4 ms·
"a constitution of sorts for your users" When your users are trying to build businesses, they'll eventually realize they need demand a binding statement of rea
by dkarl 18y ago
"a constitution of sorts for your users"
When your users are trying to build businesses, they'll eventually realize they need demand a binding statement of reasonable terms, i.e., a contract. The system only scales if all the users accept one contract, or minor variations on a single contract. Therefore, a constitution is a brilliant idea.
The idea will encounter resistance because it contradicts two related biases that were ingrained during the early years of the web. First, the contract accepted by all users is a EULA (which eliminates all rights and guarantees no matter what the consumer thinks), not a contract (which attempts to specify a reasonable relationship acceptable to both parties). Second, people using a web site are consumers (who must be screwed blatantly and thoroughly) rather than business partners (who must be screwed subtly, if at all). I would love to see these two assumptions challenged.
- mindslight 18y agoFor those building business, there's money changing hands, and I think equitable contracts will spring up sooner - Google's recent snafus come to mind as examples of what happens when income streams are subject to "as-is" terms. But for free services, "as-is" agreements will always reign supreme. The ability to sue a company for violating said agreement is not worth much to a user, while creating a huge aggregate liability for the company. The way to give users rights is through technical means - export functionality and interoperability create well-defined capabilities that users can easily understand and exercise.