4 ms·
Is putting 35TB in a dropbox automatically "abusive"? It sounds more like they're blaming legitimate customers for using their service because of a handful of a
by strken 3y ago
Is putting 35TB in a dropbox automatically "abusive"? It sounds more like they're blaming legitimate customers for using their service because of a handful of abusive ones.
- Arrath 3y ago35TB is a lot but hardly seems 'abusive', I would have thought the threshold for that would be somewhere over 100TB.
- plasticsoprano 3y agoIt’s more than 35TB per license. Considering their lowest cost advanced team is 3 licenses that’s 105 TB across the team. They also say 99% of their users aren’t affected by this so is it automatically abusive? I don’t know. But it doesn’t sound like they are blaming their legitimate users, just that 1%.
- strken 3y ago35TB is a reasonable amount for e.g. storing raw camera footage or other legitimate business needs. It's definitely not automatically abusive for 100% of that 1%, which means they're blaming at least some legitimate users.
- predictabl3 3y agoIt's them making excuses for users calling them on obvious bullshit advertising. What a terrible article too. What the hell does "crypto creeps" even mean? If it's plaintext over 35TB, it's fine?
- supertrope 3y agoEverything either has a price or a dignity. Some things are okay to do, just pay for it. Some actions are not okay even if you offer lots of money. Dropbox is muddying two different things. They’re trying to shame unprofitable users who are enjoying a flat rate plan by associating them with cryptocurrency controversy. Instead of saying we want to advertise unlimited while still being able to refuse service to very heavy users, they try to say it’s only a small minority of “abusers” who are engaged in unsavory activities. They’re trying to use a “dignity” based argument when it’s unprofitable for them.