3 ms·

>> "it is insanely convenient and easy to lock-in users and restrict freedoms." I agree, but is that really a bad thing? We all have to make money somehow. I'd

by axod 17y ago

>> "it is insanely convenient and easy to lock-in users and restrict freedoms." I agree, but is that really a bad thing? We all have to make money somehow. I'd rather website owners had real incentive to please their users, and being able to make money is a good incentive. I don't see how open source can really be relevant on the web. If facebook want to do something to drive users away, or ristrict users freedom, that's up to them. If they do it enough, someone else will setup a rival website that pleases users better. How does open sourcing fit into this? I don't think it does. Most website is simple enough that you don't need free source code. Any one of us could clone facebook if we had enough time and determination. Open sourcing is certainly a nice thing to do, and I'm sure we'd be lost without our own favorite open source tools, but I think it makes less sense on the web. As I've said before, I don't use X because it's open source, I use it because it's free, and there are people behind it who care. I think that's all that matters really.

idiopathic 17y ago
With the (welcome) move to web architecture, free software is not as important as free data, i.e. the freedom to move your data to another provider. We may all be slaves, but we should have the freedom to choose our master. Like you, I would also rather that website owners had real incentives to please their users. I disagree on the solution: data lock-in _removes_ the website owner's incentive, instead they can just rely on the fact that you are stuck with them, rather than pleased with them.
- axod 17y ago
  Good point, and I agree. People should always be free to get at the data they have on a website, and move to an alternative website. That's certainly something worth fighting for.
  - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
    Is locked in data really a bad thing? We all have to make money somehow. I'd rather website owners had real incentive to please their users, and being able to make money is a good incentive. I don't see how free data can really be relevant on the web. If facebook want to do something to drive users away, or ristrict users freedom, that's up to them. If they do it enough, someone else will setup a rival website that pleases users better. How does free data fit into this? I don't think it does. Most website is simple enough that you don't need free data. Any one of us could clone facebook's massive social network if we had enough time and determination. Letting users own their data is certainly a nice thing to do, and I'm sure we'd be lost without our own data, but I think it makes less sense on the web. As I've said before, I don't use X because its data is free, I use it because it's free, and there are people behind it who care. I think that's all that matters really.
    - axod 17y ago
      I don't see how you seem to equate users data, with source code. The two are entirely different things.
dagw 17y ago
Locking in users and their data removes incentive for developers to please their users. If you know that all your user could cancel their service contract and be set up with a competitor within an hour without losing anything, you have a damn fine incentive to keep those users happy. If on the other hand moving to a competitor means losing access to years of data and weeks or month of work just to get back to where they started then you have to suck pretty damn hard for people to leave you.

by axod 17y ago

idiopathic 17y ago

With the (welcome) move to web architecture, free software is not as important as free data, i.e. the freedom to move your data to another provider. We may all be slaves, but we should have the freedom to choose our master. Like you, I would also rather that website owners had real incentives to please their users. I disagree on the solution: data lock-in _removes_ the website owner's incentive, instead they can just rely on the fact that you are stuck with them, rather than pleased with them.

axod 17y ago
Good point, and I agree. People should always be free to get at the data they have on a website, and move to an alternative website. That's certainly something worth fighting for.
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  Is locked in data really a bad thing? We all have to make money somehow. I'd rather website owners had real incentive to please their users, and being able to make money is a good incentive. I don't see how free data can really be relevant on the web. If facebook want to do something to drive users away, or ristrict users freedom, that's up to them. If they do it enough, someone else will setup a rival website that pleases users better. How does free data fit into this? I don't think it does. Most website is simple enough that you don't need free data. Any one of us could clone facebook's massive social network if we had enough time and determination. Letting users own their data is certainly a nice thing to do, and I'm sure we'd be lost without our own data, but I think it makes less sense on the web. As I've said before, I don't use X because its data is free, I use it because it's free, and there are people behind it who care. I think that's all that matters really.
  - axod 17y ago
    I don't see how you seem to equate users data, with source code. The two are entirely different things.

dagw 17y ago

Locking in users and their data removes incentive for developers to please their users. If you know that all your user could cancel their service contract and be set up with a competitor within an hour without losing anything, you have a damn fine incentive to keep those users happy. If on the other hand moving to a competitor means losing access to years of data and weeks or month of work just to get back to where they started then you have to suck pretty damn hard for people to leave you.