Take them to court. File a grievance. But opening individuals to ruin by internet trolls for lulz, or worse making everyone’s life dictated by collaborative filtering - there’s no good to come of it. Human lives aren’t like product reviews. Scarlet lettering people isn’t a good idea - maybe it works for some, but there will be a lot of innocent people destroyed along the way. Or, people who made unethical decisions at some point in their life and realized their mistake and have reformed. A society of perpetual punishment isn’t a humane society, especially without any review or recourse just anonymous voting.
There's often a big gap between things that constitute a crime, tort, or breach of contract and things that would make me disinclined to do business with a person. I'd like to know if the founder of a startup has a bait-and-switch habit before I decide to rely on their product, for example.
The court system has decided that individuals aren’t liable for their actions taken on behalf of a company, but the company is. But a company is merely a temporary arrangement of people! It can be dissolved and reformed any number of times with any number of names with only marginal annoyance. The corporation is the end of responsibility.
Who arbitrates the fairness of such a system? Does anyone get a chance at redemption? One of the reasons for the corporate veil is to lives aren’t destroyed except for the most egregious behavior. For sensitive professions they’re licensed with review processes that aren’t as steep to get at the principals. But I would rather the world allow assholes to be sure we don’t plow under the innocent or close the door to reform in a human life.
In this instance, it appears to mean making it possible to purchasers to be aware of past business decisions made by people in positions of authority at companies that they are considering doing business with so that they can make an informed decision.
