|
|
|
|
|
|
by nine_k
1810 days ago
|
|
|
Would you prefer to hold private parties somehow liable to follow your convenience or best interest, and not their best interest? Anyone who would suggest that should prepare for this approach to be applied to themselves — that is, being coerced to do what some other people want. Whatever it is, it's not freedom. (Yes, indeed, the law works by coercion in the common interests. But I don't see any law having been broken here.) So yes, it's free to play — what did you expect? Too much? Memorize this, and remember next time. Tell your friends and relatives what to not expect. Name and shame the entities which did something unsavory: this helps make users less gullible, and through that, nudges companies to be more careful. Consider avoiding the use of stuff you don't control for important things. Be conscious when consuming free candy from a for-profit entity, even if you think your interests are currently aligned. But don't force anybody's hand. |
|
|
This is excellent advice, but it doesn't help all the people who are not even in the same league as this idea, who are just making their way through the landscape using whatever they come across to not get herded further into the vortex of asshole walled gardens.
The value proposition of this to mom or some kid is gonna sound like: "What?"