“Before cancelling your subscription, you must agree to the following”(twitter.com)
twitter.com
“Before cancelling your subscription, you must agree to the following”
https://twitter.com/apenwarr/status/1322998961704210433
213 comments
Is this one of those cases where the free tier has only public presentations but the paid tier lets you have private presentations?
Exactly. So, incendiary title.
As the title is a direct quote - a statement of fact - it could hardly be less incendary.
Furthermore, it says that the presentations will become public, so presumably this was a paid subscription. I imagine this poison-pill was discreetly mentioned in the EULA, and maybe you think that makes it all OK, but then I wonder why anyone thinking that would regard its tweeting as incendiary.
Furthermore, it says that the presentations will become public, so presumably this was a paid subscription. I imagine this poison-pill was discreetly mentioned in the EULA, and maybe you think that makes it all OK, but then I wonder why anyone thinking that would regard its tweeting as incendiary.
I mean... I think the tweet leaves out a lot of context.
It's incendiary through omission, because the checkbox could have just as easily said something like:
"Reminder - Our free plan only supports public content. Please delete any private content you don't want made public before cancelling
[ ] - I have deleted private content I don't want shared "
And then absolutely no one would be having this conversation at all.
It's incendiary through omission, because the checkbox could have just as easily said something like:
"Reminder - Our free plan only supports public content. Please delete any private content you don't want made public before cancelling
[ ] - I have deleted private content I don't want shared "
And then absolutely no one would be having this conversation at all.
No, it's absolutely terrible that private content would be made public instead of locked or deleted.
Publicizing private content as a side effect of something other action is halfway to revenge porn.
Publicizing private content as a side effect of something other action is halfway to revenge porn.
Ok, so in the interest of a genuine conversation here, what gives you such a strong reaction to this?
I see this as basically identical to having paid for a storage unit or a safety deposit box.
I paid to store things there. When I stopped paying they got dumped out.
I don't genuinely believe it would have much impact. Basically no one views the content I really try to make public, so who's going to hunt down those docs?
The company isn't saying "When you cancel we'll send an email to your spouse, boss, and parents with all your private documents". They're just saying - "Hey, we're tossing your documents in the bin over there because you stopped paying to store things"
Why is that anywhere close to as bad as revenge porn?
I see this as basically identical to having paid for a storage unit or a safety deposit box.
I paid to store things there. When I stopped paying they got dumped out.
I don't genuinely believe it would have much impact. Basically no one views the content I really try to make public, so who's going to hunt down those docs?
The company isn't saying "When you cancel we'll send an email to your spouse, boss, and parents with all your private documents". They're just saying - "Hey, we're tossing your documents in the bin over there because you stopped paying to store things"
Why is that anywhere close to as bad as revenge porn?
Point taken - a case of "never attribute to malice...", though I think the burden of clarity rests mostly on the party making the stipulation in the first place. Even if the intended message was as you suggest, it is an informative case of how not to get your message across.
Yeah, completely agree with you there. I think the wording is straight up terrible.
I can sort of understand how this gets implemented this way - Making an excellent experience for the users who are no longer interested in paying you is a great way to go out of business when you have other, more important, problems to solve.
That said, who ever wrote the copy for that button should no longer by allowed to write copy (at least not in english...)
I can sort of understand how this gets implemented this way - Making an excellent experience for the users who are no longer interested in paying you is a great way to go out of business when you have other, more important, problems to solve.
That said, who ever wrote the copy for that button should no longer by allowed to write copy (at least not in english...)
Except that their terms of service (at least now) say exactly the opposite:
> In the event your paid Prezi account reverts to a free Prezi Public account, any content you previously created with a paid Prezi account and designated as Private User Content will remain Private User Content, but you will not be able to edit such content. New content you create with such an account will become Public User Content, which means any new content you create from that point forward is going to be public.
> In the event your paid Prezi account reverts to a free Prezi Public account, any content you previously created with a paid Prezi account and designated as Private User Content will remain Private User Content, but you will not be able to edit such content. New content you create with such an account will become Public User Content, which means any new content you create from that point forward is going to be public.
>As the title is a direct quote - a statement of fact - it could hardly be less incendary.
A quote completely taken out of context is incendiary.
A quote completely taken out of context is incendiary.
Are they charging for the ability to host private presentations? Because this seems like it would make sense. Though they should offer the option of mass-deleting all presentations instead.
Either mass-delete, or make them private but unviewable.
as a user, I might actually prefer to just make them public, though.
Honestly, I think the wording here is... fucking awful. But the intention itself doesn't actually seem deceptive or malicious at all once you understand the pricing model.
Honestly, I think the wording here is... fucking awful. But the intention itself doesn't actually seem deceptive or malicious at all once you understand the pricing model.
Make them private but unviewable, and allow you to toggle them to public.
How is this different?
If I can't view it, how do I know if I would consider it safe to make public?
I'd have to basically make it public, look at it, then choose to keep or delete. Which is pretty much exactly what they're doing right now.
If I can't view it, how do I know if I would consider it safe to make public?
I'd have to basically make it public, look at it, then choose to keep or delete. Which is pretty much exactly what they're doing right now.
You always had that option to make them public.
What was created as a private document should never be flipped to public without the user explicitly choosing to do that.
What was created as a private document should never be flipped to public without the user explicitly choosing to do that.
Sure, but that's exactly what this prompt is (and I'm 100% with you that the wording and language is unclear and needs improvement).
It's saying - Go delete things you don't want public before you hit cancel, because otherwise they become public.
It's saying - Go delete things you don't want public before you hit cancel, because otherwise they become public.
To those who say this makes sense because the free tier only allows public content:
No it does not make sense. Paying for privacy is fair, but when you stop consuming a service and cancel your subscription/membership then all your private data cannot just be made public to everyone. It should get deleted. If you cancel your bank account you also don't expect your bank to publicly disclose all your bank statements from the last decade because you stopped using their service, or are you?
No it does not make sense. Paying for privacy is fair, but when you stop consuming a service and cancel your subscription/membership then all your private data cannot just be made public to everyone. It should get deleted. If you cancel your bank account you also don't expect your bank to publicly disclose all your bank statements from the last decade because you stopped using their service, or are you?
Except that you already agreed to this behaviour when you signed up.
The wording needs to be changed to say:
"Remember, if you cancel, your content will become public - delete any presentations you want don't want public before cancelling'.
The tick box then becomes 'I understand - I have deleted any private content'.
The wording needs to be changed to say:
"Remember, if you cancel, your content will become public - delete any presentations you want don't want public before cancelling'.
The tick box then becomes 'I understand - I have deleted any private content'.
> Except that you already agreed to this behaviour when you signed up.
I don't know about you, but I never agree to anything when I sign up to anything, because I never read anything before I sign up, just like everyone else (except people paid to do so.)
I don't know about you, but I never agree to anything when I sign up to anything, because I never read anything before I sign up, just like everyone else (except people paid to do so.)
For their faults I do like how Mailchimp forces you to type DELETE into a text box rather than just click a button, for high risk activities. It cuts through those habits we have formed.
On topic, I think a friendlier approach would be to automatically delist or unpublish anything flagged private. The user can then go and update as needed.
On topic, I think a friendlier approach would be to automatically delist or unpublish anything flagged private. The user can then go and update as needed.
Then allow them to have a button to delete all content with a click at that point. Otherwise it is just inhibiting personal data management.
What happen if my card expires or out of balance while on an extended vacation? I should just accept that my data became public when my account got downgraded automatically?
Edit: looks like if your account expires, your data is still private, which is the right thing to do here. https://support.prezi.com/hc/en-us/articles/360003478894-Can...
Edit: looks like if your account expires, your data is still private, which is the right thing to do here. https://support.prezi.com/hc/en-us/articles/360003478894-Can...
> I should just accept that my data became public when my account got downgraded automatically?
Based on those terms, yes. The terms are bung. But that's a separate matter.
Based on those terms, yes. The terms are bung. But that's a separate matter.
Do you have evidence that users agreed to that behavior at signups?
Two things:
1.) I understand this is a rhetorical device but it is disingenuous to ask someone to provide evidence of what another individual knew and when.
2.) Their terms are public. Your comment would have been more usefully informed had you bothered to read them.
1.) I understand this is a rhetorical device but it is disingenuous to ask someone to provide evidence of what another individual knew and when.
2.) Their terms are public. Your comment would have been more usefully informed had you bothered to read them.
Their current terms are public. Those could have changed wildly over the 11 years the company has been active.
Nobody bother reading terms that look like this : https://prezi.com/prezi-business-terms-of-use/
Estimated reading time: 22 minutes, 45 seconds. Contains 4552 words
Plus it's a poor use of half an hour if they can change things anyway:
> Prezi may revise these Prezi Business Terms and Conditions. If Prezi makes material revisions, Prezi will notify Customer, either through the user interface of the Presentation Services, in an email notification or through other reasonable means. Customer’s use of the Presentation Services after the date such revisions become effective will constitute consent to the revised Prezi Business Terms and Conditions.
Plus it's a poor use of half an hour if they can change things anyway:
> Prezi may revise these Prezi Business Terms and Conditions. If Prezi makes material revisions, Prezi will notify Customer, either through the user interface of the Presentation Services, in an email notification or through other reasonable means. Customer’s use of the Presentation Services after the date such revisions become effective will constitute consent to the revised Prezi Business Terms and Conditions.
"I've read and agreed to terms and conditions" is probably the most common lie in the Internet.
I checked https://readabilityformulas.com/freetests/six-readability-fo... and all tests agreed that it was not just college level text, but advanced college level text.
In literacy tests, under 2% of Americans read beyond a grade 12 level. Odds are than under 1% could read that terms of use and actually understand it. Even if they wanted to.
(Note, they only analyze the first 3000 words.)
TEXT READABILITY CONSENSUS CALCULATOR www.ReadabilityFormulas.com
Timestamp: 11/02/2020 — 12:19:15pm
Purpose: Our Text Readability Consensus Calculator uses 7 popular readability formulas to calculate the average grade level, reading age, and text difficulty of your sample text.
Your Results:
Your text: These Prezi Business Terms and Conditions, togethe ... (2920 words total)
1. Flesch Reading Ease score: 29 (text scale) Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: very difficult to read.
2. Gunning Fog: 17 (text scale) Gunning Fog scored your text: difficult to read.
3. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 15 Grade level: College.
4. The Coleman-Liau Index: 13 Grade level: college
5. The SMOG Index: 14 Grade level: college
6. Automated Readability Index: 15 Grade level: College graduate
7. Linsear Write Formula: 18 Grade level: College Graduate and above.
---------------------------------------------- READABILITY CONSENSUS ---------------------------------------------- Based on (7) readability formulas, we have scored your text:
Grade Level: 15 Reading Level: very difficult to read. Age of Reader: College graduate ----------------------------------------------
In literacy tests, under 2% of Americans read beyond a grade 12 level. Odds are than under 1% could read that terms of use and actually understand it. Even if they wanted to.
(Note, they only analyze the first 3000 words.)
TEXT READABILITY CONSENSUS CALCULATOR www.ReadabilityFormulas.com
Timestamp: 11/02/2020 — 12:19:15pm
Purpose: Our Text Readability Consensus Calculator uses 7 popular readability formulas to calculate the average grade level, reading age, and text difficulty of your sample text.
Your Results:
Your text: These Prezi Business Terms and Conditions, togethe ... (2920 words total)
1. Flesch Reading Ease score: 29 (text scale) Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: very difficult to read.
2. Gunning Fog: 17 (text scale) Gunning Fog scored your text: difficult to read.
3. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 15 Grade level: College.
4. The Coleman-Liau Index: 13 Grade level: college
5. The SMOG Index: 14 Grade level: college
6. Automated Readability Index: 15 Grade level: College graduate
7. Linsear Write Formula: 18 Grade level: College Graduate and above.
---------------------------------------------- READABILITY CONSENSUS ---------------------------------------------- Based on (7) readability formulas, we have scored your text:
Grade Level: 15 Reading Level: very difficult to read. Age of Reader: College graduate ----------------------------------------------
> In literacy tests, under 2% of Americans read beyond a grade 12 level.
I find this hard to believe, given that 34% of Americans have a college degree.
I find this hard to believe, given that 34% of Americans have a college degree.
https://www.wyliecomm.com/2019/03/us-literacy-rate/ and note that 2% of American adults are level 5.
That's roughly "college level reading" on official measures.
And yes, comparing high school graduation rates with adult literacy it is obvious that a lot of people graduated high school with skills below what they were supposed to have. I find this depressing but in accord with my experience.
That's roughly "college level reading" on official measures.
And yes, comparing high school graduation rates with adult literacy it is obvious that a lot of people graduated high school with skills below what they were supposed to have. I find this depressing but in accord with my experience.
> note that 2% of American adults are level 5.
You might have misread that. It says 2% of global adults (“across all countries”) are level 5. It also says that level 5 does not officially exist, and level 4 is the highest level on the PIAAC scale.
According to that article, 12% of Americans are in the highest level measured. Over 13% of Americans have post-graduate degrees. And while on the scale you linked to, the U.S. ranks lower than a lot of countries, don’t ignore the fact that the spread of absolute scores above the U.S. is in the single digit percentages. Framing these particular scores as representing some kind of glaring education problem here seems to be over-emphasizing minor global differences and ignoring some context.
I hope this gives you reasons to feel more optimistic. We have plenty of room to improve, but it is clearly not as bad as you thought.
You might have misread that. It says 2% of global adults (“across all countries”) are level 5. It also says that level 5 does not officially exist, and level 4 is the highest level on the PIAAC scale.
According to that article, 12% of Americans are in the highest level measured. Over 13% of Americans have post-graduate degrees. And while on the scale you linked to, the U.S. ranks lower than a lot of countries, don’t ignore the fact that the spread of absolute scores above the U.S. is in the single digit percentages. Framing these particular scores as representing some kind of glaring education problem here seems to be over-emphasizing minor global differences and ignoring some context.
I hope this gives you reasons to feel more optimistic. We have plenty of room to improve, but it is clearly not as bad as you thought.
Not so clear.
If you go to https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014008.pdf for a more detailed look at the data, you'll find that the fraction of adults world-wide who score at level 4/5 is the same as the USA. In age breakdowns, more US 55-65 year olds are at that top literacy bracket, and in every other age cohort is worse.
Therefore there is no reason to believe that the US at the level 5 is any different than the global average. And there is reason to suspect that the USA is getting worse over time.
Incidentally I was merely stating it as data and didn't blame this on a glaring education problem here. That would be a much longer discussion.
If you go to https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014008.pdf for a more detailed look at the data, you'll find that the fraction of adults world-wide who score at level 4/5 is the same as the USA. In age breakdowns, more US 55-65 year olds are at that top literacy bracket, and in every other age cohort is worse.
Therefore there is no reason to believe that the US at the level 5 is any different than the global average. And there is reason to suspect that the USA is getting worse over time.
Incidentally I was merely stating it as data and didn't blame this on a glaring education problem here. That would be a much longer discussion.
There is no level 5.
It is clear that the earlier claim "under 2% of Americans read beyond a grade 12 level" is not true, and not what your supporting links actually say. It's absolutely clear that your speculation "Odds are than under 1% could read that [Prezi's] terms of use and actually understand it." is both not true and dramatically pessimistic.
Yes, legalese is dense. Hardly anyone reads it because it takes a lot of time, not because nobody is capable. How many people read below a 12th grade level (whatever that means) are using Prezi in the first place?
I'm just pointing out that your initial interpretation of the data was off by an order of magnitude.
It is clear that the earlier claim "under 2% of Americans read beyond a grade 12 level" is not true, and not what your supporting links actually say. It's absolutely clear that your speculation "Odds are than under 1% could read that [Prezi's] terms of use and actually understand it." is both not true and dramatically pessimistic.
Yes, legalese is dense. Hardly anyone reads it because it takes a lot of time, not because nobody is capable. How many people read below a 12th grade level (whatever that means) are using Prezi in the first place?
I'm just pointing out that your initial interpretation of the data was off by an order of magnitude.
There is no level 5.
There absolutely is a level 5. It was defined and measured in the survey. Both links confirm that.
But then they did not break it down in the reporting because few enough people fell into it for their survey to produce reasonable statistics on a per country level.
Now you are correct that I should not have said "under 2%". But given that the portion of the USA at level 4/5 matches the international portion at the same level (both cases 12%), it seems likely that the portion of the USA at level 5 (which the survey was not large enough to estimate) is about the same as the international average (which the survey measured at 2%).
Therefore even though the survey did not report a figure for the USA, it is likely that the real figure is around 2%.
I stand by my belief that this terms of service is sufficiently complex that even fewer can understand it.
You are right that the average Prezi user is more likely to be literate than the average American.
There absolutely is a level 5. It was defined and measured in the survey. Both links confirm that.
But then they did not break it down in the reporting because few enough people fell into it for their survey to produce reasonable statistics on a per country level.
Now you are correct that I should not have said "under 2%". But given that the portion of the USA at level 4/5 matches the international portion at the same level (both cases 12%), it seems likely that the portion of the USA at level 5 (which the survey was not large enough to estimate) is about the same as the international average (which the survey measured at 2%).
Therefore even though the survey did not report a figure for the USA, it is likely that the real figure is around 2%.
I stand by my belief that this terms of service is sufficiently complex that even fewer can understand it.
You are right that the average Prezi user is more likely to be literate than the average American.
I just did a search through it (honestly, I don't have time to carefully read through it, and I doubt most people who actually signed up for the service did), and don't see anything about your data becoming public when canceling a subscription.
Speaking of reading comprehension, perhaps a lawyer could chime in and help me out here: paragraph 14.1 of that agreement reads to me as "This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of a hypothetical State of California where, by assumption, no legislative proposals based on the UCITA ever become law, notwithstanding the laws of the actual State of California."
I know it doesn't exactly say that...but it doesn't clearly say anything else either, and presumably some actual body of laws has to apply no matter how California's laws evolve; I'm honestly curious what the actual intended result of this provision is.
I know it doesn't exactly say that...but it doesn't clearly say anything else either, and presumably some actual body of laws has to apply no matter how California's laws evolve; I'm honestly curious what the actual intended result of this provision is.
Do you read the terms and conditions in full, for every single piece of software you use?
Their terms, in fact, seem to say very clearly that they will NOT do what they actually do:
> In the event your paid Prezi account reverts to a free Prezi Public account, any content you previously created with a paid Prezi account and designated as Private User Content will remain Private User Content, but you will not be able to edit such content. New content you create with such an account will become Public User Content, which means any new content you create from that point forward is going to be public.
(emphasis mine)
> In the event your paid Prezi account reverts to a free Prezi Public account, any content you previously created with a paid Prezi account and designated as Private User Content will remain Private User Content, but you will not be able to edit such content. New content you create with such an account will become Public User Content, which means any new content you create from that point forward is going to be public.
(emphasis mine)
I've just read their terms. There is no mention of that.
I figured maybe you give Prezi the rights to your content, but in fact, no. They can only republish your content on their account if you tag it as "public":
Customer hereby grants to Prezi a world-wide, non-exclusive, revocable, royalty-free, fully paid, sublicensable and transferable license for the Term of this Agreement to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works, communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display, distribute and transmit the Customer Content: (i) for the purpose of providing the Presentation Services to Customer and (ii) to the extent Customer has designated any portion of the Customer Content as “Public Content” through the content management features of the Presentation Services, for Prezi to make use of such “Public Content” in connection with promotion and marketing of Prezi’s products and services. Customer also hereby grants to Prezi a world-wide, non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, fully paid, sublicensable and transferable license to (a) analyze the Customer Content for the purposes of quality control, benchmarking and improving the Presentation Services and (b) maintain a back-up copy of Customer’s “Public Content” indefinitely. Customer represents and warrants that it has all rights, clearances and authority necessary to grant the foregoing licenses to Prezi. Customer reserves all rights to the Customer Content that are not expressly granted in this Agreement.
I figured maybe you give Prezi the rights to your content, but in fact, no. They can only republish your content on their account if you tag it as "public":
Customer hereby grants to Prezi a world-wide, non-exclusive, revocable, royalty-free, fully paid, sublicensable and transferable license for the Term of this Agreement to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works, communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display, distribute and transmit the Customer Content: (i) for the purpose of providing the Presentation Services to Customer and (ii) to the extent Customer has designated any portion of the Customer Content as “Public Content” through the content management features of the Presentation Services, for Prezi to make use of such “Public Content” in connection with promotion and marketing of Prezi’s products and services. Customer also hereby grants to Prezi a world-wide, non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, fully paid, sublicensable and transferable license to (a) analyze the Customer Content for the purposes of quality control, benchmarking and improving the Presentation Services and (b) maintain a back-up copy of Customer’s “Public Content” indefinitely. Customer represents and warrants that it has all rights, clearances and authority necessary to grant the foregoing licenses to Prezi. Customer reserves all rights to the Customer Content that are not expressly granted in this Agreement.
That would indeed become agreeable (even if still not super-nice) if they changed the cancellation form to a two-option choice between "delete all private" and "publish all private".
A third (perhaps more sensible) option would be for all private presentations to be retained, but presenting and editing them is disabled. Downloading them can also be retained. If the subscription is renewed, then they can easily switch back on the ability to present and edit the private presentations.
This is why we need regulations.
This is basically screaming for a GDPR lawsuits as it is.
They are based in Budapest / San Francisco. Budapest lies in Hungary, so if they don't block entire EU the GDPR applies. Its possible they block entire EU (I did not verify) but it would be weird given they are partly based within EU.
If they're based in the EU then the GDPR applies no matter where their customers are.
They can block people in the EU all they want, it won't make a difference.
They can block people in the EU all they want, it won't make a difference.
I know what you're saying, but it's bad design regardless. There is no use-case where deleting an account should leave the content around. What's the point with messing around with checkboxes - they deleted their account, so delete their content along with it.
>Except that you already agreed to this behaviour when you signed up.
This is victim blaming, and it legitimizes the heinous practice of putting onerous terms behind a click-through acceptance. Please stop.
This is victim blaming, and it legitimizes the heinous practice of putting onerous terms behind a click-through acceptance. Please stop.
Don't be ridiculous; this isn't victim-blaming. Consider reserving that term for when it's appropriate, rather than diluting it.
It's simply making an argument...to which you can just change your response to read "The real problem is the heinous practice of putting..."
And then I agree with you 100%. Or 99%, anyway.
It's simply making an argument...to which you can just change your response to read "The real problem is the heinous practice of putting..."
And then I agree with you 100%. Or 99%, anyway.
Terms of service that hurt the end user are a bad idea, unacceptable, like dark patterns that cause people to opt in to things they don't want. It's not a crime, but it's immoral.
https://www.gaiaplatform.io/terms
>You understand and agree that WWW.GAIAPLATFORM.IO and any of its subsidiaries or affiliates shall in no event be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or exemplary damages.
Limiting your liability in the event I have DIRECT damages from using your product definitely hurts the end user. I don't want to opt into it... however:
>If you do not want to be bound by our Terms your only option is not to visit, view or otherwise use the services of WWW.GAIAPLATFORM.IO
Interesting. I assume you'll be correcting these immoral terms ASAP.
>You understand and agree that WWW.GAIAPLATFORM.IO and any of its subsidiaries or affiliates shall in no event be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or exemplary damages.
Limiting your liability in the event I have DIRECT damages from using your product definitely hurts the end user. I don't want to opt into it... however:
>If you do not want to be bound by our Terms your only option is not to visit, view or otherwise use the services of WWW.GAIAPLATFORM.IO
Interesting. I assume you'll be correcting these immoral terms ASAP.
I don't work at Gaia platform any more, I have no influence on them, but they should observe good behavior toward their customers like anyone.
But it just seems irresponsible to build a system where private data can automatically become public like this, whether or not your users know about it.
Except that you already agreed to this behaviour when you signed up.
You're guessing, and I think you're making too strong a statement about something you only guessed at.
I looked through https://prezi.com/terms-of-use/201910_NL/ ("Effective September 1, 2020") and didn't see anything about this.
You're guessing, and I think you're making too strong a statement about something you only guessed at.
I looked through https://prezi.com/terms-of-use/201910_NL/ ("Effective September 1, 2020") and didn't see anything about this.
I also didn't see this in the Terms of Service. Where are people reading this?
If someone stops paying for private data hosting, then I'd expect them to lose private data hosting -- in full. I don't see how the "private" in "private data hosting" could be seen as severable without explicit agreement to such a provision.
By analogy, it'd be like if someone requested a plumber come by to their house to replace their toilet. Then when cancelling the request, the plumber said, okay, we can cancel, but the customer must accept the free version of this service: they'll come by and take the old toilet away -- because this is a free service, cancelling the paid version merely cancels them putting in the new toilet, but they still get the old one.
It seems to me that a customer who cancels something shouldn't be forced to accept a substitute service. It'd seem reasonable for the service-provider to ask if the customer wanted the substitute, but language implying that the customer must accept it seems wrong.
But, is that what's happening here?
If someone stops paying for private data hosting, then I'd expect them to lose private data hosting -- in full. I don't see how the "private" in "private data hosting" could be seen as severable without explicit agreement to such a provision.
By analogy, it'd be like if someone requested a plumber come by to their house to replace their toilet. Then when cancelling the request, the plumber said, okay, we can cancel, but the customer must accept the free version of this service: they'll come by and take the old toilet away -- because this is a free service, cancelling the paid version merely cancels them putting in the new toilet, but they still get the old one.
It seems to me that a customer who cancels something shouldn't be forced to accept a substitute service. It'd seem reasonable for the service-provider to ask if the customer wanted the substitute, but language implying that the customer must accept it seems wrong.
But, is that what's happening here?
There are two possible ways to lose private data hosting.
1. Your data is deleted and no longer hosted. 2. Your data is still hosted and made public.
The first one is what I would expect to happen since it makes the most sense in the context of the service. The second one just makes you look like a jerk.
1. Your data is deleted and no longer hosted. 2. Your data is still hosted and made public.
The first one is what I would expect to happen since it makes the most sense in the context of the service. The second one just makes you look like a jerk.
Sounds like what the girlsdoporn guys did to their "models". They took them to another state and then badgered them into doing an adult scene, claiming they would only be seen on DVD in another country.
When the girls later discovered that their scenes were available to anyone on the internet, and tried to "cancel their service", they released their information to all and sundry including their parents/bosses, etc. Just to be jerks.
When the girls later discovered that their scenes were available to anyone on the internet, and tried to "cancel their service", they released their information to all and sundry including their parents/bosses, etc. Just to be jerks.
Seems more than merely jerkish to me.
I mean, say you were in the situation with a plumber who did offer a free service of taking away people's toilets (which seems plausible -- some people might appreciate getting rid of their old toilet for free, while a plumber might offer the service in order to resell the old toilets). And then you paid for a plumber to replace yours, and they insisted that while you cancel the replacement, they were still going to take away your old one. Would you accept this, holding that it's a legal (if jerkish) way to have the toilet replacement canceled?
I mean, say you were in the situation with a plumber who did offer a free service of taking away people's toilets (which seems plausible -- some people might appreciate getting rid of their old toilet for free, while a plumber might offer the service in order to resell the old toilets). And then you paid for a plumber to replace yours, and they insisted that while you cancel the replacement, they were still going to take away your old one. Would you accept this, holding that it's a legal (if jerkish) way to have the toilet replacement canceled?
That analogy doesn't really apply. The plumbers service and the data hostings service differ in several important ways.
The plumber is a services for hire offering. Prezi is a data storage offering.
The plumber story involves work that has not yet occured and then is subsequently canceled. Prezi involves ongoing services that are being canceled.
I don't think the plumber analogy comes even close to a good example here.
The plumber is a services for hire offering. Prezi is a data storage offering.
The plumber story involves work that has not yet occured and then is subsequently canceled. Prezi involves ongoing services that are being canceled.
I don't think the plumber analogy comes even close to a good example here.
The data-storage offering isn't the issue. The issue's a related service, i.e. publication, which hasn't occurred yet.
Again, I see how this makes sense IF we assume that the "private" in "private data hosting" is severable. But while not a lawyer, I don't think that's true without a contractual agreement establishing it.
To be clear, I can appreciate that a provider might intend to offer privacy as a severable feature. But that seems like something they have to tell the customer. Before the customer uploads private information, they should be made aware that, should they stop paying, that private information will be published.
While not a lawyer, I don't think any reasonable court would buy the argument that customers who upload private information are consenting to have it published once they cancel the service unless there's strong evidence to that effect. It seems like a toxic arrangement that people would be unlikely to agree to, so I'd think that there would be a high standard of proof for the provider to establish that the customer intended to agree to it. I'm not sure if merely being buried in the fine print would be enough in a case like this, but is it even in the fine print?
Again, I see how this makes sense IF we assume that the "private" in "private data hosting" is severable. But while not a lawyer, I don't think that's true without a contractual agreement establishing it.
To be clear, I can appreciate that a provider might intend to offer privacy as a severable feature. But that seems like something they have to tell the customer. Before the customer uploads private information, they should be made aware that, should they stop paying, that private information will be published.
While not a lawyer, I don't think any reasonable court would buy the argument that customers who upload private information are consenting to have it published once they cancel the service unless there's strong evidence to that effect. It seems like a toxic arrangement that people would be unlikely to agree to, so I'd think that there would be a high standard of proof for the provider to establish that the customer intended to agree to it. I'm not sure if merely being buried in the fine print would be enough in a case like this, but is it even in the fine print?
I think we are in violent agreement :-)
Either can go really badly.
"My subscription lapsed and the 5 decks I'd been working on and hadn't made public yet vanished forever!!!"
"My subscription lapsed and the 5 decks I'd been working on and hadn't made public yet vanished forever!!!"
I think a reasonable default would be for the customer's account to continue to reference the private material, but to disallow private access to it.
Then a customer could:
1. Convert it to public and access it as such.
2. Remove it.
3. Leave it alone, possibly intending to privately access it in the future if they can re-subscribe. (It'd seem reasonable to me if a service provider opted to automatically delete inaccessible content after some time-out period of non-subscription; I'd see their retention of such inaccessible content as a professional courtesy rather than an obligation of theirs unless the contract says otherwise.)
Then I'd think that a good service would offer migration tools to help make these options easier on the customer. For example, offer an easy option to make everything public or delete everything.
But it's hard for me to see how forcing publication upon canceling a service could be defensible without some sort of contractual provision to that effect.
Then a customer could:
1. Convert it to public and access it as such.
2. Remove it.
3. Leave it alone, possibly intending to privately access it in the future if they can re-subscribe. (It'd seem reasonable to me if a service provider opted to automatically delete inaccessible content after some time-out period of non-subscription; I'd see their retention of such inaccessible content as a professional courtesy rather than an obligation of theirs unless the contract says otherwise.)
Then I'd think that a good service would offer migration tools to help make these options easier on the customer. For example, offer an easy option to make everything public or delete everything.
But it's hard for me to see how forcing publication upon canceling a service could be defensible without some sort of contractual provision to that effect.
Sure but one you fix in your product by having a grace period for accounts that are closing. The other you can't fix because once something on the internet is public you can't undo it.
But lots of people would want the second one (since lots of people have free Prezi accounts). And the second option effectively gives the user the choice between the first and second options; and even more than that, since the choice is per-presentation. So it's the user-friendlier thing to do.
I don't think Prezi are doing anything bad here at all, except possibly communicating their policy badly.
I don't think Prezi are doing anything bad here at all, except possibly communicating their policy badly.
> Except that you already agreed to this behaviour when you signed up.
No, you didn't. You may have ticked a box that said you read the terms of service, but as we all know, no one is reading those documents. It's just plainly dishonest to drop something so unexpected into a ToS.
No, you didn't. You may have ticked a box that said you read the terms of service, but as we all know, no one is reading those documents. It's just plainly dishonest to drop something so unexpected into a ToS.
Regardless of the understanding when ticking the box, the courts (in the US) have upheld shrink wrap contracts and rejected the “I didn’t actually read the TOS, so I can’t be bound by them” argument.[a] Basically, you’re SOL.
[a]: The reason being: you checked a box acknowledging that you read them so you can’t claim you didn’t because then someone could read them, then claim they didn’t. It’s a terrible abuse of contract law, but it is unfortunately the world we live in if the legislature won’t fix it.
[a]: The reason being: you checked a box acknowledging that you read them so you can’t claim you didn’t because then someone could read them, then claim they didn’t. It’s a terrible abuse of contract law, but it is unfortunately the world we live in if the legislature won’t fix it.
For consumer contracts, many European courts take exactly the opposite tack, refusing to enforce surprising provisions against the consumer.
Isn’t that because there are regulations that say those provisions aren’t allowed (whether directly or indirectly)? The US doesn’t really have such laws.
Surely you can’t stipulate just anything in a contract and have that upheld as binding by a court, even in the US?
>Surely you can’t stipulate just anything in a contract and have that upheld as binding by a court, even in the US?
That's a great question. I'd expect that courts would not uphold claims to one's first-born child[0][1], but only because that sort of thing is already illegal (human trafficking). As for stuff that isn't illegal, I expect that YMMV.
That said, people actually "agreed" to give up/assign their first-born children with these "Click-wrap" agreements.
That people are so cavalier about such things should be a huge red flag for regulators to require not just a link to such terms, but that both parties should be required to demonstrate their specific understanding of terms and conditions before such a contract can be considered enforceable.
But that's not how US courts have interpreted this sort of thing. So, as always, Caveat Emptor!
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/29/londoners...
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/07/nobody-reads-tos...
Edit: Fixed spacing.
That's a great question. I'd expect that courts would not uphold claims to one's first-born child[0][1], but only because that sort of thing is already illegal (human trafficking). As for stuff that isn't illegal, I expect that YMMV.
That said, people actually "agreed" to give up/assign their first-born children with these "Click-wrap" agreements.
That people are so cavalier about such things should be a huge red flag for regulators to require not just a link to such terms, but that both parties should be required to demonstrate their specific understanding of terms and conditions before such a contract can be considered enforceable.
But that's not how US courts have interpreted this sort of thing. So, as always, Caveat Emptor!
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/29/londoners...
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/07/nobody-reads-tos...
Edit: Fixed spacing.
It stems from fundamental difference in how civil law and common law think about contracts. In civil law, a contract is typically only valid to the extent both parties signed in good faith and have a similar understanding of the ins and outs. It's my understanding that in common law, contracts are essentially creating law.
Well, you can be technical about it... The fact is that this is unethical behavior and should absolutely be called out and made more visible.
Oh for sure. I completely agree, and think something should be done legislatively about it (I can’t give “informed consent” when I have to use Zoom for school (for example)). I was just pointing out a fact regarding the US and these types of contracts.
I have a game on Epic and to download an update, which you must do to be able to play, it forces you to accept a new gigantic TOS that basically allows them to install anything on your PC for any reason and they claim to not be responsible.
Also says that any claim you make has to be made in some particular US court. WTF, this is a game I bought in Australia.
There were pages and pages of other legalese but those are the parts that I remember.
I was so angry after reading it that I haven't accepted it or been able to play the game (that I paid for) since.
What kind of bullshit is that? Changing the terms of something that I purchased six months earlier?
I wonder what would happen if I take it back to the store and ask for a refund because I can't accept the TOS.
Also says that any claim you make has to be made in some particular US court. WTF, this is a game I bought in Australia.
There were pages and pages of other legalese but those are the parts that I remember.
I was so angry after reading it that I haven't accepted it or been able to play the game (that I paid for) since.
What kind of bullshit is that? Changing the terms of something that I purchased six months earlier?
I wonder what would happen if I take it back to the store and ask for a refund because I can't accept the TOS.
I don't give even the very slightest of a whiff of a fuck about what a US court says or does, as it has absolutely no bearing on my life whatsoever.
It is fine to put unexpected things in ToS.
It is nice and good for your reputation to call out these unexpected things, make them very visible and make sure they are hard to miss.
This does not always align well with business incentives, but I don't think that being insidious helped the company's bottom line in any way. It's just lack of attention to customer experience, not malice.
It is nice and good for your reputation to call out these unexpected things, make them very visible and make sure they are hard to miss.
This does not always align well with business incentives, but I don't think that being insidious helped the company's bottom line in any way. It's just lack of attention to customer experience, not malice.
Even if that's true (it's not clear to me that the TOS include anything about this when you sign up), I would argue it's still unethical, even if it ends up being legal.
>Except that you already agreed to this behaviour when you signed up.
It may come as a surprise but not everything written in a contract is in fact enforceable. I can demand that I get your firstborn when you cancel your subscription, doesn't mean that's going to happen.
GDPR gives you the rights to delete your personal data regardless of you having a subscription so I'm pretty sure this is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
It may come as a surprise but not everything written in a contract is in fact enforceable. I can demand that I get your firstborn when you cancel your subscription, doesn't mean that's going to happen.
GDPR gives you the rights to delete your personal data regardless of you having a subscription so I'm pretty sure this is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
You would still be able to delete any of your information if you don’t want it to become public GDPR does not apply here.
From the wording in the TOS it sounds like this is only possible before cancelling your subscription. There is no such requirement in the GDPR. At any point, do you as a data subject have the right to have your information erased, or stop a service provider from processing your data.
It should be noted that the data in question here may be personal in the sense that they belong to the user but not in the sense of the GDPR.
Whether the GDPR apply to data stored on that service can only be judged on a case by case basis after having looked at the data in question.
In any case, I'm not sure that they prevent their customers from deleting data. It seems that that content is public unless deleted if a customer cancels their paid subscription.
Whether the GDPR apply to data stored on that service can only be judged on a case by case basis after having looked at the data in question.
In any case, I'm not sure that they prevent their customers from deleting data. It seems that that content is public unless deleted if a customer cancels their paid subscription.
> Except that you already agreed to this behaviour when you signed up.
I miss the days when burying awful things that nobody would willingly accept in the fine print (which few people read and most people have a hard time understanding) was something we all understood to be immoral, to the point that it was a cartoon trope as something the Devil would do.
I miss the days when burying awful things that nobody would willingly accept in the fine print (which few people read and most people have a hard time understanding) was something we all understood to be immoral, to the point that it was a cartoon trope as something the Devil would do.
I recently had my phone fixed at a uBreakiFix location and at and on the bottom of the credit card receipt it has a contract written at the bottom that among other things says your waving privacy rights, property rights to your old parts, swear you have read some link to a TOS. When checking out they never mentioned any of that when signing the receipt (with the exception of the not returning the parts when I told them I would like them back). In my option any contractual language should have to me signed for separately then a CC receipt.
EDIT: with that said they did a great job fixing my phone with an hour or two.
EDIT: with that said they did a great job fixing my phone with an hour or two.
I suspect that that is straight-up illegal in two different directions: it is unlikely that the credit card company would be pleased to find out that these folks are trying to use a credit card signature for something else, and I'm pretty sure any lawyer could get such a contract thrown out with exactly zero effort, if it truly is framed as just being the receipt that you use to pay (a contract has to be intentionally signed by person who intended to agree to it in order to count for anything)
(IANAL, could be wrong)
(IANAL, could be wrong)
IANAL either, but you are not wrong. I know about this because I was involved in a lawsuit that involved contract law. In order for a contract to be valid it is not enough to have a document with a valid signature on it. There has to be an actual "meeting of the minds". Both parties have to actually intend to abide by the terms of the contract at the time it was signed, which logically implies that both parties have to know the contract's actual content.
The real underlying strategy here is to leverage people's general ignorance of contract law in order to intimidate them into thinking that they are contractually bound when in fact they are not, at least not legally. As a practical matter, the need to pay a lawyer often trumps the actual law (another lesson I learned the hard way).
The real underlying strategy here is to leverage people's general ignorance of contract law in order to intimidate them into thinking that they are contractually bound when in fact they are not, at least not legally. As a practical matter, the need to pay a lawyer often trumps the actual law (another lesson I learned the hard way).
Interesting theory. And indeed, it is just. But On its face it negates the validity of any drive by scroll down to accept contract, but I believe they are binding to some extent at least. Maybe the scroll down click is considered at tacit acceptance of what’s inside.
[deleted]
Hey Im a uBreakiFix technician, its sketchy as hell but its designed to do intake as quickly as possible so we actually have time to do repairs
property rights to your old parts
This is so they can reuse the parts as “genuine” to do the next customer. The watch repair industry is notorious for this. They replace more than they need to, using aftermarket parts, and keep the originals for their own stock.
This is so they can reuse the parts as “genuine” to do the next customer. The watch repair industry is notorious for this. They replace more than they need to, using aftermarket parts, and keep the originals for their own stock.
I had a gold watch, a family heirloom, that I had repaired. It was missing the buckle. The jeweler, a large one, sent it off to a 3rd party and it came back smaller around the wrist...
I was naive but I couldn’t conceive of that happening, going through a legitimate and large jewelry business.
I was naive but I couldn’t conceive of that happening, going through a legitimate and large jewelry business.
I worked at a uBreak for a time and the manager encouraged us to mention they were signing a TOS regarding the phone repair, if they don't come pick up their device after 90 days they abandoned it, etc.
The receipt was really long and not like a normal checkout receipt.
Also part of the profitability of uBreak was selling broken components removed from devices (like good LCDs with broken glass) back to OEMs to be refurbished, so that's why they don't let you have the old parts back.
The receipt was really long and not like a normal checkout receipt.
Also part of the profitability of uBreak was selling broken components removed from devices (like good LCDs with broken glass) back to OEMs to be refurbished, so that's why they don't let you have the old parts back.
>Also part of the profitability of uBreak was selling broken components removed from devices (like good LCDs with broken glass) back to OEMs to be refurbished, so that's why they don't let you have the old parts back.
She told me that it was a policy of Samsung...
She told me that it was a policy of Samsung...
I worked there about 5 years ago, but I have heard that since then, they have struck deals with some manufacturers - they might actually have a partnership with Samsung now, and send the LCDs back to them (still for $$).
We certainly didn't tell them it was some company policy, and LCD replacement was cheaper if your LCD was in good shape so its pretty transparent
We certainly didn't tell them it was some company policy, and LCD replacement was cheaper if your LCD was in good shape so its pretty transparent
They're not burying this. They're _highlighting_ it. You've already agreed; they're making sure you're bluntly aware.
Could the phrasing be better? Of course. One option is "I have deleted all private content on this account. I understand that anything remaining will be made public as part of our 'Free Tier.' Click here to delete your presentations if you have not done so already."
But calling it immoral to screw up in the manner of highlighting the issue seems a bit much to me.
Could the phrasing be better? Of course. One option is "I have deleted all private content on this account. I understand that anything remaining will be made public as part of our 'Free Tier.' Click here to delete your presentations if you have not done so already."
But calling it immoral to screw up in the manner of highlighting the issue seems a bit much to me.
They're "highlighting" it AFTER you "agreed". Not before you agree to it. What kind of ethics is that? "I'll screw you over but I'll admit to it afterwards"?
I'm not sure how they're screwing you over. You are not allowed to have free, private content. If you stop paying, you need to decide whether to delete or make public stuff.
Friendliest way to do this would be to keep content for a month after cancelling, but only let -you- see it if you renew or decide to make it public.
Friendliest way to do this would be to keep content for a month after cancelling, but only let -you- see it if you renew or decide to make it public.
In cartoons, the Devil also liked to highlight what the contract said. In much the same way as is being done here, too: by springing it on victims long after the contract was signed and sealed, and timing the delivery of the news to cause maximum mental distress.
I think pretty much everyone understands it to be immoral. There are just many people who continue to do it because they don't care about behaving in an immoral manner or are "just following orders", and many more who don't care enough to pay attention to what they are agreeing to all over the place.
If you have a free tier with only public content allowed, and a paid tiers that allow paid content... you're going to have to do one of two things when someone cancels:
A) delete a lot of their stuff, or
B) make all their stuff public
Either could be really, really bad.
You could let the user pick between the two options, I guess. But really, most everyone cancelling something like this needs to go through their stuff and decide for each item: "Keep, but make public" or "Delete".
A) delete a lot of their stuff, or
B) make all their stuff public
Either could be really, really bad.
You could let the user pick between the two options, I guess. But really, most everyone cancelling something like this needs to go through their stuff and decide for each item: "Keep, but make public" or "Delete".
> You could let the user pick between the two options, I guess.
If both options are likely to be extremely undesirable to a substantive fraction of canceling users, that's the best option.
If there was a most-likely-safe option from the user perspective, choosing that by default and having it confirmed would arguably be better UX, but I don't think "keep everything that used to be private and make it public" is really a "clearly-safer option". Nor, even in the cases where it is safer, do I think that this presents the confirmation well.
> But really, most everyone cancelling something like this needs to go through their stuff and decide for each item: "Keep, but make public" or "Delete".
Some people do, but I bet lots of people have collections that very easily fall into either "Delete all" or "Keep all and make public" by the time they cancel (if only because they are only canceling after everything to which that decision wouldn't apply has been migrated to an alternative service.)
If both options are likely to be extremely undesirable to a substantive fraction of canceling users, that's the best option.
If there was a most-likely-safe option from the user perspective, choosing that by default and having it confirmed would arguably be better UX, but I don't think "keep everything that used to be private and make it public" is really a "clearly-safer option". Nor, even in the cases where it is safer, do I think that this presents the confirmation well.
> But really, most everyone cancelling something like this needs to go through their stuff and decide for each item: "Keep, but make public" or "Delete".
Some people do, but I bet lots of people have collections that very easily fall into either "Delete all" or "Keep all and make public" by the time they cancel (if only because they are only canceling after everything to which that decision wouldn't apply has been migrated to an alternative service.)
You could
C) make the private stuff inaccessible pending a subscription renewal
D) make it unusable but recoverable
both possibly with some grace period before it is deleted
C) make the private stuff inaccessible pending a subscription renewal
D) make it unusable but recoverable
both possibly with some grace period before it is deleted
[deleted]
No this is still terrible. The bare minimum here must be
'If you cancel, all of your private presentations will be deleted.' with a tick box that says 'I understand - delete my private data'. I should not have to go do a bunch of extra legwork to ensure my private data doesn't become public when I cancel my subscription, and in particular, non-consensual cancellations (e.g. cancellation due to non-payment) must not make my private data public.
'If you cancel, all of your private presentations will be deleted.' with a tick box that says 'I understand - delete my private data'. I should not have to go do a bunch of extra legwork to ensure my private data doesn't become public when I cancel my subscription, and in particular, non-consensual cancellations (e.g. cancellation due to non-payment) must not make my private data public.
No, the tick box should be a radio button
(*) delete all data, () make data public.
(*) delete all data, () make data public.
Companies do not have carte blanche to write whatever they want in their EULA and expect that it is legally enforceable. Often they will put in things that they know aren't enforceable because they hope people won't try to challenge it in court. There are contract laws, consumer protection laws, etc. that still must be adhered to.
>Often they will put in things that they know aren't enforceable because they hope people won't try to challenge it in court. There are contract laws, consumer protection laws, etc. that still must be adhered to.
Which is why a "severability clause"[0] is pretty ubiquitous in contracts.
N.B.: IANAL
[0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/severability.asp
Which is why a "severability clause"[0] is pretty ubiquitous in contracts.
N.B.: IANAL
[0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/severability.asp
I think that a "better" way to do it would be a choice:
a) delete all your private content; b) make all your content public.
But the tweet is tendentious. Nothing prevents the user from deleting their content - THAT would be the problematic part.
So it's a small nuisance for the user, but they ARE telling the user. They don't make your content silently public and then say "you agreed to that in paragraph 7.9.12 when you registered."
a) delete all your private content; b) make all your content public.
But the tweet is tendentious. Nothing prevents the user from deleting their content - THAT would be the problematic part.
So it's a small nuisance for the user, but they ARE telling the user. They don't make your content silently public and then say "you agreed to that in paragraph 7.9.12 when you registered."
Or better yet, your old presentations stay on the same terms, but any new presentations are public.
(This is similar to how LucidChart works)
(This is similar to how LucidChart works)
I was talking about a better UX choice. You're talking about changing their free tier pricing. Their free tier pricing is 100% legit, why would you expect more free beer than was granted to you?!?
I'm not talking about changing their free tier pricing - I'm talking about changing their functionality in a very limited way for ex-premium members.
There's no ex-premium. There are paid plans, and the basic free tier. You're talking about changing their free tier pricing.
https://prezi.com/pricing/basic/
The basic free tier for Prezi is "you can use our platform but your presentations are public". Once you're not on a paid plan, there are only two choices: you can delete your presentations or make it public.
When you are on a paid plan it IS possible to download your presentations to your computer.
There's nothing that entitles you to "my saved presentations are mine forever in Prezi and they stay private even though I don't pay.". Nothing.
https://prezi.com/pricing/basic/
The basic free tier for Prezi is "you can use our platform but your presentations are public". Once you're not on a paid plan, there are only two choices: you can delete your presentations or make it public.
When you are on a paid plan it IS possible to download your presentations to your computer.
There's nothing that entitles you to "my saved presentations are mine forever in Prezi and they stay private even though I don't pay.". Nothing.
There are plenty of companies that treat content that was created while you were a premium user differently when you revert back to a free user.
I’m not saying that anyone is entitled to it, I’m just saying that I think the model of ‘content created when I was a premium subscriber can retain some limited premium features’ is a much more graceful and customer-friendly downgrade path.
Forcing all your documents into either public, or a downloadable format you will never be able to edit again even if you resubscribe, doesn’t seem very consumer friendly.
I’m not saying that anyone is entitled to it, I’m just saying that I think the model of ‘content created when I was a premium subscriber can retain some limited premium features’ is a much more graceful and customer-friendly downgrade path.
Forcing all your documents into either public, or a downloadable format you will never be able to edit again even if you resubscribe, doesn’t seem very consumer friendly.
It’d be funny (and awful) to see a television show where the contents of a private repo are auctioned off when the subscriber stops paying.
Not sure if reference to Storage Wars or not.
Happens all the time in datacenters when clients don't pay their hosting.
How does one bid on these data lots?
I'm trying to remember who waas called in to do data recovery on a VAX that turned up in a Sauusolito garage back in the 1990s. I want to say Clifford Stoll, though I'm unsure and cant find an online reference.
That's what you get for not reading the TOS and cancellation policy [0].
If you let it expire,you keep the privacy settings; if you cancel (downgrade to free), you lose the pricacy and everything is public.
I'm not saying i's good practice, but if these terms don't work for you, don't use the service.
[0] https://support.prezi.com/hc/en-us/articles/360003478894-Can...
If you let it expire,you keep the privacy settings; if you cancel (downgrade to free), you lose the pricacy and everything is public.
I'm not saying i's good practice, but if these terms don't work for you, don't use the service.
[0] https://support.prezi.com/hc/en-us/articles/360003478894-Can...
"After your license expires, the presentations you’ve created will remain in your account and keep their privacy status."
Did that change today?
Did that change today?
I don't know if it changed, but could have only been an improvement; if in the previous version everything would be made public.
August 4, 2020 text was also "After your license expires, the presentations you’ve created will remain in your account and keep their privacy status."
That seems at odds with the checkbox in the UI in the Tweet in this post ( https://twitter.com/apenwarr/status/1322998961704210433 ). Maybe they've changed the business logic but haven't updated the help site?
That seems at odds with the checkbox in the UI in the Tweet in this post ( https://twitter.com/apenwarr/status/1322998961704210433 ). Maybe they've changed the business logic but haven't updated the help site?
You can’t just put whatever you like in a TOS and expect it to be enforceable.
That's true, but in this case it's already stated that the terms might be abusive. Once you continue, knowing that, you know you might have your presentations made public.
Once again, I don't condone these terms.
Once again, I don't condone these terms.
No, they really mean it. Even if you write it in double bold and highlight it in orange and make everybody signing read it out loud first, you can't enforce terms that aren't legal.
For example, in the US I believe it's pretty common for renters to be obliged to pay for or fix up normal dilapidation of the property when they leave. But in the UK it's illegal to require that for residential property. If you rent out houses in the UK, you're going to be paying to repaint them every few years, replace worn carpets, and so on, because the law says the tenant doesn't pay, and if you add a clause saying "Actually the tenant agrees to pay anyway" the law says your lease acts exactly as if you didn't add that clause except now you also lose the right to get courts to enforce your lease because it was illegal and you lose certain other protections because clearly you're an abusive landlord. So bad luck you made things harder on yourself.
For example, in the US I believe it's pretty common for renters to be obliged to pay for or fix up normal dilapidation of the property when they leave. But in the UK it's illegal to require that for residential property. If you rent out houses in the UK, you're going to be paying to repaint them every few years, replace worn carpets, and so on, because the law says the tenant doesn't pay, and if you add a clause saying "Actually the tenant agrees to pay anyway" the law says your lease acts exactly as if you didn't add that clause except now you also lose the right to get courts to enforce your lease because it was illegal and you lose certain other protections because clearly you're an abusive landlord. So bad luck you made things harder on yourself.
That's not correct.
While there can be unfair terms, which are then unenforceable, if a tenant and landlord explicitly and freely agree that the tenant will pay for something or do something this isn't necessarily invalid as this can be interpreted as being consideration (i.e. what the tenant agrees to do in exchange to be granted the lease). Certainly there is no loss of "right to get courts to enforce your lease" or "other protections".
While there can be unfair terms, which are then unenforceable, if a tenant and landlord explicitly and freely agree that the tenant will pay for something or do something this isn't necessarily invalid as this can be interpreted as being consideration (i.e. what the tenant agrees to do in exchange to be granted the lease). Certainly there is no loss of "right to get courts to enforce your lease" or "other protections".
[deleted]
The wording on that notice is atrocious, but it seems like the actual behavior isn’t horrible. In reality, they seem to be trying to convey:
If you cancel your subscription, any content which you still have in your account will revert to the privacy options of the free plan. If you don’t want some content to be public, delete it before making this change.
Whoever at Prezi manages this UI should definitely clean it up to actually say that, but the behavior itself doesn’t seem crazy to me.
If you cancel your subscription, any content which you still have in your account will revert to the privacy options of the free plan. If you don’t want some content to be public, delete it before making this change.
Whoever at Prezi manages this UI should definitely clean it up to actually say that, but the behavior itself doesn’t seem crazy to me.
imo that intention was clear, but atrocious
It's absolutely bonkers.
Agreed, this is likely how this happened:
1. At a growing startup, nobody is incentivized to implement the necessary-but-not-initially-related-to-growth features, like a sane account closure and unsubscribe process.
2. This, the easiest path forward was essentially "we'll turn your private account into a free account, where everything is public" because implementing something where there would be a deletion or export option in the unsubscribe flow would take more work, and nobody is getting bonused on that.
1. At a growing startup, nobody is incentivized to implement the necessary-but-not-initially-related-to-growth features, like a sane account closure and unsubscribe process.
2. This, the easiest path forward was essentially "we'll turn your private account into a free account, where everything is public" because implementing something where there would be a deletion or export option in the unsubscribe flow would take more work, and nobody is getting bonused on that.
I wonder what happens if you just block the card payments? Do your presentations also suddenly become public?
[deleted]
> Whoever at Prezi manages this UI should definitely clean it up to actually say that, but the behavior itself doesn’t seem crazy to me.
IMO they ought to change it from a single checkbox to a pair of radio buttons, and give something along the following as options:
“You are about to cancel your subscription. However, you have x private presentations in your account. Private presentations are not available without a paid subscription. How would you like to handle this?”
(_) Delete all x of my private presentations
(_) Make all x of my private presentations public
And then have a button or link as well where you can go if you wish to review your private presentations in order to delete any of them prior to making the remainder public.
Also, in the listing of private presentations, provide a button or link that allows you to download a copy of each of them before you delete them.
IMO they ought to change it from a single checkbox to a pair of radio buttons, and give something along the following as options:
“You are about to cancel your subscription. However, you have x private presentations in your account. Private presentations are not available without a paid subscription. How would you like to handle this?”
(_) Delete all x of my private presentations
(_) Make all x of my private presentations public
And then have a button or link as well where you can go if you wish to review your private presentations in order to delete any of them prior to making the remainder public.
Also, in the listing of private presentations, provide a button or link that allows you to download a copy of each of them before you delete them.
They could just email the user a zipfile of all their presentations, and then delete them. No need for radio buttons, and IMHO this is the most user-friendly/intuitive option because it doesn't force you to make any hard choices but still leaves you in control. Want to re-subscribe later? Cool, you can re-import those presentations. Need the data for archiving? You've got it. Privacy? Preserved.
Let's be real, there's no benefit to involving the private/public setting here other than making the service more sticky / difficult to leave.
Let's be real, there's no benefit to involving the private/public setting here other than making the service more sticky / difficult to leave.
I’m not familiar with the services provided by the company this thread is about (prezi), but giving a user a zip file with their data is not always straight forward. At a previous team we had to deal with this because of GDPR. Especially for data that has some visual element to it, the process is usually lossy because the user is also losing access to the client that renders their data.
This company seems to do web based slide decks. What file format do you give users, HTML and CSS files? A PDF printout of their presentations?
I agree that giving users a copy of their data would be ideal, but without a program that can view the data, the data itself might not be that useful.
This company seems to do web based slide decks. What file format do you give users, HTML and CSS files? A PDF printout of their presentations?
I agree that giving users a copy of their data would be ideal, but without a program that can view the data, the data itself might not be that useful.
PPT or PDF, with a second copy in a Prezi-specific format that preserves any nonstandard stuff?
There's a lot of options of varying difficulty. But they already have code to produce PDF, and dumping some proprietary lossless representation of their internal format doesn't seem unreasonably difficult. If they're shy about their secret sauce, fine, encrypt that second copy. It's only for the case that this user wants to come back to the service later on.
I can imagine plenty of business reasons not to do this, but very few technical ones.
There's a lot of options of varying difficulty. But they already have code to produce PDF, and dumping some proprietary lossless representation of their internal format doesn't seem unreasonably difficult. If they're shy about their secret sauce, fine, encrypt that second copy. It's only for the case that this user wants to come back to the service later on.
I can imagine plenty of business reasons not to do this, but very few technical ones.
> and dumping some proprietary lossless representation of their internal format doesn't seem unreasonably difficult.
I feel like you're not accounting for the time and effort it takes to maintain backwards compatibility. Once you give a customer a file that uses your internal format you have to always make sure your service will be able to read it back in. Going forward you aren't maintaining just 1 format, you're maintaining N different ones.
I feel like you're not accounting for the time and effort it takes to maintain backwards compatibility. Once you give a customer a file that uses your internal format you have to always make sure your service will be able to read it back in. Going forward you aren't maintaining just 1 format, you're maintaining N different ones.
Good point. It would not be free, nor necessarily trivial/easy, to support this.
But does that mean it's unreasonable to require companies to do it? We already force plenty of engineering with regulation (GDPR, HIPAA, FERPA, PCI-DSS, SOX) because these are things society wants, even if the company would rather not.
Also, maybe the proprietary format doesn't need to work forever. Just add a disclaimer that it's only guaranteed for, say, 1 year? Or just "best effort"? All the file does is give the customer an incentive to return to Prezi later on. It would be in their own best interest to support this, if they weren't allowed to sidestep the whole issue by making it difficult to leave in the first place.
But does that mean it's unreasonable to require companies to do it? We already force plenty of engineering with regulation (GDPR, HIPAA, FERPA, PCI-DSS, SOX) because these are things society wants, even if the company would rather not.
Also, maybe the proprietary format doesn't need to work forever. Just add a disclaimer that it's only guaranteed for, say, 1 year? Or just "best effort"? All the file does is give the customer an incentive to return to Prezi later on. It would be in their own best interest to support this, if they weren't allowed to sidestep the whole issue by making it difficult to leave in the first place.
[deleted]
That's assuming you can fit x presentations into an email-sized zip.
They could send batches. Or provide an expiring download link.
A more user friendly approach would be to not need the user to make a choice at all, and keep their private presentations private (maybe make them read only, or hidden until the user makes a choice after cancellation). Although maybe this doesn't provide enough incentive to subscribe.
Call me crazy, but if I was running this service, I would delete all your past data if you reverted from a paid to a free plan.
Otherwise it's hard not to impute a malicious motive to suddenly making private data public.
Then just say If you don't want your content to be deleted, pay us (with a side of "entitled freeloaders can fuck right off")
Kinda what Flickr does now. Which I dislike (finally cancelled my Pro yesterday), but I respect that they can't keep providing the old service for free.
Otherwise it's hard not to impute a malicious motive to suddenly making private data public.
Then just say If you don't want your content to be deleted, pay us (with a side of "entitled freeloaders can fuck right off")
Kinda what Flickr does now. Which I dislike (finally cancelled my Pro yesterday), but I respect that they can't keep providing the old service for free.
In my experience of working at startups, I disagree that they probably had a malicious motive when designing this feature. While I think they should allow you to delete the data, the genesis of this experience was probably (1) it took less work to build; and (2) no strong advocacy for user privacy on the product/engineering teams responsible.
As others have mentioned, I think "keep the content and make it read-only" would be the best possible experience, but I also understand (1) that would probably require even more work; and (2) sometimes you need to make business decisions to keep people from unsubscribing.
As others have mentioned, I think "keep the content and make it read-only" would be the best possible experience, but I also understand (1) that would probably require even more work; and (2) sometimes you need to make business decisions to keep people from unsubscribing.
I think it’s just a strategy to take advantage of unique content to drive traffic to the site. I’ve seen this before.
>I would delete all your past data if you reverted from a paid to a free plan.
Then we'd be seeing posts about momentary subscription lapses (or glitches along those lines) resulting in tons of user data being irrevocably lost.
I think the safest option would be to force the user, when they unsubscribe, to select between "keep everything but on the public free plan" vs. "unsubscribe and then delete everything."
Then we'd be seeing posts about momentary subscription lapses (or glitches along those lines) resulting in tons of user data being irrevocably lost.
I think the safest option would be to force the user, when they unsubscribe, to select between "keep everything but on the public free plan" vs. "unsubscribe and then delete everything."
>Then we'd be seeing posts about momentary subscription lapses (or glitches along those lines) resulting in tons of user data being irrevocably lost.
Sure, and this is where, for example, the old Flickr policy was great. You could only see the 1000 newest pics, but all the rest of them were actually still there (and inaccessible to anyone), in case you decided to renew later.
But the way I see it, if you didn't stay on top of payments, my service wasn't important enough to you anyway. A grace period with notification seems perfectly reasonable to me before I delete all your data.
Sure, and this is where, for example, the old Flickr policy was great. You could only see the 1000 newest pics, but all the rest of them were actually still there (and inaccessible to anyone), in case you decided to renew later.
But the way I see it, if you didn't stay on top of payments, my service wasn't important enough to you anyway. A grace period with notification seems perfectly reasonable to me before I delete all your data.
A checkbox to just delete that content along with it would be nice ....
The behaviour is still crazy. If you were OK with having your content public, you likely would want your content to already be public, and you would have acted to make it public from within your paid-for account.
[deleted]
They won't say it in a way that makes sense because then users will a) go do just what was suggested and then cancel, or b) do a) and also complain that there isn't a way to easily do that.
Well legally speaking, it says "before" cancelling, but they don't specify a frame of reference so they might as well fuck off.
JimBrimble35(1)
This could be a really useful feature. If you had some compromising evidence on someone you could just create a Prezi account with a private presentation, and should anything happen to you that means you stop paying the bills (death, prison, etc) Prezi would very helpfully make it public for you. It's like a deadman's switch for presentation content.
From what others are saying, in that situation it would remain private and inaccessible. It's only when manually reverting to the free account that it becomes public.
I don't see what the issue is. You can either delete them while you still have the subscription, or you can make them public and keep them after you switch to the free plan.
The checkbox clearly informs you of this fact. If there wasn't a checkbox like this, people could be confused either way--some will think it that everything is deleted and be surprised when it becomes public, but others would expect everything to stay and be shocked when it is deleted.
Also, if you wanted to stop using the service entirely, you would go to the page for deleting your account entirely, rather than just downgrading to the free plan.
The checkbox clearly informs you of this fact. If there wasn't a checkbox like this, people could be confused either way--some will think it that everything is deleted and be surprised when it becomes public, but others would expect everything to stay and be shocked when it is deleted.
Also, if you wanted to stop using the service entirely, you would go to the page for deleting your account entirely, rather than just downgrading to the free plan.
The issue is that for all the customer-centric rhetoric today, actions like these speak far louder than words.
What a nuclear way to bomb your company, wow. I'm dumbstruck how anyone would approve this feature.
When the subscription is cancelled 'freeze' the existing private data.
When frozen it is kept private, but the user can only delete it, or make it public (maybe allow read-only viewing, with this possibly limited to the first few slides (or whatever makes sense)). Once public, it is like any other public data in the free tier.
This way account status changes neither destroy privacy, nor allow people to take advantage of a loop hole to get free private data.
When frozen it is kept private, but the user can only delete it, or make it public (maybe allow read-only viewing, with this possibly limited to the first few slides (or whatever makes sense)). Once public, it is like any other public data in the free tier.
This way account status changes neither destroy privacy, nor allow people to take advantage of a loop hole to get free private data.
Why not just prevent you from creating new private presentations and keep those read only? After all, these were created when you had the subscription.
Cancelling Backblaze had some hoop jumping involved. They make you clear out the object storage. I'm trying to cancel the account. Orphan the objects and let them get garbage collected. It seems a bit passive-aggressive to turn me into a digital janitor so that I can cancel the account.
This looks like bad user experience to me.
From what I can see you can both delete your presentations, and delete your account.
If there was warning saying all your presentations will be made public if you do not delete them, with a checkbox to acknowledge the warning, rather than agree to it a condition no one would be getting upset.
Obviously they could improve it further by giving you the option to choose what to delete / keep and the option to cancel the subscription and delete the whole account in one go.
There docs say you must cancel the subscription before deleting you account or you will continue to be charged, which is just awful.
Why don't they just ask for money? "Please cancel for $50" ;D
What has become of HN. Why are so many people defending this practice because "You agreed to this when you signed up."
Are so many unscrupulous people now members of HN?
Even if this practice is legal, which is questionable, it's very likely immoral, and very obviously a jerk move.
It's both amazing and alarming to me how the overton window on HN has changed. Obviously unscrupulous and questionable practices are defended on the grounds of "yeah but its not actually _illegal_"
Maybe I'm just out of touch with the state of the industry, might be time to move on from HN in general.
Are so many unscrupulous people now members of HN?
Even if this practice is legal, which is questionable, it's very likely immoral, and very obviously a jerk move.
It's both amazing and alarming to me how the overton window on HN has changed. Obviously unscrupulous and questionable practices are defended on the grounds of "yeah but its not actually _illegal_"
Maybe I'm just out of touch with the state of the industry, might be time to move on from HN in general.
HN is associated with a startup incubator, and every startup I've seen has engaged in some measure of shady growth hacking. Once you start blurring the lines, you open yourself to stuff like this.
That said though I can see how this specific case happened just looking at incentives. Startups are strapped for people, and offboarding is sadly one of the first things to get dropped, because it doesn't directly increase revenue (and may even decrease retention).
Even more cynically I wouldn't be surprised if there was a time where this warning wasn't even shown at all and presentations just went back to being public because the has_active_subscription field returned false.
That said though I can see how this specific case happened just looking at incentives. Startups are strapped for people, and offboarding is sadly one of the first things to get dropped, because it doesn't directly increase revenue (and may even decrease retention).
Even more cynically I wouldn't be surprised if there was a time where this warning wasn't even shown at all and presentations just went back to being public because the has_active_subscription field returned false.
This is more malicious than just not focusing on offboarding. The easiest implementation would be to just delete the user account and abandon the data, slightly more effort would be to delete the data. Making it public with the legal disclaimers and all that takes effort and commitment.
Could very well be, I wasn't there so I can't say.
I have seen good people do bad things out of negligence that later gets attributed to malice on the internet when it gets discussed.
People always drift towards malicious intent but I think it's uniquely terrifying that "good" people can do bad things when the incentives are misaligned, or they aren't thinking end to end, if only because it's an opportunity to admit that we ourselves might make a similar mistake, so we should be vigilant.
I have seen good people do bad things out of negligence that later gets attributed to malice on the internet when it gets discussed.
People always drift towards malicious intent but I think it's uniquely terrifying that "good" people can do bad things when the incentives are misaligned, or they aren't thinking end to end, if only because it's an opportunity to admit that we ourselves might make a similar mistake, so we should be vigilant.
> What has become of HN. Why are so many people defending this practice […]
I think people on HN increasingly have FAANG (or even more murky) jobs.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
— Upton Sinclair
If these people were to admit to themselves that the place they work is deeply unethical, they would have to either face unpleasant truths about themselves, or face the prospect of abandoning their job. Neither alternative is attractive to say the least, so cognitive dissonance sets in, and an illusion is created is their minds that this behavior is, in fact, ethical.
I think people on HN increasingly have FAANG (or even more murky) jobs.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
— Upton Sinclair
If these people were to admit to themselves that the place they work is deeply unethical, they would have to either face unpleasant truths about themselves, or face the prospect of abandoning their job. Neither alternative is attractive to say the least, so cognitive dissonance sets in, and an illusion is created is their minds that this behavior is, in fact, ethical.
Prezi is more a startup in "growth hacking" phase than a FAANG
Also, people often have different and mutually exclusive ethical values from each other, there are plenty of defense contractors who believe they are the good guys, privacy activists who think they're doing good, anti abortion activists who believe they are saving lives, pro choice activists who think they're protecting rights, etc. How can we know which is the illusory position?
I can't expect to believe that all of my positions just happen to be right. Everyone on the planet believes they're right--the right values, the right religions... I'm not aware of an objective answer to morality.
Also, people often have different and mutually exclusive ethical values from each other, there are plenty of defense contractors who believe they are the good guys, privacy activists who think they're doing good, anti abortion activists who believe they are saving lives, pro choice activists who think they're protecting rights, etc. How can we know which is the illusory position?
I can't expect to believe that all of my positions just happen to be right. Everyone on the planet believes they're right--the right values, the right religions... I'm not aware of an objective answer to morality.
>Everyone on the planet believes they're right--the right values, the right religions... I'm not aware of an objective answer to morality.
Moral relativism is the most insidious means to reduce legitimate concerns—whether they be ethical, political, or otherwise—to inconsequential.
It's easy to assuage your own feelings of shame/guilt by pointing out that $repugnant_behaviour occurs else where and that's so much worse.
At some point it's required that people actually take a stand rather than participate in the race to the ethical bottom.
Moral relativism is the most insidious means to reduce legitimate concerns—whether they be ethical, political, or otherwise—to inconsequential.
It's easy to assuage your own feelings of shame/guilt by pointing out that $repugnant_behaviour occurs else where and that's so much worse.
At some point it's required that people actually take a stand rather than participate in the race to the ethical bottom.
> take a stand
This same thought process works for suicide bombers fighting for a theocracy as much as you or me.
Consider that giving this advice to everyone on earth would just lead to more extremism in all directions. E.g. PETA sees meat consumption as animal genocide, but meat eaters don't see animals as being in the same class as people (they're humanists).
This same thought process works for suicide bombers fighting for a theocracy as much as you or me.
Consider that giving this advice to everyone on earth would just lead to more extremism in all directions. E.g. PETA sees meat consumption as animal genocide, but meat eaters don't see animals as being in the same class as people (they're humanists).
The argument here is that most agree that including fine-print in a contract most people don't read, can't realistically understand, and can't even renegotiate to allow yourself to do awful things is abhorrent.
Well, most do except those who engage in the practice, of course.
Well, most do except those who engage in the practice, of course.
I was responding to the Upton Sinclair quote but I seem to have attracted some moral absolutists and now the conversation is steering philosophical.
I agree that corporate lawyers are abhorrent ;)
I agree that corporate lawyers are abhorrent ;)
>Consider that giving this advice to everyone on earth would just lead to more extremism in all directions. E.g. PETA sees meat consumption as animal genocide, but meat eaters don't see animals as being in the same class as people (they're humanists).
I categorically disagree. Your stance is what seems to me what would increase extremism, because there's always someone else you can point to and go "BUT WHAT ABOUT..." to justify any arbitrary shitty policy.
I categorically disagree. Your stance is what seems to me what would increase extremism, because there's always someone else you can point to and go "BUT WHAT ABOUT..." to justify any arbitrary shitty policy.
Hmm maybe. I'm not evaluating my model of the world on its effect on society if made popular, only its proximity to reality and predictive power.
I don't think understanding that beliefs are arbitrary and fighting for your beliefs is mutually exclusive. If anything there's at least the acknowledgement that because many moral arguments work both ways, bringing people who disagree to your position requires other methods.
If you want to get more technical, there are normative and positive statements, the former describing what we are talking about here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics
In that lens, "Your stance is what seems to me what would increase extremism" is probably positive because it could be evaluated experimentally, but "cutting in line is wrong" is a normative statement.
My open question (and I'm very open to being wrong) is if there's a way to convince line cutters from a culture of line cutters of their wrongdoing without resorting to violence or coercion. How would you do it?
I don't think understanding that beliefs are arbitrary and fighting for your beliefs is mutually exclusive. If anything there's at least the acknowledgement that because many moral arguments work both ways, bringing people who disagree to your position requires other methods.
If you want to get more technical, there are normative and positive statements, the former describing what we are talking about here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics
In that lens, "Your stance is what seems to me what would increase extremism" is probably positive because it could be evaluated experimentally, but "cutting in line is wrong" is a normative statement.
My open question (and I'm very open to being wrong) is if there's a way to convince line cutters from a culture of line cutters of their wrongdoing without resorting to violence or coercion. How would you do it?
lol k.
So what's your conclusion then. Morals are relative, therefore there are no morals? Who are we to criticize genocide and terrorism?
So what's your conclusion then. Morals are relative, therefore there are no morals? Who are we to criticize genocide and terrorism?
No, morals are relative, just that. We probably have similar morals as frequenters of a tech website site in English compared to hunter gatherers, so we can even have this discussion in the first place. I haven't been convinced that there's anything universal about the morals we hold across species let alone sapiens in the past 10,000 years or across cultures.
Unless your definition of moral absolutism only encompasses humans living today (with the implication that technology makes certain things possible), which I might agree with.
Unless your definition of moral absolutism only encompasses humans living today (with the implication that technology makes certain things possible), which I might agree with.
> No, morals are relative, just that.
And yet by focusing on and stating "just that," you steer the conversation away from the concrete action that this whole thread was started about.
We're not going to resolve moral relativism vs absolutism in a web form, nor should that be a necessary pre-requisite for condemning the immoral behaviour of a company.
It's one thing to debate if the particular action in question is good or not. It's another to attempt to invalidate the entire debate by stating that "morals are relative."
You may think you're just stating "morals are relative, just that," but in reality, the context within which you state it serves only to move the discussion away from the morals of the act in question into some abstract debate about morals in general. It's a distraction. Sometimes the "root cause" cannot be resolved and we should focus on the symptoms and more surface level issues.
And yet by focusing on and stating "just that," you steer the conversation away from the concrete action that this whole thread was started about.
We're not going to resolve moral relativism vs absolutism in a web form, nor should that be a necessary pre-requisite for condemning the immoral behaviour of a company.
It's one thing to debate if the particular action in question is good or not. It's another to attempt to invalidate the entire debate by stating that "morals are relative."
You may think you're just stating "morals are relative, just that," but in reality, the context within which you state it serves only to move the discussion away from the morals of the act in question into some abstract debate about morals in general. It's a distraction. Sometimes the "root cause" cannot be resolved and we should focus on the symptoms and more surface level issues.
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I'm using this to defend Prezi or something.
The parent comment I originally responded to was about jobs they found morally objectionable and an Upton Sinclair quote.
My reply was about how some people don't actually find those jobs objectionable.
Then the reply to that was about moral relativity (which okay, now we're getting into philosophy).
And now we're about to discuss the purpose of a web forum, but that seems even more meta than this conversation.
I guess in summary, I agree we have veered off of course (arguably the original comment had very little to do with this Prezi incident), but I also think these side discussions are interesting. If you don't want to chat about philosophy you don't have to and it's okay if some people are wrong on the internet.
The parent comment I originally responded to was about jobs they found morally objectionable and an Upton Sinclair quote.
My reply was about how some people don't actually find those jobs objectionable.
Then the reply to that was about moral relativity (which okay, now we're getting into philosophy).
And now we're about to discuss the purpose of a web forum, but that seems even more meta than this conversation.
I guess in summary, I agree we have veered off of course (arguably the original comment had very little to do with this Prezi incident), but I also think these side discussions are interesting. If you don't want to chat about philosophy you don't have to and it's okay if some people are wrong on the internet.
> Are so many unscrupulous people now members of HN?
Probably the same people who recently suggested re-colonization of Africa and downvoted my horrified responses to oblivion (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23893411)
Is this just a recent spike in abject immortality or is this an Eternal September?
Probably the same people who recently suggested re-colonization of Africa and downvoted my horrified responses to oblivion (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23893411)
Is this just a recent spike in abject immortality or is this an Eternal September?
Or the same people who defend Holocaust denial.
I don't know what's going on either but there certainly seems to be an uptick in some straight up embarrassing thinking on this site.
I don't know what's going on either but there certainly seems to be an uptick in some straight up embarrassing thinking on this site.
Are we seriously comparing people who aren’t upset about some bad software policy to people who want to colonize Africa or deny the Holocaust?
I've noticed the trend on here shift towards the more "libertarian" views. Most Google/Microsoft/Apple/Giant-Corporation threads have a ton of "just stop using their service" replies that ignore the practicality of such a solution.
I did notice that this all reversed when TikTok was going to be banned, and a lot of people were happy that the US government was going through with it.
One thing I do question is if there was an actual shift in the trend and I noticed it or if this libertarian-ism was always present in tech circles and I'm noticing it more now.
I did notice that this all reversed when TikTok was going to be banned, and a lot of people were happy that the US government was going through with it.
One thing I do question is if there was an actual shift in the trend and I noticed it or if this libertarian-ism was always present in tech circles and I'm noticing it more now.
Probably one of those hipster types labeling this sort of hostile user behavior in a management meeting as a "growth hack that will skyrocket our customer lifetime value"
What you don't know is you though may have forced me to extend my subscription, it's only just enough to delete all my files and never ever look at your slimy business nor recommend it to anyone around me ever again.
What you don't know is you though may have forced me to extend my subscription, it's only just enough to delete all my files and never ever look at your slimy business nor recommend it to anyone around me ever again.
Textbook shortsightedness. IIRC before the change to collaborator-based billing, the GitHub model was that the private repos would be frozen if one stopped subscribing. Yet still remain private. That's a much better customer experience with the same incentives.
Official response:
> This copy does not reflect our policy - thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we’re currently fixing the mistake. Any private presentations created during your trial or paid subscription will remain private unless you change the privacy settings.
> Prezi offers free licenses, and when you cancel your trial or subscription, you’ll have the option to downgrade to a free license. After that, any new presentations created from the free license will be public.
> This copy does not reflect our policy - thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we’re currently fixing the mistake. Any private presentations created during your trial or paid subscription will remain private unless you change the privacy settings.
> Prezi offers free licenses, and when you cancel your trial or subscription, you’ll have the option to downgrade to a free license. After that, any new presentations created from the free license will be public.
Prezi is fixing it:
> Hi @apenwarr > This copy does not reflect our policy - thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we’re currently fixing the mistake. Any private presentations created during your trial or paid subscription will remain private unless you change the privacy settings. (1/2)
> Hi @apenwarr > This copy does not reflect our policy - thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we’re currently fixing the mistake. Any private presentations created during your trial or paid subscription will remain private unless you change the privacy settings. (1/2)
Hm, just seems like really bad copy. They seem to have meant that any new presentations will be public.
Prezi's response in linked thread:
This copy does not reflect our policy - thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we’re currently fixing the mistake. Any private presentations created during your trial or paid subscription will remain private unless you change the privacy settings. (1/2)
Prezi offers free licenses, and when you cancel your trial or subscription, you’ll have the option to downgrade to a free license. After that, any new presentations created from the free license will be public. (2/2)
Prezi's response in linked thread:
This copy does not reflect our policy - thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we’re currently fixing the mistake. Any private presentations created during your trial or paid subscription will remain private unless you change the privacy settings. (1/2)
Prezi offers free licenses, and when you cancel your trial or subscription, you’ll have the option to downgrade to a free license. After that, any new presentations created from the free license will be public. (2/2)
I think I more or less understand but what exactly does the word 'copy' mean in this context?
Copy is a term for the words on a page/site. The writing. The sentences and the construction of their words, purportedly to advance whatever cause the page is trying to push.
I think it's a vestige from the days of the printing press.
I think it's a vestige from the days of the printing press.
It's also what's referred to by the word "copyright". IE, the rights to the copy (noun), not the right to copy (verb).
Prezi responded:
> This copy does not reflect our policy - thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we’re currently fixing the mistake. Any private presentations created during your trial or paid subscription will remain private unless you change the privacy settings. (1/2)
> Prezi offers free licenses, and when you cancel your trial or subscription, you’ll have the option to downgrade to a free license. After that, any new presentations created from the free license will be public. (2/2)
Link: https://twitter.com/prezi/status/1323372206357962752
> This copy does not reflect our policy - thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we’re currently fixing the mistake. Any private presentations created during your trial or paid subscription will remain private unless you change the privacy settings. (1/2)
> Prezi offers free licenses, and when you cancel your trial or subscription, you’ll have the option to downgrade to a free license. After that, any new presentations created from the free license will be public. (2/2)
Link: https://twitter.com/prezi/status/1323372206357962752
My favorite was eTrade, demanding $80 to close my account. Huh. So I withdrew all my money from the account, and never paid the fee again. Guess what? They closed my account.
IANAL, but this is a reminder that something being in a TOS/EULA doesn't necessarily mean it's enforceable. There are contract laws and consumer protection laws that make certain conditions illegal and not enforceable. Sometimes companies include these things out of ignorance, and sometimes deliberately under the assumption that consumers don't know what their rights are. If you are suddenly surprised by terms you think are unfair and may cause you harm, then ask a lawyer.
Also, as some people of pointed out, this isn't actually part of Prezi's TOS, so I'm very doubtful that this would stand up in arbitration/court.
Also, as some people of pointed out, this isn't actually part of Prezi's TOS, so I'm very doubtful that this would stand up in arbitration/court.
If you are allowed to delete the presentations, then that would be reasonable, although it should perhaps give you that option on the cancellation menu.
clickbait and resolved. From Presi corporate:
Hi @apenwarr, This copy does not reflect our policy - thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we’re currently fixing the mistake. Any private presentations created during your trial or paid subscription will remain private unless you change the privacy settings. (1/2)
Hi @apenwarr, This copy does not reflect our policy - thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we’re currently fixing the mistake. Any private presentations created during your trial or paid subscription will remain private unless you change the privacy settings. (1/2)
There was an update to the Twitter thread a couple of hours ago:
“Hi @apenwarr, This copy does not reflect our policy - thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we’re currently fixing the mistake. Any private presentations created during your trial or paid subscription will remain private unless you change the privacy settings. (1/2)”
“Hi @apenwarr, This copy does not reflect our policy - thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we’re currently fixing the mistake. Any private presentations created during your trial or paid subscription will remain private unless you change the privacy settings. (1/2)”
Oh wow, a while ago I was researching some crap for pre sales / integration planning and found a whole bunch of very useful, very internal presentations from a big pharma company on Prezi. Now I wonder if they were just not intended to be made public