Re:Why We Disagree with The New York Times
by patja on Monday June 04, 2018 @12:56PM
(#17229770)
Similar to how they "prevented" apps from abusing their API through policy, while simultaneously doing nothing with their construction of the API to prevent apps from breaking the policy. Apps are prohibited from filling in content that (by policy) must come only from the user, but oh we're going to give you all the tools and capabilities required to march right on ahead and do what we agreed you wouldn't do. Then proceed to inconsistently and incompletely enforce policy only when complaints are registered.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Regulations forbid us from letting you access the filing cabinet but I can tell you, all of us will be out having a beer between 6 and 8 PM. Oh, and the key is under the flowerpot. Wink wink.
Re:Why We Disagree with The New York Times
by DonHopkins on Monday June 04, 2018 @02:08PM
(#17230410)
“But the terms of service were on display...”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.”
Re:Why We Disagree with The New York Times
by albertgoeswoof on Monday June 04, 2018 @02:08PM
(#17230407)
But that analogy is letting someone access the filing cabinet, and not taking reasonable precautions not to. Which would be a direct violation. Which may or may not be the case here.