OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies

[Saber Cherry]

Originally posted by Loser:
You didn't get Gator without clicking yes on something you shouldn't have.

Oh, come on... you could take that to any extreme. If a box popped up on your screen, with no text and only 2 buttons, yes and no, and clicking the "no" button destroyed your computer... does that mean that the victims - people whose computers are destroyed by that software, written with the purpose of destroying computers - are also the culprits? That's insane.

If you're driving down the highway, pull off into a private (but highway-accessible, and unrestricted) parking lot, and a concealed landmine blows the engine out of your car... that's the driver's fault? The person who placed the landmine is ethically innocent? Give me a break.

-Cherry

[deccan]

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
If a box popped up on your screen, with no text and only 2 buttons, yes and no, and clicking the "no" button destroyed your computer...

No doubt the conventions that make digital agreements legally binding would need to be worked out, but in principle, if people voluntarily agree to having things being done to their computer in exchange for certain services, then they shouldn't complain about it.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by PvK:
Why do you think that companies need to be allowed to do things the public strongly opposes, in order to provide things we actually do want?

PvK

Well, that's a start in the right direction, PvK. But the real question is: "Why do you think that those things can only be done by corporations?" It might take a bit longer to organize people voluntarily as opposed to snaring them by their financial need and thus coercing them to enter into contracts that let you order them around, but if it's important enough there's really no reason that people cooperating voluntarily cannot accomplish the same things as people caught in wage slavery.

[Fyron]

Wage slavery... The masses will always be "enslaved" in one form or another, as it is the natural order of things. It will always be possible to invent new forms of perceived "enslavement" to complain about.

[macjimmy]

Why do you think that companies need to be allowed to do things the public strongly opposes, in order to provide things we actually do want?

I think that because the public does not really care about monopolies, invasion of privacy, etc, that companies can get away with what they do. Most people I know don't know the first thing about Microsoft's business practices, RIAA lawsuits, or even what RIAA means. Pretty much everyone from around here would rather watch fear factor or nascar than hear about Microsoft.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Loser:

No legislating more protection for foolishness. You didn't get Gator without clicking yes on something you shouldn't have. If anyone Posts after this saying they didn't click on anything and got it they are mistaken. I apologize if I offend you, but I deal with this stuff all day.

So what your saying is that when I install an app that has Gator hidden in it It will pop up a nice clear message. 'Do you want to also install Gator. It is a advertising program that will deluge you with annoying popups?" Yea right. It's pretty obvious companies like Gator specifically attempt to get their software on your computer without your knowledge. And that should be illegal.
Legislating protection for the foolish? Sure we should. We do it all the time. ie Seatbelt laws. There are a lot of very intelligent people who just don't happen to be computer experts (Hi Mom, Hi Dad!) These companies should not be allowed to annoy them and bugger up their computers. (and waste their sons time to go up and fix the computer)

[David E. Gervais]

FYI: (and this might shock the **** out of you..) When a 'Gator' dialogue box pops up and asks if you wish to install it [YES] [NO].

Clicking on either answer will promptly install the spy/ad ware. In fact the 'Gator Dialogue' only pops up after it is installed.

nuf said.

Cheers!

Edit: P.S. Here's some more food for thought..

ALL Software companies are ".. not responsible for any damage or loss of data caused by the use of this product.. blah, blah, blah.." Do you agree to these terms? [YES] [NO]

How can someone (Corporation) Design, build and sell a product and claim absolutely no responsibility for it's preformance and or and damage directly caused by it's product?

I think 'Drug Companies' should all list 'Death' as a possible side effect, and then they would be safe from any lawsuits. (It makes as much sense as the software licence.)

..sometimes I can babble too much, just kick me in the head and I'll stop.

[ October 24, 2003, 11:57: Message edited by: David E. Gervais ]