3 ms·

I expect $10 a month for my sharecropping, but none of these dern websites have paid me yet. I am going to take them to small claims court for they money they

by fnid2 17y ago

I expect $10 a month for my sharecropping, but none of these dern websites have paid me yet. I am going to take them to small claims court for they money they owe me! That's kind of what you are saying right? Seriously, companies are supposed to behave the way you expect them to? The way the users want them to? No way. These websites are creating "FREE" services for "users" who pay nothing and receive benefit. Many users go in, create an account just to squat and then do nothing but take up resources and potential for other users who actually want to use the service. There never has been and never will be a free lunch folks. Get over it. Build your own website if you don't want some jerks at these "free" websites doing things with data that essentially -- they own -- because you gave it to them.

rationalbeaver 17y ago
I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think that by offering a service (even a free one) you create a reasonable expectation that you will, in fact, provide that service. You clearly retain the right to stop providing the service whenever you want, but you still have an obligation to treat your users with respect. It's bad form to hold up a sign that says FREE CANDY and then punch people in the mouth when they ask for some.
gyardley 17y ago
Not exactly, both because your expectation of $10 per month for your web 2.0 serfdom isn't the community norm (thank god) and because these community norms are enforced through the court of public opinion, not small claims court. And you do seem like you're confusing my 'this is how it is' statement with a 'this is how it should be' statement, and getting quite angry about the latter. I actually agree with you completely - users of a free service shouldn't have any cause to complain about what's in the TOS. But that isn't the way things actually work. Instead, if your company does something that users don't like - whether they've consented to it in your terms of service or not - the users will react by creating a big public relations nightmare for you, which will ultimately damage the value of your company. There's not much benefit in being on solid legal ground if the public destroys your reputation.

by fnid2 17y ago

rationalbeaver 17y ago

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think that by offering a service (even a free one) you create a reasonable expectation that you will, in fact, provide that service. You clearly retain the right to stop providing the service whenever you want, but you still have an obligation to treat your users with respect. It's bad form to hold up a sign that says FREE CANDY and then punch people in the mouth when they ask for some.

gyardley 17y ago

Not exactly, both because your expectation of $10 per month for your web 2.0 serfdom isn't the community norm (thank god) and because these community norms are enforced through the court of public opinion, not small claims court. And you do seem like you're confusing my 'this is how it is' statement with a 'this is how it should be' statement, and getting quite angry about the latter. I actually agree with you completely - users of a free service shouldn't have any cause to complain about what's in the TOS. But that isn't the way things actually work. Instead, if your company does something that users don't like - whether they've consented to it in your terms of service or not - the users will react by creating a big public relations nightmare for you, which will ultimately damage the value of your company. There's not much benefit in being on solid legal ground if the public destroys your reputation.