Hacker News Reader

Comment by Matheus28 | Hacker News Reader

If that's their business model and they want to, sure. I'd guess that most wouldn't because it's not as profitable (they'd lose too many customers).

View on HN

I don't think there should be "freedom of business model". We aren't obliged to respect and comply with your choice of way of getting rich. If your business model is dependent on people looking at you in the "right" way then tough luck.

I don't think there should be "freedom to use my stuff but my ignore rules" model - if a person (ot a company) is providing a service, they should be able to do it the way they like. Don't like the rules? Don't use the service.

It there was fraud invoved, one party may get damage/compensation.. But forcing someone to provide service is just not right.

(With the exception of monopolies of course. Let's regulate them.)

Should your power company be able to impose a rule on you that you must not plug any Samsung-branded appliances into any outlets in your house? Re your "monopolies" parenthetical, what if you live somewhere where you can pick what company generates your power? Would this be okay in those places?

Nobody has a monopoly on power generation, $30k can get you a self sufficient solar setup so obviously power companies should be allowed to create whatever conditions they want...... /s

That was literally how phones worked on the beginning- AT&T had to be taken to court to stop it.

Exactly - until legal action happened. I think internet user rights have a LONG way to go, and I can only pray that stuff like "forced to look at insipid, manipulative advertising so you can continue to talk to your family" may indeed become a thing of the past.

I currently have an Inbox of multiple messages from family members awaiting me, except I refuse to log into Facebook to view them. The only remaining notification email I have left enabled for Facebook is exactly that -- private messages. This way I can contact the relevant person elsewhere and ask them what the message was. This is the kind of "bending over backwards" I have to do to avoid the surveillance-capitalism crap I'm coerced towards by these platforms that can do essentially whatever they want AND demand exactly how we are _allowed_ to interact with them. Why can't I use an unofficial Facebook Messenger client and read the <100 bytes of communication my family member wanted to send me? Ahh yes I have to agree to a hundred-page ToS and subject myself to ads and privacy-invading user tracking to see those few bytes. This is fine.

That's exactly what phone companies used to do, and they only stopped when the government made them stop. It was more profitable for them, at our expense.

AFAIK you've always been able to bring your own phone. They just wouldn't unlock your subsidized phone after the contract ended (which I find unfair, but it's in the contract people signed, so...). Regardless, I think this line of thought is becoming too off-topic.

Why should the first party be serving content to people using third party apps that generate them no revenue? Just like websites are free to block adblock users, app apis should be free to block third party app users.

I'm not talking about cell phones. I'm talking about rotary dial phones back in the days of Ma Bell.

The United states government disagrees with you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com