8 ms·
Hardware requiring an online account to work must be outlawed. As well as the "We have already reviewed this decision and it can't be reversed" bullshit. For e
by qwerty456127 6y ago
Hardware requiring an online account to work must be outlawed.
As well as the "We have already reviewed this decision and it can't be reversed" bullshit. For every ban they should be required to issue a very specific clarification on why exactly were you banned and let you to speak to a real person.
- caymanjim 6y agoOr maybe just don't buy or use products and services like this?
- qwerty456127 6y agoMany people still will buy. There is a reason we use representative democracy rather than direct democracy - qualified people should outlaw some bad things the crowd can't resist itself.
- ezconnect 6y agoOculus is a niche product, it will be forgotten in a few years just like 3D TVs. Facebook knows it and it would not spend a dime on good customer service, they will just implement something good enough.
- badRNG 6y agoFolks often overestimate the power consumers have in meaningfully shaping a market. Consumer protections are rarely gained by simply refusing to do business with market leaders who behave in consumer hostile ways. Regulation really seems to be our best shot at reversing course on what is nothing short of the theft of digital goods from consumers.
- Daishiman 6y agoExcept that one day you suddenly have employers that require you to personally own this hardware, or government portals, and then what? Oh, your driver's license is only available as an app for a device you just got permabanned from. I guess you're not a citizen anymore. My health care provider is now asking users to move away from physical credentials to use an app. I am livid.
- CamperBob2 6y agoIt's like these guys think "Black Mirror" is a business plan, not a dystopian cautionary tale.
- veilrap 6y agoStrongly disagree. Using the law in this strong arm manner stiffles innovation. Yes, the current Oculus / Facebook situation sucks. However, blanket statements like "Hardware requiring an online account to work must be outlawed." Would ban very legitimate products such as Amazon's physical buttons for restocking supplies. Sure the Dash buttons are discontinued, but there's definitely an interesting area of products that might be developed in the coming years for other products in this wide domain.
- teraflop 6y ago> However, blanket statements like "Hardware requiring an online account to work must be outlawed." Would ban very legitimate products such as Amazon's physical buttons for restocking supplies. OK, rephrase it slightly and say that it must not require an online account from a specific provider. If I can come up with an API endpoint that I want to use instead of Amazon, and I want to reconfigure my Dash button to use it, I should be legally and technically allowed to do so. The regulation doesn't need to ban any categories of products, or mandate any features. It just needs to say that if your product depends on online connectivity for a significant part of its functionality, then it must not employ technical measures to prevent interoperability. Hardware that's sold to consumers already needs to meet various compliance standards, such as RF emissions testing; this doesn't seem like a heavy burden in comparison. Of course, such a policy is very unlikely to be enacted in the US any time soon, but hey, I can dream.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoStrongly agreed. Some people seem to believe Internet is the new electricity. Even if this is so, electricity doesn't have colour - only voltage, amperage and frequency. My toaster doesn't restrict me to use only electricity from a specific power plant. I can power it up even from a car battery, if I tinker with it a little. Similarly, a device like the Dash button should use whatever endpoint that implements the required API, and not be restricted to a specific provider.
- tjoff 6y agoWhy couldn't dash buttons work on the LAN for whatever use-case you want it to? Wouldn't impact its intended use case at all. Other than the fact that it could now be used for something useful I guess...
- gnopgnip 6y agoYou do have that right, small claims court
- jansan 6y agoI once had a Logitech universal remote control that required opening an account to use it. Sent it back, bought an AllInOne, and never since considered purchasing any products from Logitech. Unfortunately most people don't give a shit and just do what the companies tell them.
- goatinaboat 6y agoAs well as the "We have already reviewed this decision and it can't be reversed" bullshit. For every ban they should be required to issue a very specific clarification on why exactly were you banned and let you to speak to a real person. GDPR requires that algorithmic decisions get this kind of oversight. GDPR is the way to get redress here.
- disgruntledphd2 6y agoOnly for consequential decisions, but yes, a GDPR complaint from someone who purchased the Quest 2 is the right approach here.
- jedberg 6y agoThat would probably a step too far. But also unnecessary. Make a law that requires them to give you a full refund for all hardware that you can’t use and all software purchased over the lifetime of the account. That will make them incur a cost that makes it worthwhile for them to be more careful. Edit: Downstream commenters make a good point. You'd have to put in a formula for "depreciation" of the refund, so you can't just get a refund years later.
- tjoff 6y agoSo, after 5 years you can just do something stupid to get banned and get a full refund? Sweet. Ensuring it can be used without an online account is actually reasonable.
- jedberg 6y agoExcellent point on the getting a refund years later. I've edited my comment to add that there would need to be depreciation on the refund.
- ogre_codes 6y ago> So, after 5 years you can just do something stupid to get banned and get a full refund? Sweet. If this was the law, then companies would change the way their products work or the way they ban people. Instead of banning, on Facebook, they would prevent the user from posting and interacting with other users. You would in essence get a very nice advert-only feed but not banned.
- tjoff 6y agoAnd in the process making the experience deliberately awful. I don't see how that doesn't indicate that outlawing a requirement for an account is so much more preferable.
- qwerty456127 6y ago> So, after 5 years you can just do something stupid to get banned and get a full refund? Yes. They should be able to ban you from their online platform if you misuse it and don't behave yourself but they shouldn't have a right to brick the device you've bought, no matter what you do.
- chaostheory 6y agoFor some features, you can't get around not having an online account. I feel it's better to vote with our wallets.
- Zenst 6y agoI would have the law along the lines that Hardware should not be limited or curtailed in usage via any optional on-line related identification. That way for things that may well suit having linked account - fine, but not curtailing that avenue. Basicly making having it linked to an on line account - optional via consumer choice, as it should always be.
- gravitas 6y ago> Hardware requiring an online account to work must be outlawed. You have just outlawed Roku. An online account is required to make it work, because that's how it was designed to work. It's a rather useless device without the online account.
- mafuy 6y agoWell, you could design an open API that others can use, too (server-side, not client side!). So the device can work with competitors, too, meaning it won't require an account at only one company. That would be a compromise - at least in theory others could replace the server parts.
- gravitas 6y agoI feel you're ignoring the subtle point - these devices are designed as an extension of their service not as general computing devices. I can easily replace "Roku" with "RSA SecureID keyfob" and have the same conversation - it is not a generic device; it is a targeted hardware extension of their core business model. An "online account" (an account with RSA the company) is required for this keyfob to be of any value other than a LED screen displaying random numbers.
- MereInterest 6y agoFundamentally, I don't see a difference there. They are general computing devices, which are then restricted to talk only to a subset of computers, and only on a subset of protocols. Similarly, the RSA SecureID keyfob can be a public/private key, where the private key is secure on the keyfob, used to generate the digits shown, and the public key is printed on the outside. Anyone with the public key can verify that the private key was used to generate it. An "online account" is not required for the keyfob to be of value.
- gravitas 6y ago> Fundamentally, I don't see a difference there. They are general computing devices, which are then restricted to talk only to a subset of computers, and only on a subset of protocols. I would choose to disagree on this concept; from a business perspective, the hardware engineering design going into making the device has a targeted purpose from the outset, and is (cost) subsidized by that company specifically for their service (meaning, they could take a loss on the hardware and make up for it on the Service). Roku and RSA are extracting money for their service, not for their hardware - just like the Amazon Prime TV stick, or imagine if you will a Netflix stick made and sold by Netflix directly. The value to these companies is your service fee month over month, not the hardware they're providing - the hardware is just a delivery vehicle. That does not mean the devices cannot technically do something other than what their primary intended purpose is; the alternative "TV in a box" projects can run on things like an Amazon Stick with a bit of work (I did it myself to mine, was neat to play with) just that it's not their primary purpose from the OEM. So can you use a RSA key without RSA? Maybe, but that's not what our primary argument is about here. The GP to this thread stated: > Hardware requiring an online account to work must be outlawed. This is what I'm discussing - the GP would have the government require a device which is designed to work with a very particular online service be able to work... without their service. "Netflix, your Netflix TV stick which is designed to work with the Netflix service must also be able to work without Netflix service." That is what the GP is proposing be made a law, which I very much don't agree with - it literally ignores the entire point for the existence for certain types of hardware such as a Netflix TV stick.
- kmeisthax 6y ago"We have already reviewed this decision and it can't be reversed" is how the Internet has always worked. The dirty secret of the Internet - going back decades - is that it's concept of moderation mostly relies upon unstated or understated rules half-enforced and adjudicated by volunteers or underpaid contractors with the power of judge, jury, and executioner. This is arguably by design: the vast majority of what moderators are dealing with is spam, which has the properties of being cheap to execute and difficult to filter for. Hence, anti-spam efforts are swift and merciless. More modern efforts to deal with things like foreign election interference and fake news are arguably extensions of this same ongoing effort to summarily hang and execute spammers. Facebook is not alone in this either: Google's done it from the very beginning and their death penalty stings far harder. There's a few exceptions to this, such as Wikipedia's ArbCom or other collaborative Free Software projects with code-of-conduct rules and moderator transparency. However, even those platforms will summarily execute spammers.
- clinta 6y agoThis may be the only way to scale a service that is free to users. But once you are selling a product to paying customers, those customers need to be at a different tier with real customer support. Those paying customers are already incredibly unlikely to be spammers. They cannot be handled the same way free accounts are.
- kmeisthax 6y agoThis is a cultural problem as much as an economic imperative. Apple and Google both run app stores with distribution rules, but Apple will bend over backwards to try and get you in compliance with their rules, while Google will just delete your Gmail. I've also heard far fewer reports of Apple iCloud accounts getting summarily deleted compared to Google or Facebook.
- nomel 6y agoNo account would mean anonymous access, wouldn't it? That's fine, but I don't think many people would frequent anonymous communities since moderation would become extremely difficult, unless the presence was tied with the hardware. Tying an an involuntary account to hardware would probably destroy the second hand market.