[joshiefishbein]

> Users have the right to subvert software and platform restrictions that would force them to consume content that they do not wish to see, and to teach other people how to subvert these restrictions. Users have the right to distribute software that circumvent technological restrictions for the purposes of personal content filtering.

How about "Users have the right to not use software that forces [...]"? I have a hard time agreeing with the idea that people agree to a ToS and then have a right to abuse the platform. Seems like that could lead to an inconsiderate/unsafe/unfair place for other people and stakeholders in that platform. I understand that anyone can do whatever they want whenever they wish and that it's up to the platform to battle "subversion" and misuse – but I don't believe it should be an indoctrinated imperative.

This applies to most of what is found in "Right to Modify". I think there's truly a legal nuance to who owns what (especially when a lot of folks are currently renting their phones from their device manufacturers or service providers).

The sentiment seems to elevate the end user and expose the software developers a bit more than I personally care for. There should be more emphasis on the responsibility of users to understand what they are getting themselves into.

EDIT: I drew my guns too quickly and forgot to mention I appreciate most of the other points and its simple presentation. I see the OP in the comments and commend ya for taking the leap.

[x220]

The great thing about the right to modify is that it's a natural right. I can use uBlock Origin and no one can stop me unless they engineer a tyrannical system. Users reverse engineer programs and subvert restrictions because internet companies are notorious for breaking the law or crossing ethical boundaries without paying for it. EULAs often contain illegal clauses, so it's unreasonable to ask people to follow the EULA. At the end of the day users will (barring some Orwellian software restrictions imposed on everyone) do what they want and take whatever liberties they can to browse the internet without restrictions and without tracking if that's what they want. If internet companies didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't have fucked over consumers at every possible opportunity.

[kick]

How about "Users have the right to not use software that forces [...]"? I have a hard time agreeing with the idea that people agree to a ToS and then have a right to abuse the platform. Seems like that could lead to an inconsiderate/unsafe/unfair place for other people and stakeholders in that platform. I understand that anyone can do whatever they want whenever they wish and that it's up to the platform to battle "subversion" and misuse – but I don't believe it should be an indoctrinated imperative.

Ads are war. Just as a user has a right to avoid them, a content publisher has a right to try and push them on people. Cat and mouse game. It's not "abuse" when ads that cost users to view (bandwidth costs; attention-cost) are blocked or pushed on people.

[ChristianBundy]

> I think there's truly a legal nuance to who owns what (especially when a lot of folks are currently renting their phones from their device manufacturers or service providers).

If you send me a webpage full of advertisements, I'm under no obligation to look at those advertisements or display them on my monitor. I don't think there's much nuance here.

Maybe you could be more specific about the use-case you're thinking of? I can't think of a reason why the freedom to filter (alternatively, the choice to listen) takes much nuance at all.