3 ms·

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 compan

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.

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.