Do Free Services Have an Obligation to Users? Should We Regulate Them? | Hacker News Reader

Do Free Services Have an Obligation to Users? Should We Regulate Them?

danshafer.posterous.com

10 pointsasnyder18 comments

There is no logic at all underlying this piece. It's just pure entitlement — "I want everything and I want it for free without sacrificing any quality and I'm blaming you if I don't get it."

At no point does he consider the obvious — that if something is so important, maybe you should just pay for it. He talks about getting the government involved to provide a "cushion," whatever that means. Like, really? You think a huge regulatory department essentially tracking the entire Internet would be free?

I guess you can see it as entitlement on the part of the consumer but I see a sense of entitlement here on the part of the publisher. And who said anything about not sacrificing quality? You're projecting your fears onto me, hardly a fair argument.

The logic here is simple. If you provide a service, you have a moral obligation to treat those who use it with some modicum of respect. You obviously see some gain in being in the business or you wouldn't be there.

To say that I don't "consider the obvious" assumes that I've managed to put into a short blog post all my thoughts on the subject, again hardly a fair observation. I agree that if you have information that is valuable, you should pay for its storage and use or have it backed up. But that is obviously not true of a huge percentage of Internet users.

I don't advocate regulation. I wonder out loud if that's a viable solution. There are other approaches, such as a non-profit escrow system of some sort.

I just don't think it's considerate or in one's own enlightened self-interest to behave as if users of your free service are entitled to expect nothing. That just feels like a dishonorable way to do business.

Perhaps I misread the emphasis because you put "Should we regulate them?" in the headline. It seemed like the point was that we should expect some cool free service a kid sets up over winter break to live up to the same standard we would normally apply to high-end corporate services in the same space.

I agree that people should treat their users with respect, but your post goes far beyond that. You even say that a service offering full data portability and plenty of warning to its users if it's unable to continue is not good enough. Like, what more can we reasonably offer? I'm offering you something valuable for free and being completely honest with you, but still I'm a jerk for not making a lifetime commitment? That isn't rational.

And to be honest: I guess you could say I feel a sense of entitlement as the person offering a free service. If I offer my girlfriend a massage, I feel entitled to not give everybody else on the planet a massage as well. If I bring donuts to work, I feel entitled to not bring an unlimited supply of donuts forever. Of course, people wouldn't normally call this "entitlement" — only on the Net do people feel like I'm being "entitled" if I won't work for them for free.

Regulating free services would be insane. The cost to start a startup have been dropping, and this is a good thing since it facilitates more innovation with less risk. If free services had to follow cryptic regulations it would significantly stifle the growth potential of future startups.

No disagreement. See my earlier reply just above. I tossed that idea out to see if it would stimulate some thinking about a good way to address the issue.

This article reminds me of Virginia Postrel's book The Future and its Enemies. This guy is one of its enemies.

Fascinating. You judge me in my entirety as an enemy of the future just because I post a single message with which you disagree. You indicate by your response that you prefer tossing word-bombs and accusations around in ad hominem attacks rather than engaging in meaningful dialog.

I'm sorry you feel insulted; that was not my intention. I meant to categorize you according to Postrel's framework. Nevertheless, I think your point is wrong and you should read the book for a clear explanation of exactly why.

I don't want free services on the internet to be regulated. Optimally, free services would stop driving their users crazy. The second best from my standpoint would be if users valued stability enough to start paying for things on the internet.

Given that the internet loves free services, and rages when they break/become unfree, we're stuck with the usual deal in the US: it's all Wild West laize-faire fun times until you really screw the pooch. After 5-10 years of stifling regulation, you're then back to Wild West laize-faire fun times.

I do not advocate government regulation. I raise it as a possibility hoping others will offer better solutions. So far, nobody has.

It is clear that, as a matter of law, users of free services are not entitled to any expectation of treatment. It is also true that as a matter of courtesy and integrity that those who supply such free services have a better plan than "Screw you, I'm outta here" in mind for if/when things go in a different direction.

"I raise it as a possibility hoping others will offer better solutions. So far, nobody has."

Yes, we have. "Do nothing." It's a pretty simple solution.

And more to the point, you should stop using free services right now. You don't accept their service level. Fine. That's your right. Just stop, then. It's that simple. Find someone with a service level you do accept.

If you're using Facebook, for example, stop. I'm not being sarcastic. I don't use Facebook precisely because I don't agree with their service level or other policies, either. I'm not their customer, I'm their product, so I simply don't use them. I can and have put my money(/attention) where my mouth is.

You got burned. You learned. That's the solution, right there: You learned. Now, apply it.

That's because there is no better alternative. Without regulation you're just asking providers of free services to spend their time and money on integrating with a non-profit or NGO-provided... what? Data vault? That would only help with preserving raw data, not the social network that's the actual valuable part of systems like Twitter.

Courtesy and integrity for free services which change direction involves giving people sufficient notice, if possible, and allowing people to export their data, if possible. That's all! Anything more is a ridiculous expectation.

Sometimes it's not possible. You might think that you're going to secure funding in time, and then you don't, and you don't have the money to pay Amazon this month and now your service is gone.

Do you think that people who start free services on the internet have an obligation to supply that service, even if it means they pay for it instead of paying their rent? Should the founders of FreeWebService have to live on the street so that you can keep your social network alive?

Of course, if there were an American-tax-payer-funded NGO which would support my free web service when I ran out of money, I would definitely make a lot more free web services. I think a lot of people outside of the US would. :oD

Regulate free services = free services are nothing but downside for the service provider -> no more free services.

It's pretty simple logic. The cure is worse than the disease.

Though I wonder if I'm being played. This reads like a parody of the big government position. "I've been abused by the big bad free internet photo services and I need daddy government to come save me!"? Anyone actually this helpless without big daddy government coming to their rescue has bigger problems.

Government regulation tends to take decisions away from those who pay the costs and get the benefits and are acutely aware of their own needs

It gives those decisions to those who know little and care even less. Then the lobbyists get involved.

That is a politically conservative perspective and I respect your right to hold it. I don't see government as inherently bad, evil or inefficient, let alone uncaring.

Human interaction should be voluntary and mutually beneficial. But I respect your right to think it should be governed by coercion.

"Free" implies no exchange of value; a one way street.

It's difficult to have a thoughtful discussion based on a false premise (I'm assuming Ning -and any other free service- derives some benefit from its users). That said, changing TOS to the extent it alienates customers is a sure-fire way to relegate yourself into obscurity.

No.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com