3 ms·

Where's the straw man? If you discuss "banning banning accounts", this is one (edge?) case. >"Why should they be allowed to unilaterally break contracts" In t

Where's the straw man? If you discuss "banning banning accounts", this is one (edge?) case. >"Why should they be allowed to unilaterally break contracts" In the case of the user infringing on the terms of service, they're just backing out through the regular exit clause following a breach that was on your end. Without breach of service, in most legislations contracts with an indefinite duration must have provisions that allow either party to terminate the contract with reasonable notice. Forcing them to hold onto your stuff for a month until you can figure out another provider or a way to self-host is reasonable notice. Maybe 3 months? A year? >Why shouldn't we demand a law that prohibits them from wiping our data without a court decision or a signed waiver from the account owner? Because that would be a burden for anyone willing to launch software that host any kind of user data

em-bee 1y ago
that would be a burden for anyone willing to launch software that host any kind of user data if dealing with consumers is a burden, then you should not start a business. the same argument is being made against right to repair and having spare parts available or against the ability to download all your data. or have it deleted. and yet that is being made law in several places. any provision to protect consumers is a burden. that is a non-argument. the question here is one of balance and appropriateness. if you go bankrupt, storing and making the data available for all users for another year is a burden. but if you have millions of users, keeping the data around for a few blocked users until their violation can be proven is not a burden. especially because you can potentially still continue to charge for the subscription.
- sebstefan 1y ago
  >the same argument is being made against right to repair and having spare parts available Just as valid back then. There's nothing wrong with the argument. You have to evaluate it every time. For right to repair we just decided it was worth it. I don't think this is worth it. A few months to dl your stuff is enough. Companies shouldn't need to host things that go against their terms of service when they ban you for infringing on their terms of service. It would be nonsense.

em-bee 1y ago

that would be a burden for anyone willing to launch software that host any kind of user data if dealing with consumers is a burden, then you should not start a business. the same argument is being made against right to repair and having spare parts available or against the ability to download all your data. or have it deleted. and yet that is being made law in several places. any provision to protect consumers is a burden. that is a non-argument. the question here is one of balance and appropriateness. if you go bankrupt, storing and making the data available for all users for another year is a burden. but if you have millions of users, keeping the data around for a few blocked users until their violation can be proven is not a burden. especially because you can potentially still continue to charge for the subscription.

sebstefan 1y ago
>the same argument is being made against right to repair and having spare parts available Just as valid back then. There's nothing wrong with the argument. You have to evaluate it every time. For right to repair we just decided it was worth it. I don't think this is worth it. A few months to dl your stuff is enough. Companies shouldn't need to host things that go against their terms of service when they ban you for infringing on their terms of service. It would be nonsense.