eBay's Business Ethics or Lack Thereof

C.S. Magor — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:46:29 -0700

What's the problem? In case you didn't know, eBay owns Paypal and Paypal charges some rather excessive fees. If you are using Paypal within country, the fees are a little steep. They are charged at the point of receipt, so the merchant is hit with them and they can be expensive. The fees are not capped and are a percentage of the transaction. The more the merchant earns for a sale, the more Paypal earns. If you are making a so called, "cross borders payment," the fee effectively doubles. On top of that Paypal takes a 3% cut on the exchange rate.

If I live in Australia and receive a payment of USD 1,000 from the United States, I can expect to take a hit of around USD 40. I will receive USD 960 instead of USD 1,000. Now, if I want to deposit that USD 960 into my bank account, Paypal will give me an exchange that is 3% below the market rate. A single transaction has netted them almost USD 50; that is considerably more than the cost of an international wire.

Some people can't help but use Paypal. It is the international currency of professional bloggers and it is an effective way to accept credit card transactions without a merchant account. It allows a large number of casual folks to conduct business online. I begrudgingly use it, but would switch to Google Checkout in a heartbeat if it were offered here in Japan.

The thing is that in Australia, people do have choices; very good ones, in fact. Internet banking is huge in Australia and there are plenty of secure ways for merchants to accept transactions. Not to mention the fact that accepting credit card transactions is a whole lot cheaper. There is little wonder that only 25% of Australian eBay users use Paypal.

Hydrogen Sulfide Suicides Raise Some Powerful Questions Regarding Net Neutrality

C.S. Magor — Sat, 10 May 2008 21:40:04 -0700

Japan has recently seen a slew of suicides using hydrogen sulfide gas. The technique for generating the gas, which was posted on various Internet sites, made use of common household products (one of which was a sulfur containing bath cleaner). Japan has the highest rate of suicide in the developed world and to a certain extent it is an acceptable practice, however, the recent spate of gas suicides is raising eyebrows around the country for a number of reasons.

Suicide by hydrogen sulfide endangers other people. They are generating a highly toxic substance in conditions that are not suited to containing it. The gas typically escapes, sickening relatives and or neighbors. Recently, some people have worked around this by posting notes and generating the gas in vehicles, but it still poses a risk to rescuers.

The means of suicide has been promoted, if you will, via the Internet. This is where the moral issue comes into it for me. I would presume that the people posting the information as to how to generate hydrogen sulfide are not all killing themselves. I fail to see the what motivation anyone could have in helping a healthy human being end their life. There has been a significant push to have sites containing the information taken offline and for one of the first times in my life, I find myself agreeing with such a move.

I am not advocating censorship by any means and am not one of the desperate times call for desperate measures types. My position on this is that it is an unprecedented situation that is having a devestating impact on the community. Mainstream ISPs are, in this case, doing the right thing by taking the websites down. They serve no useful purpose and the are wreaking untold harm on the young and impressionable. "What next?" is a question that many people might well be asking, but a swift and decisive response might just be enough to save a few lives.