3 ms·

This is unwise. The main idea is that, as someone suggested in a comment: it has a nonzero probability that it will shame somebody into paying. This is i

This is unwise. The main idea is that, as someone suggested in a comment: it has a nonzero probability that it will shame somebody into paying. This is in fact quite unlikely. If you believe this, you are not considering why someone isn't paying. In the majority of cases, the reason is disagreement. Nothing is going to materially change about a disagreement by taking a website hostage. You are only exacerbating the issue. The main thing you achieve by something like this is satisfying your personal sense of justice and being judge, jury and executioner to accomplish it. However, that's vigilantism and as in most other examples of that, it is probably illegal. As a webhoster, you may suspend hosting. As a designer, you may withdraw someone's license to your design. As a hoster and designer, assuming a single contract covering both, suspending hosting is by far the easiest, as the other path requires legal action. However, you should never replace agreed upon content with something that would be defamation if your claim were denied. Just suspend hosting.

marcosdumay 13y ago
> In the majority of cases, the reason is... You are the third person making the same kind of claim. It's not that I disagree, in the majority of the cases, something like that isn't a nice thing to do... But this is one case, not the majority, we know nothing about it, except that it's in an extreme minority. If for no other reason, because the designer decided to retaliate this way. We are looking at extreme selection bias here, don't shove it under a carpet.
- Confusion 13y ago
  You always discuss an issue based on the specific case that raises the issue, but that doesn't mean there is automatically extreme selection bias going on. The relevant facts of a case are rarely unique. I've seen a dozen or so of such cases in the past ten years and I've never heard of a case where this kind of retaliation worked. If I report that my green car was stolen and claim that a gang stealing green cars is active, then people respond with "That's unlikely, they're probably just stealing every car they can get their hands on". In line with your argument, they should instead say "Wow, a gang stealing green cars, how unlikely. How wonderous I would stumble upon this case of extreme selection bias here on the web". That is even ignoring the fact that it is probably illegal. You are allowed to end the delivery of a service if the other party effectively cancels a contract, but you are not allowed to keep delivering the service in a way that breaches the contract. You cannot just serve any content you want on their domain (unless this situation was specifically foreseen in the contract).
fennecfoxen 13y ago
First: "Nonzero" doesn't mean "likely". Second: Defamation? What do you think this is, Europe? Go read New York Times vs Sullivan and get back to me talking about whether this website's claim was published with "reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." You're going to get approximately zero mileage with defamation in the US court system.
mikeash 13y ago
I've had people not pay before. The reason was never "disagreement". It was always either insane internal bureaucracy or just plain stinginess. In both cases, you can get paid if you convince them that they stand to lose more by not paying.

marcosdumay 13y ago

> In the majority of cases, the reason is... You are the third person making the same kind of claim. It's not that I disagree, in the majority of the cases, something like that isn't a nice thing to do... But this is one case, not the majority, we know nothing about it, except that it's in an extreme minority. If for no other reason, because the designer decided to retaliate this way. We are looking at extreme selection bias here, don't shove it under a carpet.

Confusion 13y ago
You always discuss an issue based on the specific case that raises the issue, but that doesn't mean there is automatically extreme selection bias going on. The relevant facts of a case are rarely unique. I've seen a dozen or so of such cases in the past ten years and I've never heard of a case where this kind of retaliation worked. If I report that my green car was stolen and claim that a gang stealing green cars is active, then people respond with "That's unlikely, they're probably just stealing every car they can get their hands on". In line with your argument, they should instead say "Wow, a gang stealing green cars, how unlikely. How wonderous I would stumble upon this case of extreme selection bias here on the web". That is even ignoring the fact that it is probably illegal. You are allowed to end the delivery of a service if the other party effectively cancels a contract, but you are not allowed to keep delivering the service in a way that breaches the contract. You cannot just serve any content you want on their domain (unless this situation was specifically foreseen in the contract).

fennecfoxen 13y ago

First: "Nonzero" doesn't mean "likely". Second: Defamation? What do you think this is, Europe? Go read New York Times vs Sullivan and get back to me talking about whether this website's claim was published with "reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." You're going to get approximately zero mileage with defamation in the US court system.

mikeash 13y ago

I've had people not pay before. The reason was never "disagreement". It was always either insane internal bureaucracy or just plain stinginess. In both cases, you can get paid if you convince them that they stand to lose more by not paying.