Thread

Dutch governments builds alternative for Microsoft based on NixOS

1021 points · 583 comments · fjfaase

askonomm · 1790329035 · focus · HN ↗
Any move away from the abusive big tech that exists in USA is a good move in my book. Microsoft just recently made a new patent where they will monitor you via camera and microphone to block your program/game to show you ads, and per ads viewed, you then earn credit to be able to use your program/game. It is absolutely wild to me how a corporation can be so toxic and abusive to its users and still be in business.
1. DrBazza · 1790330991 · focus · HN ↗
  My pet peeve is changes in 'user agreements' for paid services that add increasing amounts of adverts and tracking, but if you decline, you can't use the service, but the service continues to charge you. For the service they're no longer supplying.
  Just the kind of thing that the EU could regulate if it chose. Decline -> Your subscription will be terminated, no further monies will be debut from your account, are you sure?
  1. rkuodys · 1790331803 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm more interested in the cases where you buy your phone, for example, and after purchase you are asked to agree with terms and conditions. Money is paid already. If you do not agree, you cannot use the device. Worse still, if 2 days after thre is mandatory update that forces you to agree to new version. If you don't like them, you should be compensated for it, as it is hidden information from you as a buyer.
    embedding-shape · 1790331921 · focus · HN ↗
    Remove/changing functionality in a way that the original use case you had for the device, no longer applies, because of a forced software update or user agreement you have to accept, should let people return the hardware regardless of when it was purchased. Bananas that this is still legal for companies to do.
    fc417fc802 · 1790332520 · focus · HN ↗
    I've always viewed those as entirely invalid, at least from the standpoint of the spirit of our various legal systems and cultures. I recognize that any "binding arbitration" bits are enforceable (and an injustice). But the rest of it? Literal make believe. I will do as I please with the hardware that I paid for, its firmware, and any software that it came with. I will actively aid and abet anyone who seeks to reverse engineer same, circumvent associated technical measures, or evade the law while doing so. And all of that is good and virtuous behavior that improves society as far as I'm concerned.
    In other words - go ahead and click "I agree" without reading it, then proceed to dump the firmware or whatever else it is that you want to do. You aren't lying or otherwise doing anything wrong. The legal system is just broken.
    The fact that such a legal reality has been permitted to reach this point has to be one of the clearest illustrations that western systems of government remain highly flawed despite all that they get right.
    mitxela · 1790338733 · focus · HN ↗
    As Gamer's Nexus said, if you're drunk you can't consent to any contract.
    Telaneo · 1790339702 · focus · HN ↗
    I like the idea of taking a (couple of) shot(s) of vodka every time you sign up for a service or otherwise click accept on a EULA.
    bluecheese452 · 1790340821 · focus · HN ↗
    Yup when courts no longer work at some point we go back to settling disputes the old fashion way. Lawyers and courts were the compromise because the old way can get pretty ugly, but it looks like we are going to have to relearn that lesson.
    ishouldnotbutk8 · 1790335298 · focus · HN ↗
    >Money is paid already. If you do not agree, you cannot use the device
    Well, you can always return the phone. For online purchases you have 14 days to return it just because (you don't need to provide a reason).
    pseingatl · 1790336079 · focus · HN ↗
    Where in the UCC does it say that? There may be a State regulation or a company policy, but I don't recall anything in the UCC about a "free" 14 day return policy. I can return a used car, no questions asked, after 14 days? Good luck with that.
    mopsi · 1790337220 · focus · HN ↗
    That's an European thing. Anything bought remotely (mail, phone or the internet) can be returned up to 14 days for a full refund.
    Some minor exclusions apply, eg hygiene products can't be returned after they've been opened.
    rkuodys · 1790337654 · focus · HN ↗
    Well, not really. If you have unpacked the iphone - I'm pretty sure it's not gonna be easy to return even within the 14 day window. You can return unpacked though, which is not the point of what I'm saying. Also for the benefit of the argument, change 2 days to 15 and you end up at the same place- you cannot legally return the device, User agreement has changed in ways you don't accept and you are forced to use device, for which you have paid or accept loss and buy another device. Oh and also, you cannot change OS to the alternative one for which terms might be more acceptable to you. How is this not a subject of investigation- I don't know.
    bmacho · 1790339782 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    microtonal · 1790351644 · focus · HN ↗
    You can absolutely return it within the 14 day window, even unpacked.
    During the reflection period, you may open the packaging. You may try or fit the product, just like in a normal store. But you are not allowed to do more than what is needed to judge the product. For instance, you can try pants. But you cannot wear the pants for several days and then return it. If you do this anyway and the product loses value? Then the seller may charge you the damage. The seller needs to inform you of this before you buy the product.
    <a href="https://consument.acm.nl/aankoop-dienst-annuleren/bedenktijd" rel="nofollow">https://consument.acm.nl/aankoop-dienst-annuleren/bedenktijd
    I have sent back products within the 14 days, including smartphones that I tried and decided that I don't like it. Some sellers also extend the 14 days to 30 days.
    Changing the terms later is a completely valid point though and it should be possible to reject any updated terms IMO.
  2. impossiblefork · 1790333920 · focus · HN ↗
    This is why it would be so nice to have an EU that actually made law, instead of just handing over the right to oversee things to the commission.
    Imagine if we actually had real regulations, instead of these negotiated things. Then we could just sue and normal courts could handle it.
  3. masfuerte · 1790334776 · focus · HN ↗
    Does that need new law? The problem we have in the UK is that Trading Standards has been starved of funding for the last 16 years so they can't do their job. If they had funding I'm pretty sure they have the power to tackle this.
    harvey9 · 1790349906 · focus · HN ↗
    In the UK, Trading Standards is done at local authority level. There is no funding scenario where your local council is going to be able to go toe-to-toe with big tech.
  4. Someone · 1790335995 · focus · HN ↗
    > My pet peeve is changes in 'user agreements' for paid services that add increasing amounts of adverts and tracking, but if you decline, you can't use the service, but the service continues to charge you. For the service they're no longer supplying.
    > Just the kind of thing that the EU could regulate if it chose
    <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32019L0770#art_19" rel="nofollow">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...:
    “Where the contract provides that the digital content or digital service is to be supplied or made accessible to the consumer over a period of time, the trader may modify the digital content or digital service beyond what is necessary to maintain the digital content or digital service in conformity in accordance with Articles 7 and 8, if the following conditions are met:
    […]
    2. The consumer shall be entitled to terminate the contract if the modification negatively impacts the consumer's access to or use of the digital content or digital service, unless such negative impact is only minor. In that case, the consumer shall be entitled to terminate the contract free of charge within 30 days of the receipt of the information or of the time when the digital content or digital service has been modified by the trader, whichever is later.”
    mitxela · 1790338828 · focus · HN ↗
    I can confirm this clause prevented enshittification for EU customers at a former employer. The rest of the world still got it.
  5. mitxela · 1790338648 · focus · HN ↗
    I expect this is already covered by existing regulations but the only enforcement avenue is a lawsuit. They know you won't sue them for $20.
    BobbyTables2 · 1790342569 · focus · HN ↗
    I believe that’s why class action lawsuits can serve a purpose…
    mitxela · 1790343407 · focus · HN ↗
    In a class action they give $1 to every user they scammed $20 out of, and the lawyers charge $2 per user so you actually get nothing.
    bluGill · 1790349009 · focus · HN ↗
    The point of a class action is it isn't worth your while to go after them for $20 - you would win $20 - but then you have to pay your lawyers a million dollars. However if enough people were scammed the lawyers can get their pay, and better yet the cost is high enough that the company is likely to learn a lesson.
    mitxela · 1790349721 · focus · HN ↗
    For some reason they always only manage to recover 1% of the money
    bluGill · 1790356600 · focus · HN ↗
    It is still a large enough number that it appears on accounting statements. It is reported to investors. That is there are enough negatives that it gets attention and tends to change behavior
    mitxela · 1790357819 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, as a $19 profit per user.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.