5 ms·
Reframing when my one comment referred to free lifetime users due to the first few lines in the article. > Four years after Cerberus made headlines when it inv
by excerionsforte 7y ago
Reframing when my one comment referred to free lifetime users due to the first few lines in the article.
> Four years after Cerberus made headlines when it invalidated free lifetime licenses, the device security app is back in the spotlight for the same questionable business practices.
I get it that you want to reframe my comment so you have something to bash at, but the fact is I referred to a portion of the article. Not only did I say I value my time, I made no value judgement on your beliefs or how you spend your time. If something is not worth my time (harm/disproportionate burden), then I will not pursue it and will look for alternatives. What is so unreasonable about that? That I don't want to be negative as you said here? Not interested.
- MereInterest 7y agoAh, I see. You were mistaking Cerberus's actions of four years ago for their actions today. Four years ago, they cancelled the free lifetime service. That is allowed, as there was no exchange of value to form a contract. Now, they cancelled the paid lifetime service. That is not allowed, as there was an exchange of value.
- excerionsforte 7y agoI did not mistake anything. I simply referred to an event that occurred and people were angry about four years ago. It is more than acceptable to comment on a specific portion of an article. I do not need to be angry, negative or show outrage about what they are doing today. I do not use the app and have no plans to. I do believe that If I found myself in this situation I would be finding alternatives and paying for a better provider than to be angry. Legal methods are used only in the case of a substantial dispute as it is a time suck.