[coldtea]

I don't think you can piss on customers for 2 months and then drop a "sorry for the inconvenience".

And for no good reason.

Just assume the improbable cost of some litigation as a company, like tens of thousands of others (including much bigger and much smaller than yours) did, put up a message to European customers and have them click and proceed as usual to the service.

Or, you know, use the headstart of more than a year before the law was put into practice to get the service in order...

[bartread]

I'm not sure why the above is getting downvoted. Sure, it's a bit salty, but if I were paying for instapaper (which I realise is cheap as chips, but the principle still stands) I don't think I'd be very impressed with being locked out for two months.

Genuine question: as an EU citizen, without the use of a VPN or proxy is it still possible to at least log on to the service to cancel your account?

[s17n]

I never understand why people assume that services that charge money will be more responsive to users' concerns than free services. You are worth the revenue that you generate, whether that money comes from you paying or indirect means like advertising doesn't matter to the company at all.

[hermitdev]

Not an EU citizen, but I'd think it'd be pretty shady if they cut you off and didn't automatically suspend any subscription charges until they can properly serve you again.

[tedmiston]

> and didn't automatically suspend any subscription charges

Instapaper is not a subscription-based service. The product is completely free on all platforms today.

I think the app was a one-time purchase at launch but it has been free for many years. All of the Premium features were also made free when Premium was discontinued in 2016 shortly after the Pinterest acquisition.

[kungtotte]

I found no such way, but I emailed their support and asked them to delete my account which they did no questions asked.

[pembrook]

I could understand the outrage if this was a service you were paying for.

But this is a Free service being provided to you. Why do you believe you have the right to dictate how someone else uses their time when you're not paying for it?

[a1369209993]

I believe that I have the right to demand that someone else doesn't use their time to burglarize my house, and if they and other companies have made a side business of burglarizing peoples houses, I think it's entirely resonable to demand that they and any similar company spend time proving that they aren't planning to continue.

(And yes, I realize the houses in this metaphor rarely have doors in their doorways, much less locks, so it's techinally not burglary, but frankly I don't care.)

[pembrook]

That analogy makes no sense.

The proper analogy would be: You invite a volunteer carpenter in to fix your cabinets. He asks if he can write down what cereal your family eats instead of taking payment. You say sure! (ie agree to the terms of service).

New law passes. He refuses to come back and fix your cabinets for free next time because he doesn’t want to get sued for writing down the cereal names improperly.

You then scream at him and call him names, and try to ruin his reputation on the internet and accuse him of being a thief.

Maybe if the sanctity of what cereal your family eats is so important to you, you should just directly pay money to a normal carpenter next time?

[coldtea]

>He refuses to come back and fix your cabinets for free next time

First, Instapaper is a continuous service. If you store something, you want access to it again. It's not a series of one-off, independent services.

So, no, they didn't just "refused to come back and fix your cabinets for free next time". They gave you a space to write your notes and store your links, and then they denied access to that for 2 months (and counting).

Second, you forgot the part where Instapaper had paid services for years, and that many people who are denied service today, had paid good money and stick with it. They weren't asked if they wanted it to br made free and unreliable either.

[coldtea]

>I could understand the outrage if this was a service you were paying for.

So, if Gmail was closed to the free tier European users for 2 months+, they should be OK, because "they didn't pay for it"?

>But this is a Free service being provided to you. Why do you believe you have the right to dictate how someone else uses their time when you're not paying for it?

That's an argument for the 1950s economy, this is 2018. We have other models, such as ads, user profiling, even pure eyeballs as a M&A/IPO monetisation strategies. Just because the user doesn't paid doesn't mean money aren't made from the user using the service. Except if one believe they run it from the goodness of their hearts at a loss, but then they probably also believe in the Tooth Fairy.

Not to mention that Instapaper used to actually charge too. If someone paid for the app or premium later for years, is it ok if they "make it free" and then deny access to their account for 2 months?

[sfifs]

> piss on customers for 2 months and then drop a "sorry for the inconvenience".

I thought Instapaper was a free service that Pinterest bought mainly for it's article parsing technology? As an analogy FB's customers are advertisers and media agencies who pay to keep the lights on as is Pinterest's, users are not the customers.

[coldtea]

In any case, people (including people who had paid before it was made free) had their data in it -- and lost service for 2 months. Even at free, would you be OK with e.g. Gmail (also free) or FB closing down for 2 months and then coming back with an "oopsie"?