3 ms·

A button labelled “Download” that is in actuality a “Donate” button that takes you to PayPal, that’s pretty scummy, probably even illegal some places. Glad I do

by mikl 7y ago

A button labelled “Download” that is in actuality a “Donate” button that takes you to PayPal, that’s pretty scummy, probably even illegal some places. Glad I don’t use Fritzing.

tptacek 7y ago
Where exactly do you think a button labeled "Download" that detours you through a Donation flow is illegal?
- glofish 7y ago
  Would you feel the same way if the site implemented a feature where if you clicked any link it would first detour you through a donation flow? Say the link said Tutorial or Documentation but when clicked it would go to Donate instead... The point the OP makes is that when you ask for donation the button should say Donate and not Download.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    I didn't ask how the parent comment felt. I asked where exactly this flow might be illegal. If you want the subtext laid bare, I think it's pretty clear that I doubt it's illegal anywhere.
    - glofish 7y ago
      Incidentally, I was asking you specifically how you felt about it, not the parent or the OP. Also, in addition, the "how you feel about it" does not really mean emotionally, it means what is your opinion on systematically mislabeling links. In my opinion, trying to hide the freely available version of open-source code is not a "crime" but it is unethical and very likely breaks the spirit as well as the requirements of the open-source license. Thus I think what the OP means is that it is "illegal" in the sense of breaking the license and it is unethical in how it misleads you.
      - tptacek 7y ago
        "Probably even illegal some places" clearly means that it's actually illegal somewhere. I'd like to know where they think that is. That's my entire engagement with this thread.
        myrryr 7y ago
        It could be in New Zealand. The Consumer Guarantee act may trip it up, as could our advertising laws. Ah, it is the fair trading act. here it is.... https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/general-help/common-consumer-issues/misleading-prices-or-advertising/ https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/general-help/common-c... NZ has a LOT more protection than the US does. This may fall under bait advertising.
        jiofih 7y ago
        It’s not a stretch to imagine it being framed as fraud for false representation, or at a minimum infringing customer protection laws (not a crime). What bugs you?
    - EricE 7y ago
      >I didn't ask how the parent comment felt. There's your problem - expecting people to be rational and not emotional :/
- mikl 7y ago
  Clicking this button tricks the user into visiting PayPal, sending along that the user came from Fritzing.org, without the user’s consent. That could be construed as a GDPR violation. Additionally, it might be against some consumer protection laws, false advertising and somesuch. IANAL, obviously.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    I guess I'm not seeing how that logic doesn't make almost every <a> tag a possible GDPR violation.

by mikl 7y ago

A button labelled “Download” that is in actuality a “Donate” button that takes you to PayPal, that’s pretty scummy, probably even illegal some places. Glad I don’t use Fritzing.

tptacek 7y ago

Where exactly do you think a button labeled "Download" that detours you through a Donation flow is illegal?

glofish 7y ago
Would you feel the same way if the site implemented a feature where if you clicked any link it would first detour you through a donation flow? Say the link said Tutorial or Documentation but when clicked it would go to Donate instead... The point the OP makes is that when you ask for donation the button should say Donate and not Download.
- tptacek 7y ago
  I didn't ask how the parent comment felt. I asked where exactly this flow might be illegal. If you want the subtext laid bare, I think it's pretty clear that I doubt it's illegal anywhere.
  - glofish 7y ago
    Incidentally, I was asking you specifically how you felt about it, not the parent or the OP. Also, in addition, the "how you feel about it" does not really mean emotionally, it means what is your opinion on systematically mislabeling links. In my opinion, trying to hide the freely available version of open-source code is not a "crime" but it is unethical and very likely breaks the spirit as well as the requirements of the open-source license. Thus I think what the OP means is that it is "illegal" in the sense of breaking the license and it is unethical in how it misleads you.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      "Probably even illegal some places" clearly means that it's actually illegal somewhere. I'd like to know where they think that is. That's my entire engagement with this thread.
      - myrryr 7y ago
        It could be in New Zealand. The Consumer Guarantee act may trip it up, as could our advertising laws. Ah, it is the fair trading act. here it is.... https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/general-help/common-consumer-issues/misleading-prices-or-advertising/ https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/general-help/common-c... NZ has a LOT more protection than the US does. This may fall under bait advertising.
      - jiofih 7y ago
        It’s not a stretch to imagine it being framed as fraud for false representation, or at a minimum infringing customer protection laws (not a crime). What bugs you?
  - EricE 7y ago
    >I didn't ask how the parent comment felt. There's your problem - expecting people to be rational and not emotional :/
mikl 7y ago
Clicking this button tricks the user into visiting PayPal, sending along that the user came from Fritzing.org, without the user’s consent. That could be construed as a GDPR violation. Additionally, it might be against some consumer protection laws, false advertising and somesuch. IANAL, obviously.
- tptacek 7y ago
  I guess I'm not seeing how that logic doesn't make almost every <a> tag a possible GDPR violation.