3 ms·

More laws aren’t always the answer. Really, we should just be using a company that gives a shit about its users.

by rzz3 5y ago

ngold 5y ago
True. The sheer scale of not giving a crap is what is truly impressive. Alphabet has built a monster system meant solely to not have a phone number. That's a scary innovation.
- darig 5y ago
Gigachad 5y ago
Problem is it all works just fine until you get locked out and have no options. So the market won't ever gradually move over because its only a very small % who get hit with an awful experience while everyone else is perfectly fine.
- ngold 5y ago
  And now I'm signed up to the system. It's terrifying. At any point. You're done. Hence the nothing clause. I'm sure any game I submit to the play will be wrapped in googs analytics. No matter what my privacy police says.
xg15 5y ago
Because that worked so well in the past. There is no "we" - they wouldn't have become a billion dollar company if they hadn't found ways to make people still use them despite those issues. But that doesn't mean they aren't issues.
foxfluff 5y ago
I don't think people are informed well enough to know which company gives a shit about its users. Google had pretty good reputation when I started first using GMail via an invite during the beta. I agree more laws aren't always the answer but I really do think that companies should take some responsibility as far as customers' data and property is concerned. If I take my car to be serviced, they can't just tow it to a junkyard and tell me to fuck off. Even if they advertised free service. If you can't provide a free service and take responsibility for it, then don't. IMO, if the service includes "borrowing" property (rent, email server), then they can't just cut the customer off without giving them time and the means to move off. (It would be illegal here for my landlord to step in and lock me out tomorrow)

More laws aren’t always the answer. Really, we should just be using a company that gives a shit about its users.

by rzz3 5y ago

More laws aren’t always the answer. Really, we should just be using a company that gives a shit about its users.

True. The sheer scale of not giving a crap is what is truly impressive. Alphabet has built a monster system meant solely to not have a phone number. That's a scary innovation.

darig 5y ago

Gigachad 5y ago

Problem is it all works just fine until you get locked out and have no options. So the market won't ever gradually move over because its only a very small % who get hit with an awful experience while everyone else is perfectly fine.

ngold 5y ago
And now I'm signed up to the system. It's terrifying. At any point. You're done. Hence the nothing clause. I'm sure any game I submit to the play will be wrapped in googs analytics. No matter what my privacy police says.

xg15 5y ago

Because that worked so well in the past. There is no "we" - they wouldn't have become a billion dollar company if they hadn't found ways to make people still use them despite those issues. But that doesn't mean they aren't issues.

foxfluff 5y ago

I don't think people are informed well enough to know which company gives a shit about its users. Google had pretty good reputation when I started first using GMail via an invite during the beta. I agree more laws aren't always the answer but I really do think that companies should take some responsibility as far as customers' data and property is concerned. If I take my car to be serviced, they can't just tow it to a junkyard and tell me to fuck off. Even if they advertised free service. If you can't provide a free service and take responsibility for it, then don't. IMO, if the service includes "borrowing" property (rent, email server), then they can't just cut the customer off without giving them time and the means to move off. (It would be illegal here for my landlord to step in and lock me out tomorrow)