[caconym_]

> doing so elsewhere would deservedly be criticized.

I suggest that these people express their criticism by not using the software in question. I doubt the typical purveyor of free-as-in-* software who's stuck between a rock and a hard place re: monetization particularly cares what somebody who doesn't understand the personal specifics of their dilemma thinks about their chosen solution to it.

[least]

> I suggest that these people express their criticism by not using the software in question.

Do you also suggest that when an application is ad-ridden or potentially malware-ridden to also just not use the app? Naturally that's an option, but the review is to warn other users of their experience.

I don't think death threats or calling people slurs is appropriate, but the review being complained about it is pretty mundane.

[caconym_]

> Do you also suggest that when an application is ad-ridden or potentially malware-ridden to also just not use the app? Naturally that's an option, but the review is to warn other users of their experience.

Is a restaurant owner pissed off about a one star review by somebody who didn't like the decor in the bathroom implicitly suggesting that people who receive food poisoning at a restaurant have no right to communicate that experience to other potential customers? Is a homeowner who puts out ant traps in her kitchen tacitly endorsing genocide?

I think there is such a vast gulf between displaying a mildly annoying message asking for donations and tricking someone into installing malware on their computer that anybody with a moderately intact sense of proportionality should have no trouble seeing it. So, no, I don't suggest that.

[least]

I think there's even greater utility in telling people about minor things that might annoy them, because those minor things aren't going to get a developer's application pulled from the app store, but have a meaningful impact on the user's experience.

That is, in fact, exactly what reviews are for.

[caconym_]

> I think there's even greater utility in [...]

You really think it's more important for me to air my grievances about a free software's occasional donation nag messages than to tell other potential users it's a front for malware? That's honestly really strange, and I categorically disagree.

[least]

It's greater utility in the sense that there's other mechanisms in place to report malware that are more effective at getting that changed than just the review section.

Reviews are much more useful for applications that stick around on the app store, or chrome web store, or whatever else, because well, they're still there.

[caconym_]

I disagree. In my experience, user/customer reviews have been vastly more useful to me for learning about serious safety or quality issues with a product or service than they have been for any purpose (unspecified because I really can't think of any) predicated on learning about specific users' weird gripes. I can practically smell the unreasonableness dripping off that review somebody linked above, and I would ignore it if I spotted it in a list of reviews—but unfortunately I can't ignore it out of the aggregate rating.

Anyway, this isn't going anywhere productive, so I'm out.

[kerkeslager]

> I suggest that these people express their criticism by not using the software in question.

As with most "love it or leave it" arguments, this is a transparent attempt to silence critics without actually bothering to engage with criticism, even if it's constructive.

Anything you put in front of a significant number of people will be criticized, and rightly so, because it's not perfect. Admitting things aren't perfect is the first step to making things better.

This argument is particularly disigenuous in the context of a discussion about YouTube, because YouTube is effectively a monopoly in a number of ways--it's effectively an argument that once a product reaches monopoly status, it can do whatever it wants and nobody can criticize.

Adults learn to accept, integrate, and throttle their intake of criticism. If you haven't, you have some growing up to do.

[chii]

> Admitting things aren't perfect is the first step to making things better.

the implied assumption being made here with this train of thought is that it is the author's imperative duty to make things better.

It is not. The author has zero obligation to make it better for anyone; they do it at their leisure and at their convenience.

[least]

> It is not. The author has zero obligation to make it better for anyone; they do it at their leisure and at their convenience.

Yes, and it's people's prerogative to write reviews criticizing the software that is published, regardless of whether it's paid or not.

[dessant]

> Yes, and it's people's prerogative to write reviews criticizing the software that is published, regardless of whether it's paid or not.

Do you think that review was respectful, now that you know that the donation prompt was not obtrusive nor randomly shown (see my other comments, it has been explained in detail)? Don't you feel that the way this person expressed themselves was rather demeaning, and perhaps somewhat unjust?

[least]

> Do you think that review was respectful

Not particularly, but I also wouldn't really describe it as particularly disgusting or demeaning, either. It could have been worded better, but I'm not going to read too deeply into what random people on the internet say about me personally.

I find anything that's trying to interrupt what I'm doing like popup advertisements, cookie modals, and other things of the sort irritating because it forces me out of my workflow and requires action to continue what I was doing. It doesn't really matter how frequent it is. When i'm actively installing extensions I expect there to be a popup that is giving me information about the application. Dark Reader has a donation button featured on their popup from their action. I don't find this to be invasive even though it's there literally any time I interact with the extension. I ended up paying for the extension on safari because I liked it so much.

That's just my opinion, though. There's a lot of things that I find distasteful that would make me uninstall an application that seemingly don't bother the majority of people, and ultimately, you have a right to make your application how you see fit, but I don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing it for what that user clearly views as distasteful.

[kerkeslager]

I don't think that your opinion that the prompt was not obtrusive is objective truth. Whether a prompt is obtrusive or not is very much a matter of subjective opinion, and I tend to value user opinions on user experience over creator opinions on user experience.

The fact that the donation prompt was shown on startup doesn't undermine the reviewer's preference for not seeing a donation prompt at all. They're factually incorrect on a minor detail, but that doesn't change the larger point.

The rudest part of the review was them referring to the prompt as "panhandling", which is actually inaccurate, and if I were writing the review I would have used a milder, more accurate word there (maybe "soliciting"?). But in receiving any communication from anyone, it's unreasonable to expect people to communicate perfectly, and I try to understand people rather than criticize how they communicate their ideas. I certainly would not describe that as "disgusting" or "appalling".

And again, I'm not saying you should remove the donation prompt. In fact, if you made it show up every time until a user donated, I'd have no objections. Users wouldn't like this, but you're not obligated to fulfill users' every wish. Just as users aren't obligated to fawn over everything you do when it doesn't do what they want it to do.

Believe it or not, users can want things, and you can ignore what they want, and those are both okay!

[caconym_]

I don't think anybody here is saying it's illegal to be an asshole.

[kerkeslager]

No, I'm not implying that at all. The author of the software isn't the only one who might improve the software based on the criticism. A completely different person might decide to clone the software with suggested improvements, for example.

[agos]

In which case the author can happily ignore all the reviews!

[caconym_]

I flagged this comment because it contains a personal attack:

> Adults learn to accept, integrate, and throttle their intake of criticism. If you haven't, you have some growing up to do.

Normally I would respond to this kind of thing in a different way, but the (apparently) lone HN moderator has previously informed me that stooping to the level of such attacks is just as bad in HN's eyes as being the one to make them in the first place. Accordingly, I place my rhetorical fate in the hands of the mod[s], and I look forward to seeing your rule-breaking comment removed.

[kerkeslager]

Nothing says "my opinions are correct" like refusing to respond to the content of criticism and instead trying to get it censored.

[caconym_]

If you want to know what I have to say, feel free to start a new subthread replying to me with the rulebreaking content removed. I would be all too happy to respond to any substantive arguments you are able to present without resorting to personal attacks as a rhetorical crutch.

[kerkeslager]

I disagree that constructive criticism is against the rules.

If you want to say something, say it, if you don't, don't--why would I care? I've said my opinion and posturing that you're better than the discussion doesn't persuade anyone that you're right. It hasn't been my experience that when people self-censor, they later reveal they had some brilliant counterargument that we were all missing out on.

[caconym_]

Okay.

[xorcist]

I totally agree with this sentiment. Could I also bill the creator for my time invested in learning the software and adjusting my workflows for it, all the hours invested before the hidden anti-features showed the true intention of the software? Otherwise this whole argument could legitimize spyware. I could not reasonably decide to stop using the software before I was informed of the anti-features, regardless of how their invasiveness.

[dessant]

It's definitely a strange proposition, but you could try it yourself.

Install Signal on your phone and start using it, in a couple of months you will be shown a donation popup a single time when you open the app. At this point uninstall the app and contact Signal's development team to send them an invoice for your invested time that has now been ruined when that donation prompt has interrupted your messaging experience.

Also call them beggars and panhandlers, after all that's perfectly reasonable, and even respectable.

[glenneroo]

For the record, I get that donate popup on Signal every couple weeks, and it's all the more annoying because I donated for several years until they recently removed SMS support.

[xorcist]

Well, which is it?

Either we should accept software with hidden misfeatures without complaining, in which case the user must receive compensation for their time, or we should complain and inform others of the misfeature.

Uninstalling the software in silence is an invitation for more spyware and trojaned software.

[caconym_]

Sure, and why stop there? You might also e.g. bill/sue the author of a free software you invested time into learning because they are no longer providing free updates, rendering the software obsolete and your time investment wasted.