5 ms·

The content of the post was not at all what I expected. The funny thing about principles is they're easy to have when they're not being tested. For example: "

by aculver 14y ago

The content of the post was not at all what I expected. The funny thing about principles is they're easy to have when they're not being tested. For example: "'I really don’t want this guy’s money,' Tyler said at one point. We’re glad not to have it." That's a lot easier to say when the offer of money is no longer on the table. I'm not sure at what point that was actually said, but in the article it comes after giving this guy a demo of the system, making genuine recommendations about his entire process, and doing actual customization work for the guy. Patent trolling aside, using the law of the land to justify going against your personal conscience is a horrible idea.

mcherm 14y ago
> using the law of the land to justify going against your personal conscience I don't see it that way at all. Their personal consciences recoiled at providing support for a patent troll and they recoiled at imposing censorship based on the content of a client's messages. They had to reconcile these two opposing attacks of conscience.
- kkowalczyk 14y ago
  Refusing a service to someone you don't like, for whatever reason, is not censorship, so there is no conflict of ethics. The line is less clear when the company is in a position of great power (e.g. Google in search, Apple in smartphones) but it's clear that e.g. restaurant can have a dress code (which is frivolous) and refuse service if you don't comply with that dress code and an insignificant crm business can refuse you service for any reason whatsoever. It's not censorship because there's another restaurant just around the corner and another crm product a click away. The article is framed as some epic battle of ethics but all I get from it is that $10/month is deciding factor in their decisions. They don't want the money from patent trolls but they'll take it if given.
  - FuzzyDunlop 14y ago
    I think the difference with the restaurant analogy is that the dress code is applied before you enter and are seated. Thus you'll be turned away outright for dressing improperly. Compare it to this, where the issue only arose because the customer made clear their intention well after signing up. I'm seeing the main issue here being that enforcing their own ideals, so they don't serve the customers they want, involves waiting for the to contact support, lest they violate their own ethics re: privacy and data protection. How many new customers will they get when they earn a reputation of applying a personal and undisclosed set of ethics and ideals to customers any time after they sign up?
  - mcherm 14y ago
    I disagree. It IS censorship to prevent someone from using your service to distribute their message. It is not GOVERNMENT censorship. Censorship engaged in voluntarily is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is there a legally protected right to use someone else's service to distribute your message. But in this case LessAnnoying had a value of their own (not legally mandated) of allowing anyone to use their service regardless of content. They used Apple's AppStore as an example of the kind of behavior they did NOT want to engage in. This internal desire not to refuse service based on the content of the message came into conflict with their desire not to assist patent trolls. They chose to value the former over the latter.
the_bear 14y ago
To be clear, we tell customers all the time that they shouldn't use our software. Each customer is worth $10/month, so it's not worth having people on the system that don't belong. This wasn't about the money at all, it was about the precedent it would set. How do we convince our other users that they can trust us if we're arbitrarily booting users because we disagree with them.
- jeremyarussell 14y ago
  They would start trusting you on your principals, if they didn't agree and you lost a customer, then it's a customer that didn't line up with what you as a person line up with, and therefore you shouldn't be worried about them. Edit: Didn't really wrap up my final thought.
  - eridius 14y ago
    It's a really scary precedent to say that you can only use software if the software vendor's morals are compatible with your own morals. Thought experiment: If the guys running Less Annoying CRM are strong atheists (note: I have no idea what their religious beliefs are), and this post was about whether or not they'd provide support for a devoutly christian customer, what would the reaction be? Would you still think it's ok for them to boot the customer because their principles don't mesh with their customer's?
    - jeremyarussell 14y ago
      Yes. Just don't complain when all the religious customers go away.
      - eridius 14y ago
        What if it's a physical storefront? Would you be ok with, say, an ice cream parlor run by christians that put up a sign saying atheists are not welcome? Note, this actually happened, and people were outraged. http://freethinker.co.uk/2011/11/23/missouri-ice-cream-shop-owner-feels-the-heat-after-briefly-barring-atheists/ http://freethinker.co.uk/2011/11/23/missouri-ice-cream-shop-...
seanica 14y ago
I was expecting a punchline such as, "The troll, on seeing the implementation of our feature set has notified our lawyers that we are infringing on his patent"

by aculver 14y ago

mcherm 14y ago

> using the law of the land to justify going against your personal conscience I don't see it that way at all. Their personal consciences recoiled at providing support for a patent troll and they recoiled at imposing censorship based on the content of a client's messages. They had to reconcile these two opposing attacks of conscience.

kkowalczyk 14y ago
Refusing a service to someone you don't like, for whatever reason, is not censorship, so there is no conflict of ethics. The line is less clear when the company is in a position of great power (e.g. Google in search, Apple in smartphones) but it's clear that e.g. restaurant can have a dress code (which is frivolous) and refuse service if you don't comply with that dress code and an insignificant crm business can refuse you service for any reason whatsoever. It's not censorship because there's another restaurant just around the corner and another crm product a click away. The article is framed as some epic battle of ethics but all I get from it is that $10/month is deciding factor in their decisions. They don't want the money from patent trolls but they'll take it if given.
- FuzzyDunlop 14y ago
  I think the difference with the restaurant analogy is that the dress code is applied before you enter and are seated. Thus you'll be turned away outright for dressing improperly. Compare it to this, where the issue only arose because the customer made clear their intention well after signing up. I'm seeing the main issue here being that enforcing their own ideals, so they don't serve the customers they want, involves waiting for the to contact support, lest they violate their own ethics re: privacy and data protection. How many new customers will they get when they earn a reputation of applying a personal and undisclosed set of ethics and ideals to customers any time after they sign up?
- mcherm 14y ago
  I disagree. It IS censorship to prevent someone from using your service to distribute their message. It is not GOVERNMENT censorship. Censorship engaged in voluntarily is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is there a legally protected right to use someone else's service to distribute your message. But in this case LessAnnoying had a value of their own (not legally mandated) of allowing anyone to use their service regardless of content. They used Apple's AppStore as an example of the kind of behavior they did NOT want to engage in. This internal desire not to refuse service based on the content of the message came into conflict with their desire not to assist patent trolls. They chose to value the former over the latter.

the_bear 14y ago

To be clear, we tell customers all the time that they shouldn't use our software. Each customer is worth $10/month, so it's not worth having people on the system that don't belong. This wasn't about the money at all, it was about the precedent it would set. How do we convince our other users that they can trust us if we're arbitrarily booting users because we disagree with them.

jeremyarussell 14y ago
They would start trusting you on your principals, if they didn't agree and you lost a customer, then it's a customer that didn't line up with what you as a person line up with, and therefore you shouldn't be worried about them. Edit: Didn't really wrap up my final thought.
- eridius 14y ago
  It's a really scary precedent to say that you can only use software if the software vendor's morals are compatible with your own morals. Thought experiment: If the guys running Less Annoying CRM are strong atheists (note: I have no idea what their religious beliefs are), and this post was about whether or not they'd provide support for a devoutly christian customer, what would the reaction be? Would you still think it's ok for them to boot the customer because their principles don't mesh with their customer's?
  - jeremyarussell 14y ago
    Yes. Just don't complain when all the religious customers go away.
    - eridius 14y ago
      What if it's a physical storefront? Would you be ok with, say, an ice cream parlor run by christians that put up a sign saying atheists are not welcome? Note, this actually happened, and people were outraged. http://freethinker.co.uk/2011/11/23/missouri-ice-cream-shop-owner-feels-the-heat-after-briefly-barring-atheists/ http://freethinker.co.uk/2011/11/23/missouri-ice-cream-shop-...

seanica 14y ago

I was expecting a punchline such as, "The troll, on seeing the implementation of our feature set has notified our lawyers that we are infringing on his patent"