

Do Free Services Have an Obligation to Users? Should We Regulate Them? - asnyder
http://danshafer.posterous.com/do-free-services-have-an-obligation-to-users

======
chc
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?

~~~
dshafer
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.

~~~
chc
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.

------
cubes
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.

~~~
dshafer
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.

------
elidourado
This article reminds me of Virginia Postrel's book _The Future and its
Enemies_. This guy is one of its enemies.

~~~
dshafer
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.

~~~
elidourado
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.

------
rwolf
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.

~~~
dshafer
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.

~~~
semanticist
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

------
jerf
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.

------
stretchwithme
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.

~~~
dshafer
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.

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

------
joelhaus
"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.

------
endlessvoid94
No.

