4 ms·

A) You did consent, as you indicated here. B) Your computer still has the ability to run Flash programs, this is removing the Adobe Flash Player, not disabling

A) You did consent, as you indicated here. B) Your computer still has the ability to run Flash programs, this is removing the Adobe Flash Player, not disabling Flash programs entirely, which leads to C) The Flash Player is disabling itself on January 13th, so Microsoft is not removing any capability for you at all, Adobe is, and D) since it’s free software they licensed to you, the have every right in the world to make it do whatever they want (including making it not work any longer), and you have every right in the world to remove the app early if you don’t like what it provides.

EvanAnderson 6y ago
The Flash EULA[1] contains language about updates re: If your Computer is connected to the Internet, the Software may, without additional notice, check for Updates that are available for automatic download and installation to your Computer and let Adobe know the Software is successfully installed. The Software may automatically download and install updates from time to time from Adobe. These updates may take the form of bug fixes, new features, or new versions. You agree to receive such updates from Adobe as part of your use of the Software. I could see an argument that a self-destruct mechanism is a "bug fix" or a "new version". I could also see an argument that it's not. I'm coming around to the line of thinking that another poster mentioned-- that this could be considered Adobe criminally exceeding the access to my system that I've granted them. I agreed to updates. Not to removal of functionality. I can't do a damned thing about it, but it pisses me off, and I want other people to be pissed off about it to. Taking away functionality in somebody else's computer is unethical in my moral framework. Normalizing that idea is dangerous and wrong to me, too. [1] https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/licenses-terms/pdf/Flash_Player_32_0.pdf https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/licenses-terms... Edit: Would it be your contention that all software developers have the right to remove functionality in their software at any time? Does consideration paid factor into that? What if it's expeditious for my business model to disable my older software to get you to move to my new software? Does such disabling constitute an "update"?
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  At this point my primary concern is that the language and severity you’re claiming here diminishes the impact of future discussions, when something vastly more serious may actually be an overreach.
  - EvanAnderson 6y ago
    It's that important to me. Maybe it isn't to you. So be it. Computing has been a major part of my life for 35 years. I wish that I didn't have dependence in proprietary software but I do. Within that context this matters a lot to me. Normalizing the idea that the developers of proprietary software are acting ethically (if within their legal rights, which I would dispute) when they remove functionality is very troubling to me. I would rather that this kind of behavior, on the part of developers, be both socially taboo and illegal. Failing illegal I'll settle for socially taboo.
    - TameAntelope 6y ago
      What would it look like, if you were over-reacting? What facts would come to light that'd make you say, "Oops, my bad!"? Alternatively, if this is allowed to pass, what material differences will come into existence as a result? What predictions will you make about the lasting consequences of this specific action?
      - EvanAnderson 6y ago
        What would it look like, if you were over-reacting? What facts would come to light that'd make you say, "Oops, my bad!"? It's difficult for me to conceive of my reaction as an overreaction. I would like to explore that dialogue, but I can't get myself into a place to work from. I just can't do it. Alternatively, if this is allowed to pass, what material differences will come into existence as a result? What predictions will you make about the lasting consequences of this specific action? People won't know what general purpose computers are. They'll accept silly ideas like "Well, my computer just can't do that thing anymore." The full value that computers can bring to individuals and to society won't be realized. General purpose computers are a unique invention in human history. I hold the value they bring to humanity in high esteem. I think their ability to affect positive change on the human condition is difficult to understate. I perceive a systematic effort, and a manifest effect brought on by the marketplace, to eliminate access to general purpose computing for individuals and to replace computers with vaguely computer-shaped appliances. We're racing headlong into a "The Right to Read" scenario. Feeling that it's normal to accept somebody altering your computer because you agreed to a vaguely-worded license agreement stilted heavily in the favor of the software developer isn't alright. The more people think that's alright the worse things are for everybody.

EvanAnderson 6y ago

The Flash EULA[1] contains language about updates re: If your Computer is connected to the Internet, the Software may, without additional notice, check for Updates that are available for automatic download and installation to your Computer and let Adobe know the Software is successfully installed. The Software may automatically download and install updates from time to time from Adobe. These updates may take the form of bug fixes, new features, or new versions. You agree to receive such updates from Adobe as part of your use of the Software. I could see an argument that a self-destruct mechanism is a "bug fix" or a "new version". I could also see an argument that it's not. I'm coming around to the line of thinking that another poster mentioned-- that this could be considered Adobe criminally exceeding the access to my system that I've granted them. I agreed to updates. Not to removal of functionality. I can't do a damned thing about it, but it pisses me off, and I want other people to be pissed off about it to. Taking away functionality in somebody else's computer is unethical in my moral framework. Normalizing that idea is dangerous and wrong to me, too. [1] https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/licenses-terms/pdf/Flash_Player_32_0.pdf https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/licenses-terms... Edit: Would it be your contention that all software developers have the right to remove functionality in their software at any time? Does consideration paid factor into that? What if it's expeditious for my business model to disable my older software to get you to move to my new software? Does such disabling constitute an "update"?

TameAntelope 6y ago
At this point my primary concern is that the language and severity you’re claiming here diminishes the impact of future discussions, when something vastly more serious may actually be an overreach.
- EvanAnderson 6y ago
  It's that important to me. Maybe it isn't to you. So be it. Computing has been a major part of my life for 35 years. I wish that I didn't have dependence in proprietary software but I do. Within that context this matters a lot to me. Normalizing the idea that the developers of proprietary software are acting ethically (if within their legal rights, which I would dispute) when they remove functionality is very troubling to me. I would rather that this kind of behavior, on the part of developers, be both socially taboo and illegal. Failing illegal I'll settle for socially taboo.
  - TameAntelope 6y ago
    What would it look like, if you were over-reacting? What facts would come to light that'd make you say, "Oops, my bad!"? Alternatively, if this is allowed to pass, what material differences will come into existence as a result? What predictions will you make about the lasting consequences of this specific action?
    - EvanAnderson 6y ago
      What would it look like, if you were over-reacting? What facts would come to light that'd make you say, "Oops, my bad!"? It's difficult for me to conceive of my reaction as an overreaction. I would like to explore that dialogue, but I can't get myself into a place to work from. I just can't do it. Alternatively, if this is allowed to pass, what material differences will come into existence as a result? What predictions will you make about the lasting consequences of this specific action? People won't know what general purpose computers are. They'll accept silly ideas like "Well, my computer just can't do that thing anymore." The full value that computers can bring to individuals and to society won't be realized. General purpose computers are a unique invention in human history. I hold the value they bring to humanity in high esteem. I think their ability to affect positive change on the human condition is difficult to understate. I perceive a systematic effort, and a manifest effect brought on by the marketplace, to eliminate access to general purpose computing for individuals and to replace computers with vaguely computer-shaped appliances. We're racing headlong into a "The Right to Read" scenario. Feeling that it's normal to accept somebody altering your computer because you agreed to a vaguely-worded license agreement stilted heavily in the favor of the software developer isn't alright. The more people think that's alright the worse things are for everybody.