Comment by qwerty456127
6 years ago
Hardware requiring an online account to work must be outlawed.
As well as the "We have already reviewed this decision and it can't be reversed" bullshit. For every ban they should be required to issue a very specific clarification on why exactly were you banned and let you to speak to a real person.
That would probably a step too far. But also unnecessary.
Make a law that requires them to give you a full refund for all hardware that you can’t use and all software purchased over the lifetime of the account.
That will make them incur a cost that makes it worthwhile for them to be more careful.
Edit: Downstream commenters make a good point. You'd have to put in a formula for "depreciation" of the refund, so you can't just get a refund years later.
On the surface, this seems like an elegant solution. However, it also seems to me like it would need exceptions.
Since we are talking about online games, the topic of how to deal with people caught cheating (as in using third party cheating tools) comes to mind. It is typical to ban those people. If a ban was synonymous with a refund, there is little incentive to not cheat.
If the law allowed for exceptions like this (e.g. banned with cause), then it'd be pretty hollow as the company is also the final arbiter of what cause is.
It is possible I am missing something though as this is not something I have put a lot of thought into.
No need to ban them, just put them into a separate matchmaking bracket?
2 replies →
You bring up a good point, I've edited my comment. You'd need to add in a way to "depreciate" the refund.
For the cheating exception, I don't think it would be a problem. Most of those games have subscriptions, so there wouldn't be a lot to refund.
Feels to me like account moderations needs to be handled external to private companies operating a platform... like insurance or a credit history system
Presumably the payment method will be banned and getting banned in a old game purposely to get a refund sounds like a lot of work for 60$. I can't imagine that would be significantly abuse.
Sellers should not be able to take away goods after the sell; that's pretty much universally understood as theft.
The EU actually has such a "conformity" law for goods[0], however I don't see how it would apply in this case. It also takes into account the point raised by the other commenters: "the seller can only refuse if this causes disproportionate costs on him in comparison with the alternative remedy, taking into account the value of the goods or the significance of the lack of conformity"
[0] https://www.europe-consommateurs.eu/en/consumer-topics/buyin...
So, after 5 years you can just do something stupid to get banned and get a full refund? Sweet.
Ensuring it can be used without an online account is actually reasonable.
> So, after 5 years you can just do something stupid to get banned and get a full refund?
Yes. They should be able to ban you from their online platform if you misuse it and don't behave yourself but they shouldn't have a right to brick the device you've bought, no matter what you do.
> So, after 5 years you can just do something stupid to get banned and get a full refund? Sweet.
If this was the law, then companies would change the way their products work or the way they ban people. Instead of banning, on Facebook, they would prevent the user from posting and interacting with other users. You would in essence get a very nice advert-only feed but not banned.
1 reply →
Excellent point on the getting a refund years later. I've edited my comment to add that there would need to be depreciation on the refund.
Pointing out to sibling comments that the actual law would be more complex than the specific wording here and that courts exist for a reason.
The bigger problem is that no individual would have any realistic hope of successfully suing facebook to prove unjust account termination.
A step in the right direction, but it wouldn't help with the other problem of device-as-a-service, which is the company going bankrupt.
"We have already reviewed this decision and it can't be reversed" is how the Internet has always worked.
The dirty secret of the Internet - going back decades - is that it's concept of moderation mostly relies upon unstated or understated rules half-enforced and adjudicated by volunteers or underpaid contractors with the power of judge, jury, and executioner. This is arguably by design: the vast majority of what moderators are dealing with is spam, which has the properties of being cheap to execute and difficult to filter for. Hence, anti-spam efforts are swift and merciless. More modern efforts to deal with things like foreign election interference and fake news are arguably extensions of this same ongoing effort to summarily hang and execute spammers.
Facebook is not alone in this either: Google's done it from the very beginning and their death penalty stings far harder. There's a few exceptions to this, such as Wikipedia's ArbCom or other collaborative Free Software projects with code-of-conduct rules and moderator transparency. However, even those platforms will summarily execute spammers.
This may be the only way to scale a service that is free to users. But once you are selling a product to paying customers, those customers need to be at a different tier with real customer support.
Those paying customers are already incredibly unlikely to be spammers. They cannot be handled the same way free accounts are.
This is a cultural problem as much as an economic imperative. Apple and Google both run app stores with distribution rules, but Apple will bend over backwards to try and get you in compliance with their rules, while Google will just delete your Gmail. I've also heard far fewer reports of Apple iCloud accounts getting summarily deleted compared to Google or Facebook.
Strongly disagree. Using the law in this strong arm manner stiffles innovation.
Yes, the current Oculus / Facebook situation sucks.
However, blanket statements like "Hardware requiring an online account to work must be outlawed." Would ban very legitimate products such as Amazon's physical buttons for restocking supplies.
Sure the Dash buttons are discontinued, but there's definitely an interesting area of products that might be developed in the coming years for other products in this wide domain.
> However, blanket statements like "Hardware requiring an online account to work must be outlawed." Would ban very legitimate products such as Amazon's physical buttons for restocking supplies.
OK, rephrase it slightly and say that it must not require an online account from a specific provider. If I can come up with an API endpoint that I want to use instead of Amazon, and I want to reconfigure my Dash button to use it, I should be legally and technically allowed to do so.
The regulation doesn't need to ban any categories of products, or mandate any features. It just needs to say that if your product depends on online connectivity for a significant part of its functionality, then it must not employ technical measures to prevent interoperability. Hardware that's sold to consumers already needs to meet various compliance standards, such as RF emissions testing; this doesn't seem like a heavy burden in comparison.
Of course, such a policy is very unlikely to be enacted in the US any time soon, but hey, I can dream.
Strongly agreed.
Some people seem to believe Internet is the new electricity. Even if this is so, electricity doesn't have colour - only voltage, amperage and frequency. My toaster doesn't restrict me to use only electricity from a specific power plant. I can power it up even from a car battery, if I tinker with it a little. Similarly, a device like the Dash button should use whatever endpoint that implements the required API, and not be restricted to a specific provider.
>Dash buttons
Those weren't innovations, those were solutions in search of a problem. Probably contributed to their discontinuation. Also, what "innovation" of the past 20 years has been truly innovative, life-changing, and a net positive for humanity? Pretty much everything that has come out of Silicon Valley has been at best neutral for society (creating new markets and revenue for businesses aren't a positive in my eyes).
We need to stop pulling the "stifling innovation" card. Not stifling innovation has led us to society's cancerous relationship with technology.
Smart+cellular phones, I think clearly fit the category of life changing and world changing. World societies have been greatly improved by wireless access, everywhere.
Why couldn't dash buttons work on the LAN for whatever use-case you want it to?
Wouldn't impact its intended use case at all. Other than the fact that it could now be used for something useful I guess...
I agree with you.
But if you can ban me from using a piece of hardware that I bought then you should be required to refund me and pay shipping for the return.
I once had a Logitech universal remote control that required opening an account to use it. Sent it back, bought an AllInOne, and never since considered purchasing any products from Logitech. Unfortunately most people don't give a shit and just do what the companies tell them.
You do have that right, small claims court
No account would mean anonymous access, wouldn't it? That's fine, but I don't think many people would frequent anonymous communities since moderation would become extremely difficult, unless the presence was tied with the hardware. Tying an an involuntary account to hardware would probably destroy the second hand market.
I would have the law along the lines that Hardware should not be limited or curtailed in usage via any optional on-line related identification.
That way for things that may well suit having linked account - fine, but not curtailing that avenue. Basicly making having it linked to an on line account - optional via consumer choice, as it should always be.
> Hardware requiring an online account to work must be outlawed.
You have just outlawed Roku. An online account is required to make it work, because that's how it was designed to work. It's a rather useless device without the online account.
Well, you could design an open API that others can use, too (server-side, not client side!). So the device can work with competitors, too, meaning it won't require an account at only one company. That would be a compromise - at least in theory others could replace the server parts.
I feel you're ignoring the subtle point - these devices are designed as an extension of their service not as general computing devices. I can easily replace "Roku" with "RSA SecureID keyfob" and have the same conversation - it is not a generic device; it is a targeted hardware extension of their core business model. An "online account" (an account with RSA the company) is required for this keyfob to be of any value other than a LED screen displaying random numbers.
4 replies →
For some features, you can't get around not having an online account. I feel it's better to vote with our wallets.
As well as the "We have already reviewed this decision and it can't be reversed" bullshit. For every ban they should be required to issue a very specific clarification on why exactly were you banned and let you to speak to a real person.
GDPR requires that algorithmic decisions get this kind of oversight. GDPR is the way to get redress here.
Only for consequential decisions, but yes, a GDPR complaint from someone who purchased the Quest 2 is the right approach here.
Or maybe just don't buy or use products and services like this?
Folks often overestimate the power consumers have in meaningfully shaping a market. Consumer protections are rarely gained by simply refusing to do business with market leaders who behave in consumer hostile ways. Regulation really seems to be our best shot at reversing course on what is nothing short of the theft of digital goods from consumers.
Except that one day you suddenly have employers that require you to personally own this hardware, or government portals, and then what?
Oh, your driver's license is only available as an app for a device you just got permabanned from. I guess you're not a citizen anymore.
My health care provider is now asking users to move away from physical credentials to use an app. I am livid.
It's like these guys think "Black Mirror" is a business plan, not a dystopian cautionary tale.
Many people still will buy. There is a reason we use representative democracy rather than direct democracy - qualified people should outlaw some bad things the crowd can't resist itself.
Oculus is a niche product, it will be forgotten in a few years just like 3D TVs. Facebook knows it and it would not spend a dime on good customer service, they will just implement something good enough.