>> Wednesday's 9th Circuit decision grew out of revelations that between 2013 and 2019, X mistakenly incorporated users' email addresses and phone numbers into an ad platform that allows companies to use their own marketing lists to target ads on the social platform.
>> In 2022, the Federal Trade Commission fined X $150 million over the privacy gaffe.
>> That same year, Washington resident Glen Morgan brought a class-action complaint against the company. He alleged that the ad-targeting glitch violated a Washington law prohibiting anyone from using “fraudulent, deceptive, or false means” to obtain telephone records of state residents.
>> X urged Dimke to dismiss Morgan's complaint for several reasons. Among other arguments, the company argued merely obtaining a user's phone number from him or her doesn't violate the state pretexting law, which refers to telephone “records.”
>> “If the legislature meant for 'telephone record' to include something as basic as the user’s own number, it surely would have said as much,” X argued in a written motion.
To me the obvious example is fraud/abuse protection.
I’m pretty sure you do. Claude too. The only chatbot company I’ve made an account with is Mistral specifically because a phone number was not a registration requirement.
Also Netflix wasn't initially selling ads and there you have after increasing the price of their plans drastically in the last few years the ad supported subscription is probably the #1 plans because most people aren't willing to shed 15 to 25usd/€ every month to watch content that is already littered with ads.
So, at the end of your day, company X has an overdetailed profile of you, rather than each advertiser. (And also, at least in the US, can repackage and sell that data into various products if it chooses)
When I signed up I had to do exactly that.
They may still buy data from ad companies and store credit cards, etc.
Many of them link users based on phone number.
ChatGPT has the capacity to modify behavior more subtly than any advertising ever devised. Aggregating knowledge on the person on the other end of the line is key in knowing how to nudge them toward the target behavior. (Note this target behavior may be how to vote in an election, or how to feel about various hot topics.)
It also, as Google learned, enables you to increase your revenue per placement. Advertisers will pay more for placement with their desired audience.
> To me the obvious example is fraud/abuse protection.
Seriously. How can the most prolific means of spam be used to prevent fraud and abuse? (Okay, maybe email is a little more prolific?) Like have you never received a spam call or text? Obviously fraudsters and abusers know how to exploit those systems... it can't be more obvious...
What would you do instead?
You are also forgetting it is easy to mask, obscure, and hijack numbers. So it doesn't cost money per number, many times they can use their own number.
There isn't a universal solution, which is the main problem here. Sometimes numbers make sense, most of the time not.
But you’re OpenAI. You need to do _something_. What do you do?
Stop doing things just because others do it. You'll never find a better way if you're always following. You'll never find better ways if you just accept things as they are. If you never push back. Let's be real, the number isn't about identity verification. They have my name and credit card. Unless by "verification" you mean cross matching me with other databases with the intent to sell that information.
You keep pestering me but you won't ask why they need that data. Like you just accept things at face value?
I would think in a world where we constantly get spam calls and texts that people would understand that a phone number is not a good PKI. I mean we literally don't answer calls from unknown numbers because of this. How is it that we can only look at these things in one direction but not the other?
Phone number is the only way to reliably stop MOST abuse on a freemium product that doesn't require payment/identity verification upfront. You can easily block VOIP numbers and ensure the person connected to this number is paying for an actual phone plan, which cuts down dramatically on bogus accounts.
Hence why even Facebook requires a unique, non-VOIP phone number to create an account these days.
I'm sure this comment will get downvoted in favor of some other conspiratorial "because they're going to secretly sell my data!" tinfoil post (this is HN of course). But my explanation is the actual reason.
I would love if I could just use email to signup for free accounts everywhere still, but it's just too easily gamed at scale.
- Parent talks about a paid product. If they wants to burn tokens, they are going to pay for it.
- Those phone requirements do not stop professional abusers, organized crime nor state sponsored groups. Case in point: twitter is overrun by bots, scammers and foreign info-ops swarms.
- Phone requirements might hinder non-professional abusers at best, but we are sidestepping the issue if those corporations deserve that much trust to compel regular users to sell themselves. Maybe the business model just sucks.
Also, if they don't do freemium they're getting way more valuable information about you than just a phone number.
Only requiring the phone number for API users feels needlessly invasive and is not explained by a vague "countering fraud and abuse" for a paid product...
Your explanation is inconsistent with the link in these comments showing Twitter getting fined for doing the opposite.
> Hence why even Facebook requires a unique, non-VOIP phone number to create an account these days.
Facebook is the company most known for disingenuous tracking schemes. They just got caught with their app running a service on localhost to provide tracking IDs to random shady third party websites.
> You can easily block VOIP numbers and ensure the person connected to this number is paying for an actual phone plan, which cuts down dramatically on bogus accounts.
There isn't any such thing as a "VOIP number", all phone numbers are phone numbers. There are only some profiteers claiming they can tell you that in exchange for money. Between MVNOs, small carriers, forwarding services, number portability, data inaccuracy and foreign users, those databases are practically random number generators with massive false positive rates.
Meanwhile major carriers are more than happy to give phone numbers in their ranges to spammers in bulk, to the point that this is now acting as a profit center for the spammers and allowing them to expand their spamming operations because they can get a large number of phone numbers those services claim aren't "VOIP numbers", use them for spamming the services they want to spam, and then sell cheap or ad-supported SMS service at a profit to other spammers or privacy-conscious people who want to sign up for a service they haven't used that number at yet.
No need to ask for a phone or card -- or worse, biometric data! -- which also removes friction.
The AG office followed up and I got my refund. Worth my time to file because we should stop letting companies get away with this stuff where they show up with more requirements after paying.
Separately they also do not need my phone number after having my name, address and credit card.
Has anyone got info on why they are taking everyone’s phone number?