal when used correctly even with the strict gun laws.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join