• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Food stamp glitch leads to Wal-Mart stampede

Status
Not open for further replies.
I mean yes there is a difference between a glitch that gives you a substantially reduced price on items and a glitch that gives you essentially a limitless debit card for items, but why is taking advantage of one or the other more or less morally acceptable?

Assume that I don't agree with Computer that all taxation is theft
 
Yaboosh said:
As funny as it is, the two situations are different. The ebt incident was much closerto straight up theft than the price glitch abuse.
Click to expand...

ikr its so much worse to take advantage of the food stamp glitch so you can feed your family

but when you buy three expensive monitors (two to flip for $$$$BIG BUX$$$$ and one to keep so you can watch and masturbate to 1080p gonzo porn in your bedroom) on the cheap due to a glitch MAN youre doing pretty okay for yourself and that is a-o-fuckin-k
 
I don't feel like I'd be comfortable taking advantage of something I knew was a mistake. I think both situations are tantamount to theft.

However, as stated earlier in this thread, my family owns a retail store, so I don't think average folks would give a shit the same way I would.
 
So there is no difference between a company marking something down too much, and a glitch basically giving you a blank check for whatever you want. Especially when oftentimes these online price glitches end up with people getting their order canceled and no one getting anything.
 
DrForester said:
So there is no difference between a company marking something down too much, and a glitch basically giving you a blank check for whatever you want. Especially when oftentimes these online price glitches end up with people getting their order canceled and no one getting anything.
Click to expand...

From the perspective of the person taking advantage? I don't think there's much. In both cases you're deliberately taking advantage of a flaw to get things for what you know was not the intended price. How moral or immoral that is, well, I'm not going to say, I don't have clear thoughts on it being strongly on either side, but the two do seem similar
 
DrForester said:
So there is no difference between a company marking something down too much, and a glitch basically giving you a blank check for whatever you want.
Click to expand...

It seems you forgot a word. I guess you wanted to write "blank check for whatever food you want".

The $8 monitor was obviously a glitch. This right here was a glitch as well. It's actually quite similar. But at least the people that took advantage of the food stamp glitch are people in need and got more food out of it. I can't really blame them.

EDIT: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101176061
The megaretailer said a "technical error" caused certain products to be priced absurdly low or high on its website earlier Wednesday morning.

By Wednesday evening, the discounter had fixed the glitch and decided to cancel the orders of customers who were able to snag the items at steep discounts.
Click to expand...

But sure, they marked stuff down that much "on purpose". Yeah right. Well, if you assume that, why not also assume that Wal-Mart wanted to give out food for people in need? Makes as much sense as your post.
 
On a moral level, taking advantage of the EBT glitch to feed your family is far less troublesome than using a glitch to buy entertainment goods. Realistically though, if a lot of that food wound up having to be thrown out due to it being left out in the carts, then things change a bit because the food is worthless and can't do any good for anyone.
 
ImpassionateGods said:
When life gives you an opportunity you take it. No law is being broken. No one is being hurt.
Click to expand...

If no one's being hurt here, why isn't all this stuff free anyway?

I think both groups were technically doing wrong. The difference being that entertainment is no necessity. And buying big to sell later is even worse.
 
The Technomancer said:
From the perspective of the person taking advantage? I don't think there's much. In both cases you're deliberately taking advantage of a flaw to get things for what you know was not the intended price. How moral or immoral that is, well, I'm not going to say, I don't have clear thoughts on it being strongly on either side, but the two do seem similar
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's not that much difference between the two.

People taking advantage perspective:
-know full well that they're exploiting a glitch
-rush to exploit it before it's fixed
-spread the news through their social network, causing a feeding frenzy
-have or should have had the expectation that it may catch up to them (canceled order, EBT card is charged/docked the full amount later--I'm actually a little surprised the latter didn't happen)
-one difference: one case results in abandoned actual shopping carts full of perishable goods, one results in abandoned imaginary shopping carts with nothing in them

Walmart's perspective:
-glitch occurs, is exacerbated by poor decisions from staff that allows people to take things without actually paying for them
-stand to lose some amount of money, but might have PR problem if they go too hard after the exploiters
-one difference: one case is high-margin items being taken, one case is low-margin, largely perishable items being taken (so probably a lot more money lost in the monitor case, but that's a guess without any hard numbers on how many transactions actually went through)

Outside perspective:
-no theftastic tax dollars involved in either case
-one difference: people involved in one case might be charged for theft, people involved in the other case might get internet daps
 
It's really telling how our culture operates:

People taking advantage to get food? FUCKING THIEVES OFF WITH THEIR HEADS HOW DARE THEY

People taking advantage of deals to get $8 monitors and tvs? I earned that 8 dollar tv that I knew full well was an error and because I'm not a poor loser.

It makes me sad. And angry.
 
Cyan said:
Yeah, there's not that much difference between the two.

People taking advantage perspective:
-know full well that they're exploiting a glitch
-rush to exploit it before it's fixed
-spread the news through their social network, causing a feeding frenzy
-have or should have had the expectation that it may catch up to them (canceled order, EBT card is charged/docked the full amount later--I'm actually a little surprised the latter didn't happen)
-one difference: one case results in abandoned actual shopping carts full of perishable goods, one results in abandoned imaginary shopping carts with nothing in them

Walmart's perspective:
-glitch occurs, is exacerbated by poor decisions from staff that allows people to take things without actually paying for them
-stand to lose some amount of money, but might have PR problem if they go too hard after the exploiters
-one difference: one case is high-margin items being taken, one case is low-margin, largely perishable items being taken (so probably a lot more money lost in the monitor case, but that's a guess without any hard numbers on how many transactions actually went through)

Outside perspective:
-no theftastic tax dollars involved in either case
-one difference: people involved in one case might be charged for theft, people involved in the other case might get internet daps
Click to expand...

Interesting. I could have sworn I saw some other mods participating in the TV glitch thread.
 
Notrollious said:
It's really telling how our culture operates:

People taking advantage to get food? FUCKING THIEVES OFF WITH THEIR HEADS HOW DARE THEY

People taking advantage of deals to get $8 monitors and tvs? I earned that 8 dollar tv that I knew full well was an error and because I'm not a poor loser.

It makes me sad. And angry.
Click to expand...
I said it in the first round of this thread:
Taking advantage of a system put in place to help people feed their families, a system which is under significant political and economic pressure is not the same as putting a miniscule dent in Walmarts profits.
 
Cyan said:
Yeah, there's not that much difference between the two.
Click to expand...

They aren't the same at all. On the one hand, you have an offer by Walmart to sell the product to a consumer paying a specified (but unintentionally low) amount of money, which the consumer accepts by paying (or making provision to pay) that amount. On the other hand, you have an offer by Walmart to sell the product to a consumer paying a specified (and intentionally set) amount of money, and the consumer accepts the offer by purporting to pay (or provide for payment) when the consumer knows there's just no money available to cover the transaction. In other words, in the former case, a consumer takes advantage of a good deal; in the latter, the consumer commits fraud. They'd be much more similar if, in the former case, the consumer accepts the deal by writing a hot check, knowing that there are no funds in the bank to cover the transaction.
 
DrForester said:
So there is no difference between a company marking something down too much, and a glitch basically giving you a blank check for whatever you want. Especially when oftentimes these online price glitches end up with people getting their order canceled and no one getting anything.
Click to expand...
Walmart chose not to honor the 50 dollar emergency limit. They allowed the "blank check" to happen. No different than any other price glitch them have.
 
Mammoth Jones said:
Poor person exploits extra food? BAN THEM!

Corporate welfare recipient exploits system all the time to the detriment of all? HURRAY! FREE MARKET!!
Click to expand...

"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."
 
Metaphoreus said:
They aren't the same at all. On the one hand, you have an offer by Walmart to sell the product to a consumer paying a specified (but unintentionally low) amount of money, which the consumer accepts by paying (or making provision to pay) that amount. On the other hand, you have an offer by Walmart to sell the product to a consumer paying a specified (and intentionally set) amount of money, and the consumer accepts the offer by purporting to pay (or provide for payment) when the consumer knows there's just no money available to cover the transaction. In other words, in the former case, a consumer takes advantage of a good deal; in the latter, the consumer commits fraud. They'd be much more similar if, in the former case, the consumer accepts the deal by writing a hot check, knowing that there are no funds in the bank to cover the transaction.
Click to expand...

This is a better argument than the other ones in this thread, but it still fails. It might hold water legally, but morally it doesn't actually make a difference what payment methods were used.

In one case, Walmart intended to sell the items for a sum of money, and instead sold them for a nominal sum due to a glitch. In the other, Walmart intended to sell the items for a sum of money, and instead gave them away for free due to a glitch. Unless you think that by taking advantage of the glitch the consumers were pretending to be able to pay, and that by giving the food away Walmart believed that the customers could pay, which seems obviously false.
 
VoxPop said:
Who said I would never be a part of it? I could guarantee you I would be actively seeking a job while i'm laid off. I doubt I would blow through my entire savings purely on food during that time.

Nothing is wrong with asking for help but I've heard a lot of these people don't need the assistance at all and is just taking advantage of the system.
Click to expand...


And who did you hear that from? And you said a large chunk of your check was used for food stamps. Citation please.
 
Fenderputty said:
I personally love the "my taxes pay for these bums!" Type comments. Our taxes also subsidize the loopholes exploited by the ultra rich motherfucker, but I doubt Vox Pop or anyone else bitching about food stamp scammers gives two shits about this.
Click to expand...

Very rarely do I just co-sign something but I appreciate you calling a spade a spade. I hear that "my tax dollars!" Argument all the fucking time and it is incredibly, intellectually dishonest. I don't like my tax money going to drones either but here we are.

If you're ever in Atlanta, I'll buy you a beer.
 
My feelings on the matter are this:

I don't begrudge people who try to get what they can out of an obvious mistake.

I do begrudge folks who try to get what they can out of an obvious mistake and then act surprised, incredulous, and nasty when that obvious mistake gets caught. You knew something was amiss, the jig had to be up sometime. If you got something out of it, great, but if you missed the cutoff, you knew there had to be a cutoff. Handle it with grace. Help put that cart of perishable food back. Don't launch into a pissy rage when the site to store girl informs you that it turns out that the store wasn't okay with losing $440 on the dozen copies of Battlefield 4 you ordered.
 
MaximusPayne said:
So take a great paying job or foodstamps, right? No working your way up or having any since of accomplishment. That's shinanigans.
Click to expand...

if every hard working person could "work their way up" or earn a salary that would let them retire happily/live comfortably, i think they would, however, the real world isnt like your dream world.
 
Cyan said:
This is a better argument than the other ones in this thread, but it still fails. It might hold water legally, but morally it doesn't actually make a difference what payment methods were used.

In one case, Walmart intended to sell the items for a sum of money, and instead sold them for a nominal sum due to a glitch. In the other, Walmart intended to sell the items for a sum of money, and instead gave them away for free due to a glitch. Unless you think that by taking advantage of the glitch the consumers were pretending to be able to pay, and that by giving the food away Walmart believed that the customers could pay, which seems obviously false.
Click to expand...

I don't think the difference arises from the payment methods used. The difference arises because, in one case, the consumer presents a method of payment knowing that there is money available to pay what he or she purports to pay, and in the other, the consumer presents a method of payment knowing that there is not money available to pay what he or she purports to pay. In both cases, the consumer knows that Walmart made a mistake, and is taking advantage of it. But only in the EBT case does the consumer also know that the funds he or she purports to give to Walmart in exchange for the goods don't, in fact, exist. Again, that's fraud, which is wrong both legally and morally.
 
Metaphoreus said:
I don't think the difference arises from the payment methods used. The difference arises because, in one case, the consumer presents a method of payment knowing that there is money available to pay what he or she purports to pay, and in the other, the consumer presents a method of payment knowing that there is not money available to pay what he or she purports to pay. In both cases, the consumer knows that Walmart made a mistake, and is taking advantage of it. But only in the EBT case does the consumer also know that the funds he or she purports to give to Walmart in exchange for the goods don't, in fact, exist. Again, that's fraud, which is wrong both legally and morally.
Click to expand...
+1. Well-put distinction.
 
BTW, once any perishable food items are taken out of the freezer/cooler are not bought, they have to be claimed out to prevent any possible spoiling/contamination. I imagine the claims department had a ton of sorting/paperwork to do the next day.
 
Metaphoreus said:
I don't think the difference arises from the payment methods used. The difference arises because, in one case, the consumer presents a method of payment knowing that there is money available to pay what he or she purports to pay, and in the other, the consumer presents a method of payment knowing that there is not money available to pay what he or she purports to pay. In both cases, the consumer knows that Walmart made a mistake, and is taking advantage of it. But only in the EBT case does the consumer also know that the funds he or she purports to give to Walmart in exchange for the goods don't, in fact, exist. Again, that's fraud, which is wrong both legally and morally.
Click to expand...

In one case, Walmart basically puts up a sign saying "free food here if you have an EBT card." In the other, they put up a sign saying "[essentially] free electronics here." It's a distinction without a difference.

The bit about being able to call it fraud is why I said you could probably make the legal argument. In reality, obviously Walmart knew there was no money to pay for the food.
 
Cyan said:
In one case, Walmart basically puts up a sign saying "free food here if you have an EBT card." In the other, they put up a sign saying "[essentially] free electronics here." It's a distinction without a difference.

The bit about being able to call it fraud is why I said you could probably make the legal argument. In reality, obviously Walmart knew there was no money to pay for the food.
Click to expand...

Well you're looking at the end result with lots more information than people had during this stampede. Clearly looking back you can see there was a mistake made and people were basically stealing. However, at any point during this if you had jumped in you could've easily thought that Wal-Mart was doing some massive clearance. Pokemon for $18 isn't the craziest thing ever. A TV for $300 isn't, either. Maybe those CB Radios were $8 because they had like 3 of them in a warehouse somewhere and they stopped selling them awhile ago, and you picked up the last one. Maybe they let their Black Friday deals slip early. The price tag on the items puts a huge layer of doubt over what you are actually participating in. With the food stamps you're given the entire scenario from the beginning.
 
Cyan said:
In one case, Walmart basically puts up a sign saying "free food here if you have an EBT card." In the other, they put up a sign saying "[essentially] free electronics here." It's a distinction without a difference.

The bit about being able to call it fraud is why I said you could probably make the legal argument. In reality, obviously Walmart knew there was no money to pay for the food.
Click to expand...

Our disagreement is over what Walmart was saying when they decided to continue accepting the EBT cards though they knew the system was down. I don't think they meant to say, "free food here if you have an EBT card," because I think the company was entitled to rely on the good faith and honesty of its customers in presenting the EBT cards as payment. Again, the best analogy that comes to mind is merchants permitting payment by checks before the days that such payments were processed just the same as debit card transactions. A merchant then had no way to verify that there was money in the bank account on which the check was drawn, but this didn't mean that they didn't expect payment.

However, if Walmart's actions in permitting the cards to be used during the outage were intended to be an offer of free food, then clearly there's no fraud there, because Walmart wasn't expecting payment, and the customers weren't purporting to pay. I just don't think that's likely.
 
I really don't get the moral pivoting going on in here. Knowing that an error was made by the some site staff and taking advantage of it is in the same light as knowing that an error was made in whatever system that processes there EBT payments and taking advantage of that. And judging by the internets coverage of this, most people knew and even engouraged everybody they could to take advantage before this hole was patched up.
 
glitch, please

The Waltons are probably having a healthy laugh about it. They also take advantage of the government's policies and mistakes. It's nature.
 
Bodacious said:
zf8Snu3.jpg


DsE8zlf.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPPUfgLqQO0
Click to expand...

OH. MY. GOD. xD

If I were the first to know, I would have filled my cart to the brim. But everyone else knew as well, logic dictates that the error was gonna be fixed soon

I wouldn't want to be part of the mayhem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

RIP Terrance Stamp
31
1K
-BLITZ- replied
  • Poll
What’s your favorite fast food chain?
2
72
2K
Mithos replied
Its 2026 and your hired to lead Disney
2
58
1K
EverydayBeast replied
Remember the Tik Tok Food Poisoner Guy?... His sentence is...
30
1K
Nocty replied
Anyone heard of this app Too Good to Go? Cheap food that restaurants are throwing out at the end of the day.
2
53
4K
DKehoe replied
Top Bottom