This is really messed up, and I sympathize with her situation, but this is not torture. Words matter. I’d call this harassment, fraud, or malicious company behavior, but not torture. Doesn’t mean it’s right, and the company/seller should absolutely be held responsible.
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
329 points (93.4% liked)
World News
39165 readers
2177 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I looked at it again and it reads “tortured“ woman. I think this is an older usage that most people now aren’t used to seeing. What this means is tortured, is not ‘being tortured’, it’s used as an adjective not a verb. So what I remember from a long time ago was the phrase “she/he had a tortured look on their face”. It doesn’t mean literal torture in the Abu Ghraib sense. BUT, I’m still gonna go with: click bait!
It's hyperbole. You've never been very hungry and said "I'm starving" or been out in very hot weather for a while and said "I'm dying out here"? I'm pretty sure the average reader is able to figure out from context she has not actually been abducted to a black site and waterboarded.
Hyperbole is fine in small talk with coworkers, hyperbole in "news" headlines is annoying ass clickbait.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A Canadian woman, Anca Nitu, told CBC that over the past two months, more than 50 packages have arrived at her home.
Nitu said she has lost sleep trying to make the packages stop coming, and so far she's accrued Collect-On-Delivery customs charges from UPS that now exceed $300.
Ars could not reach Nitu for comment, but she told CBC that neither UPS nor Amazon has helped her dispute the charges or correct the issue.
Ars could not immediately reach either company for comment, but a UPS spokesperson told CBC that it's investigating the complaint.
An Amazon spokesperson told CBC that "the case in question has been addressed, and corrective action is being taken to stop the packages."
At one point, she contacted police, who advised her to open the packages, then dispose of them, CBC reported.
I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Good bot
Amazon isn't the one responsible for this action; rather, it's the sellers who are altering the return address of their products to evade return fees. Opting for a random address is a more cost-effective choice for them. Amazon can stop it.
So it's not Amazon's responsibility to confirm the address of companies they allow to sell products on their site? I think that's at least partially in Amazon's domain, they can at least confirm addresses and where sellers are shipping products from compared to their return labels. It may be cost effective but if the seller doesn't expect their shoes back why even bother? Oh cause then customers would take advantage... yeah can't have that.
The responsibility lies with Amazon, although it's probable that sellers manipulated the automated-system, a tactic they frequently employ.
Morally yes in the sense that they can do shit about it and bloody should, legally I think the ball is in the court of delivery companies, though. Providing fake return addresses is not something they should let senders get away with, least of all commercial ones. Write contractual damages into the delivery contract, hook legal up to the data feed, done.
Amazon only profited 244 billion dollars last year, don't make them spend money on actually curating things.
Deny the ones with customs charges. Keep, donate or sell the rest of it. For $300 I'd be happy to donate decent stuff to local shelters though.
I don’t think you understood the article. She refuses the ones she can, but USPS simply dumps the packages at her door. There’s no refusing. And she’s being charged $300 for unwanted packages. And she already started donating them. I the end, she’s paying to get rid of somebody else’s stuff.
This is fucked up.
Edit: People, I have no idea why she’s being charged for those packages, I don’t know how USPS works. This is just what’s in the article.
How can she be charged for parcels she did not actually accept? Or is the law quite different over there? As in, how would she be charged, there's no signature of her to agree to pay, say, customs. As she never signed for the parcel.
The law says you are right. UPS ignores this and sends the invoice anyway with some added bullying to pay the outstanding amount. As long as somebody pays and they don't get a letter from a lawyer or they get sued for littering nothing happens.
She likely can't be compelled to pay for the packages. If they are COD it's up to the shipper to get the Cash on Delivery and they are failing in that. Still a big annoyance I'm sure.
She probably has her credit card info on Amazon and the seller got it and has been automatically charging her. It's harder and takes longer to get charges reversed than to just not respond to a bill in the mail
The article didn't mention that her card has been getting charged, that would be much worse.
She believes that Amazon sellers stole her information from a dormant Amazon account and are using her name and home address as an easy way to get rid of unwanted return items that sellers either cannot afford to store or do not wish to store. The Better Business Bureau (BBB) told CBC that it sounded like a vendor-return scheme that's common in the US but rarer in Canada, where foreign sellers dodge fees associated with storing and shipping return items by sending the items anywhere but their own addresses.
Oh I see they're abandoning the packages. So what's she had to pay then? I guess I don't understand was she sent to collections? The whole point of CoD is the carrier has package as collateral so...?
Even still if ups refused to resolve the issue I'd let them sue me and get it thrown out in time.
UPS is being UPS here.
They're abandoning packages, then sending her a bill for COD as if she accepted the package but didn't pay.
The fact that if she digs in and fights it she can eventually dispute each charge is somewhat separate from UPS and their collections contractors harassing her about the 'debt', or the new packages that keep showing up.
Better to have a lawyer send them a letter she will sue for littering and fraud otherwise nothing happens
Involving a lawyer will instantly cost her more than all the delivery charges combined.
Not sure how USPS is involved seeing as how the woman is in Canada.
why is Collect-On-Delivery even allowed? It should be a gamble for the shipper. The person being delivered to can pay if they want. If not then they should not send Collect-On-Delivery stuff to them.
Well even if it is collect-on-delivery, the woman is clearly not actually taking a delivery. So there ought to be nothing to collect and the parcel goes back to the sender. The whole article ultimately comes down to some shady dealers (not Amazon) sending a woman stuff, and USPS (not Amazon) being assholes and trying to strongarm her into paying because they don't want to take the parcels back despite her legally not accepting them.
As far as Amazon goes they are assholes, but mainly for not verifying that the return address sellers use is actually valid, but I also wonder to what degree they can know. I guess they could require a business contact at that address to verify that yes, this is indeed the return address for parcels by company XYZ?
Just want to submit a correction. Article says UPS, not USPS.
Just don't pay lol? Free shoes, open an ebay store.
When life gives you shoes
When life gives you shoes, you open a shoe store. (or just donate them)
sounds like jeff bezos is trying to get the tortured women gifts lol
What's so hard about opening the door and kicking the box into the street? Picking it up and tossing it in the trash? Maybe donate them to the homeless or the needy? Crying about free stuff, their life must be tough.
You didn't read the article, she gives them away to friends but has no way of storing them and is in a battle with UPS to stop unjust delivery charges.
Also some people have ethics about littering or contributing to needless waste.
Says she ignoring the charges sooooo enjoy the shoes. The cops told her to open them and dispose. She could start a shoe business if it's that drastic. But, yeah torture for sure lol
Reading is a fun and beneficial pastime, try it