On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 04:02:06PM +0200, Hugo Roy wrote:
Le lun. 01/04/13, 16:30, xdrudis xdrudis@tinet.cat:
The average found by the study was 76 days. But what you can conclude from this is that it is completely impractical to read (not even understand) the terms of service you subscribe to online. To make the conclusion that people don't care about what's in them is completely out of proportion. We have no research that I'm aware of that can measure how much people care about their rights online. But the fact that FSFE, EFF or projects like tosdr.org get funded by individuals and sustain is one sign that actually enough people *do* care.
Thanks, I didn't know tosdr.org. Looks useful.
I still think the normal thing to do when you (often) find impractical to read and understand TOS is not to use the service. So the fact that many people use them without reading them for me is some measure that they don't care (I don't believe the option of not using a web service is so onerous, in fact it frees time).
But I agree I'm disgressing and we should not care too much what other people care about. We should care for what we care about. So sorry if I was sounding discouraging.
In the end, I think it is useless to ascertain whether people care or not about the law. This is too broad and difficult to measure for us anyway.
Yes, and too meaningless. Even if we could measure it we would still not change our mind only because others think different. It takes arguments to change one's mind.
What we do konw is that *we* care about our rights and freedoms and there's definitely enough legal ground to make a meaningful proposal that people should have the right to be in control of hardware they buy. So let's focus on that.
There have been some proposals here, and I'd like to see more ideas coming :-)
Of course, I didn't mean to get in the way, sorry.
My intention was only to link the topic with the fact that closed hardware is being more closely tied with closed software and closed services for content that it used to be. And I think that changes the issues at stake from what they used to be, because hardware economics is different to software economics (and I guess content/services network effects are a little different to software too, but maybe not so much). So thinking in including open hardware, open cloud (if I understood it) open culture and open knowledge in software freedom quests is increasingly appropiate. Which doesn't mean that people focusing in one of those aspects is any less helping the whole lot, of course.
I understood Alessandro's point of proliferation of appliances in detriment of general purpose computers as being very relevant to commercialisation of computers, that's all.