2 ms·

I do not advocate government regulation. I raise it as a possibility hoping others will offer better solutions. So far, nobody has. It is clear that, as a matt

by dshafer 16y ago

I do not advocate government regulation. I raise it as a possibility hoping others will offer better solutions. So far, nobody has. It is clear that, as a matter of law, users of free services are not entitled to any expectation of treatment. It is also true that as a matter of courtesy and integrity that those who supply such free services have a better plan than "Screw you, I'm outta here" in mind for if/when things go in a different direction.

jerf 16y ago
"I raise it as a possibility hoping others will offer better solutions. So far, nobody has." Yes, we have. "Do nothing." It's a pretty simple solution. And more to the point, you should stop using free services right now. You don't accept their service level. Fine. That's your right. Just stop, then. It's that simple. Find someone with a service level you do accept. If you're using Facebook, for example, stop. I'm not being sarcastic. I don't use Facebook precisely because I don't agree with their service level or other policies, either. I'm not their customer, I'm their product, so I simply don't use them. I can and have put my money(/attention) where my mouth is. You got burned. You learned. That's the solution, right there: You learned. Now, apply it.
semanticist 16y ago
That's because there is no better alternative. Without regulation you're just asking providers of free services to spend their time and money on integrating with a non-profit or NGO-provided... what? Data vault? That would only help with preserving raw data, not the social network that's the actual valuable part of systems like Twitter. Courtesy and integrity for free services which change direction involves giving people sufficient notice, if possible, and allowing people to export their data, if possible. That's all! Anything more is a ridiculous expectation. Sometimes it's not possible. You might think that you're going to secure funding in time, and then you don't, and you don't have the money to pay Amazon this month and now your service is gone. Do you think that people who start free services on the internet have an obligation to supply that service, even if it means they pay for it instead of paying their rent? Should the founders of FreeWebService have to live on the street so that you can keep your social network alive? Of course, if there were an American-tax-payer-funded NGO which would support my free web service when I ran out of money, I would definitely make a lot more free web services. I think a lot of people outside of the US would. :oD

by dshafer 16y ago

jerf 16y ago

"I raise it as a possibility hoping others will offer better solutions. So far, nobody has." Yes, we have. "Do nothing." It's a pretty simple solution. And more to the point, you should stop using free services right now. You don't accept their service level. Fine. That's your right. Just stop, then. It's that simple. Find someone with a service level you do accept. If you're using Facebook, for example, stop. I'm not being sarcastic. I don't use Facebook precisely because I don't agree with their service level or other policies, either. I'm not their customer, I'm their product, so I simply don't use them. I can and have put my money(/attention) where my mouth is. You got burned. You learned. That's the solution, right there: You learned. Now, apply it.

semanticist 16y ago

That's because there is no better alternative. Without regulation you're just asking providers of free services to spend their time and money on integrating with a non-profit or NGO-provided... what? Data vault? That would only help with preserving raw data, not the social network that's the actual valuable part of systems like Twitter. Courtesy and integrity for free services which change direction involves giving people sufficient notice, if possible, and allowing people to export their data, if possible. That's all! Anything more is a ridiculous expectation. Sometimes it's not possible. You might think that you're going to secure funding in time, and then you don't, and you don't have the money to pay Amazon this month and now your service is gone. Do you think that people who start free services on the internet have an obligation to supply that service, even if it means they pay for it instead of paying their rent? Should the founders of FreeWebService have to live on the street so that you can keep your social network alive? Of course, if there were an American-tax-payer-funded NGO which would support my free web service when I ran out of money, I would definitely make a lot more free web services. I think a lot of people outside of the US would. :oD