5 ms·

> doing so elsewhere would deservedly be criticized. I suggest that these people express their criticism by not using the software in question. I doubt the typ

> doing so elsewhere would deservedly be criticized. I suggest that these people express their criticism by not using the software in question. I doubt the typical purveyor of free-as-in-* software who's stuck between a rock and a hard place re: monetization particularly cares what somebody who doesn't understand the personal specifics of their dilemma thinks about their chosen solution to it.

least 3y ago
> I suggest that these people express their criticism by not using the software in question. Do you also suggest that when an application is ad-ridden or potentially malware-ridden to also just not use the app? Naturally that's an option, but the review is to warn other users of their experience. I don't think death threats or calling people slurs is appropriate, but the review being complained about it is pretty mundane.
- caconym_ 3y ago
  > Do you also suggest that when an application is ad-ridden or potentially malware-ridden to also just not use the app? Naturally that's an option, but the review is to warn other users of their experience. Is a restaurant owner pissed off about a one star review by somebody who didn't like the decor in the bathroom implicitly suggesting that people who receive food poisoning at a restaurant have no right to communicate that experience to other potential customers? Is a homeowner who puts out ant traps in her kitchen tacitly endorsing genocide? I think there is such a vast gulf between displaying a mildly annoying message asking for donations and tricking someone into installing malware on their computer that anybody with a moderately intact sense of proportionality should have no trouble seeing it. So, no, I don't suggest that.
  - least 3y ago
    I think there's even greater utility in telling people about minor things that might annoy them, because those minor things aren't going to get a developer's application pulled from the app store, but have a meaningful impact on the user's experience. That is, in fact, exactly what reviews are for.
    - caconym_ 3y ago
      > I think there's even greater utility in [...] You really think it's more important for me to air my grievances about a free software's occasional donation nag messages than to tell other potential users it's a front for malware? That's honestly really strange, and I categorically disagree.
      - least 3y ago
        It's greater utility in the sense that there's other mechanisms in place to report malware that are more effective at getting that changed than just the review section. Reviews are much more useful for applications that stick around on the app store, or chrome web store, or whatever else, because well, they're still there.
        caconym_ 3y ago
        I disagree. In my experience, user/customer reviews have been vastly more useful to me for learning about serious safety or quality issues with a product or service than they have been for any purpose (unspecified because I really can't think of any) predicated on learning about specific users' weird gripes. I can practically smell the unreasonableness dripping off that review somebody linked above, and I would ignore it if I spotted it in a list of reviews—but unfortunately I can't ignore it out of the aggregate rating. Anyway, this isn't going anywhere productive, so I'm out.
kerkeslager 3y ago
> I suggest that these people express their criticism by not using the software in question. As with most "love it or leave it" arguments, this is a transparent attempt to silence critics without actually bothering to engage with criticism, even if it's constructive. Anything you put in front of a significant number of people will be criticized, and rightly so, because it's not perfect. Admitting things aren't perfect is the first step to making things better. This argument is particularly disigenuous in the context of a discussion about YouTube, because YouTube is effectively a monopoly in a number of ways--it's effectively an argument that once a product reaches monopoly status, it can do whatever it wants and nobody can criticize. Adults learn to accept, integrate, and throttle their intake of criticism. If you haven't, you have some growing up to do.
- chii 3y ago
  > Admitting things aren't perfect is the first step to making things better. the implied assumption being made here with this train of thought is that it is the author's imperative duty to make things better. It is not. The author has zero obligation to make it better for anyone; they do it at their leisure and at their convenience.
  - least 3y ago
    > It is not. The author has zero obligation to make it better for anyone; they do it at their leisure and at their convenience. Yes, and it's people's prerogative to write reviews criticizing the software that is published, regardless of whether it's paid or not.
    - caconym_ 3y ago
      I don't think anybody here is saying it's illegal to be an asshole.
    - dessant 3y ago
      > Yes, and it's people's prerogative to write reviews criticizing the software that is published, regardless of whether it's paid or not. Do you think that review was respectful, now that you know that the donation prompt was not obtrusive nor randomly shown (see my other comments, it has been explained in detail)? Don't you feel that the way this person expressed themselves was rather demeaning, and perhaps somewhat unjust?
xorcist 3y ago
I totally agree with this sentiment. Could I also bill the creator for my time invested in learning the software and adjusting my workflows for it, all the hours invested before the hidden anti-features showed the true intention of the software? Otherwise this whole argument could legitimize spyware. I could not reasonably decide to stop using the software before I was informed of the anti-features, regardless of how their invasiveness.
- dessant 3y ago
  It's definitely a strange proposition, but you could try it yourself. Install Signal on your phone and start using it, in a couple of months you will be shown a donation popup a single time when you open the app. At this point uninstall the app and contact Signal's development team to send them an invoice for your invested time that has now been ruined when that donation prompt has interrupted your messaging experience. Also call them beggars and panhandlers, after all that's perfectly reasonable, and even respectable.
  - glenneroo 3y ago
    For the record, I get that donate popup on Signal every couple weeks, and it's all the more annoying because I donated for several years until they recently removed SMS support.
  - xorcist 3y ago
    Well, which is it? Either we should accept software with hidden misfeatures without complaining, in which case the user must receive compensation for their time, or we should complain and inform others of the misfeature. Uninstalling the software in silence is an invitation for more spyware and trojaned software.
- caconym_ 3y ago
  Sure, and why stop there? You might also e.g. bill/sue the author of a free software you invested time into learning because they are no longer providing free updates, rendering the software obsolete and your time investment wasted.

least 3y ago

> I suggest that these people express their criticism by not using the software in question. Do you also suggest that when an application is ad-ridden or potentially malware-ridden to also just not use the app? Naturally that's an option, but the review is to warn other users of their experience. I don't think death threats or calling people slurs is appropriate, but the review being complained about it is pretty mundane.

caconym_ 3y ago
> Do you also suggest that when an application is ad-ridden or potentially malware-ridden to also just not use the app? Naturally that's an option, but the review is to warn other users of their experience. Is a restaurant owner pissed off about a one star review by somebody who didn't like the decor in the bathroom implicitly suggesting that people who receive food poisoning at a restaurant have no right to communicate that experience to other potential customers? Is a homeowner who puts out ant traps in her kitchen tacitly endorsing genocide? I think there is such a vast gulf between displaying a mildly annoying message asking for donations and tricking someone into installing malware on their computer that anybody with a moderately intact sense of proportionality should have no trouble seeing it. So, no, I don't suggest that.
- least 3y ago
  I think there's even greater utility in telling people about minor things that might annoy them, because those minor things aren't going to get a developer's application pulled from the app store, but have a meaningful impact on the user's experience. That is, in fact, exactly what reviews are for.
  - caconym_ 3y ago
    > I think there's even greater utility in [...] You really think it's more important for me to air my grievances about a free software's occasional donation nag messages than to tell other potential users it's a front for malware? That's honestly really strange, and I categorically disagree.
    - least 3y ago
      It's greater utility in the sense that there's other mechanisms in place to report malware that are more effective at getting that changed than just the review section. Reviews are much more useful for applications that stick around on the app store, or chrome web store, or whatever else, because well, they're still there.
      - caconym_ 3y ago
        I disagree. In my experience, user/customer reviews have been vastly more useful to me for learning about serious safety or quality issues with a product or service than they have been for any purpose (unspecified because I really can't think of any) predicated on learning about specific users' weird gripes. I can practically smell the unreasonableness dripping off that review somebody linked above, and I would ignore it if I spotted it in a list of reviews—but unfortunately I can't ignore it out of the aggregate rating. Anyway, this isn't going anywhere productive, so I'm out.

kerkeslager 3y ago

> I suggest that these people express their criticism by not using the software in question. As with most "love it or leave it" arguments, this is a transparent attempt to silence critics without actually bothering to engage with criticism, even if it's constructive. Anything you put in front of a significant number of people will be criticized, and rightly so, because it's not perfect. Admitting things aren't perfect is the first step to making things better. This argument is particularly disigenuous in the context of a discussion about YouTube, because YouTube is effectively a monopoly in a number of ways--it's effectively an argument that once a product reaches monopoly status, it can do whatever it wants and nobody can criticize. Adults learn to accept, integrate, and throttle their intake of criticism. If you haven't, you have some growing up to do.

chii 3y ago
> Admitting things aren't perfect is the first step to making things better. the implied assumption being made here with this train of thought is that it is the author's imperative duty to make things better. It is not. The author has zero obligation to make it better for anyone; they do it at their leisure and at their convenience.
- least 3y ago
  > It is not. The author has zero obligation to make it better for anyone; they do it at their leisure and at their convenience. Yes, and it's people's prerogative to write reviews criticizing the software that is published, regardless of whether it's paid or not.
  - caconym_ 3y ago
    I don't think anybody here is saying it's illegal to be an asshole.
  - dessant 3y ago
    > Yes, and it's people's prerogative to write reviews criticizing the software that is published, regardless of whether it's paid or not. Do you think that review was respectful, now that you know that the donation prompt was not obtrusive nor randomly shown (see my other comments, it has been explained in detail)? Don't you feel that the way this person expressed themselves was rather demeaning, and perhaps somewhat unjust?

xorcist 3y ago

I totally agree with this sentiment. Could I also bill the creator for my time invested in learning the software and adjusting my workflows for it, all the hours invested before the hidden anti-features showed the true intention of the software? Otherwise this whole argument could legitimize spyware. I could not reasonably decide to stop using the software before I was informed of the anti-features, regardless of how their invasiveness.

dessant 3y ago
It's definitely a strange proposition, but you could try it yourself. Install Signal on your phone and start using it, in a couple of months you will be shown a donation popup a single time when you open the app. At this point uninstall the app and contact Signal's development team to send them an invoice for your invested time that has now been ruined when that donation prompt has interrupted your messaging experience. Also call them beggars and panhandlers, after all that's perfectly reasonable, and even respectable.
- glenneroo 3y ago
  For the record, I get that donate popup on Signal every couple weeks, and it's all the more annoying because I donated for several years until they recently removed SMS support.
- xorcist 3y ago
  Well, which is it? Either we should accept software with hidden misfeatures without complaining, in which case the user must receive compensation for their time, or we should complain and inform others of the misfeature. Uninstalling the software in silence is an invitation for more spyware and trojaned software.
caconym_ 3y ago
Sure, and why stop there? You might also e.g. bill/sue the author of a free software you invested time into learning because they are no longer providing free updates, rendering the software obsolete and your time investment wasted.