> <snark>Hah! 4 downvotes! That's all you can muster! Come at me, bro!</snark>

AFAIK, 4 is the maximum number of downvotes that will be recorded for a single post. It's possible I'm wrong, but occasionally I write things that do not receive universal adulation and never has one gone below -4.

Selling ads is one thing. Selling my Internet connection, which violates the ToS of most ISPs, is a vastly different situation.

How So? I mean, NightOwl doesn't have an arrangement with your ISP, they have an arrangement with you.

I'm not sure your ISP is going to delete your account because you didn't know some app was doing something shady. If the standard is every app user has to know what each app does under the hood, then there's going to be a lot of people who won't be able to match that standard.

No but you could be SWATed because someone sold child porn through your IP.

Regardless of how you can prove your innocence, it can be traumatic for you and your family, you can say goodbye all your computers and phone, you'd have to deal with the gossip from neighbours and relative and possible social exclusion, and possibly your couple/mariage as well.

The difference is that NightOwl hides what they are doing in the ToS. Nowhere in the software itself or the website (exlcuding the end of the ToS) does it say what they are doing.

The (new) developers of NightOwl have to do this because they understand that most users would never willingly participate in the trade they are "offering".

Ad-supported business models don't involve deception, the users understand the website/app/whatever is funded through advertising.

Their TOS essentially just says "Don't use the app"

> NightOwl app cannot be held responsible in any circumstances for Shared traffic fees or any other costs the User may incur in accordance with agreements with their internet service provider. The Application use might be prohibited or restricted by the User's service provider or applicable laws. The Application may not be compatible with all service providers' policies and regulations. The User should confirm the ability to use the Application with their service provider.

are you kidding? of course they will. back in the early days of the interwebs, it was not unheard of to have the ISP block your account when your machine got hacked from malware and used your box/connection as a SPAM server. From they, consumer ISPs just block that port. They've also added terms about not running servers on the consumer connection. While your server would have to be using a lot of bandwidth to get noticed, it is part of their terms that you agree to.

So yes, they will absolutely suspend your account until they are satisfied the usage is in alignment with their expectations.

> Isn't this sort of what the web is for? Service providers give you shiny objects for free and in exchange you give them complete access to your digital life.

If you made it clear you were being sarcastic, you wouldn't be getting downvoted.

Yes this is what many businesses want you to think. The web isn't for anything in particular besides general communication bound only by the laws beyond the first amendment.

Sarcastic? Not really. But I do see I am violating H. L. Mencken's rule: Never argue with a man whose job depends on not being convinced.

I sell to customers who purchase my goods. I'm not trying to sell my company to a VC whose using it to suck up ad dollars. My customers are my users, your customers are VCs.

Neither the First Amendment nor any particular set of laws bind the web generally.

If you're commenting on the difficulty of policing the intarwebs, I heartily agree with you.

If you're saying CD230 doesn't exist, I encourage you to rejoin consensus reality. But if you're trying to say CD 230 is in need of review, I would heartily agree.

Stop being a jerk and play nice. Say what you mean without attacking people.

I don't think I was attacking people, but will defer. In less inflammatory prose, let me say:

There is a problem on the net that is exacerbated by funding models which seek to use free services to do "bad" things. The Ad-Driven model has problems that the needs of the end user are often not considered paramount, but instead the needs of the advertiser are. After all, they're the ones paying the bills. Print newspapers famously had this problem, balancing the interests of editorial and advertisement.

Furthermore, there are people on HN whose enterprises are funded by ad revenue. I worry they (and their investors) err on the side of the advertisers rather than on the side of the users when there is a conflict. I doubt there are many here who would go to extremes such as enrolling customers iPhones into botnets, but there is always that temptation. What if you were a couple weeks away from laying everyone off and a shady partner sidled up to you and suggested such a move. I believe it would be a moral crisis for any entrepreneur: shaft your customers or shaft your business, its investors and its employees.

I am lucky to operate from retained earnings and (at least for the time being) could firmly reject such an offer. I appreciate that I am probably in the minority in this respect.

I bemoan the current state of affairs where so many entrepreneurs could even conceivably be tempted by such a Faustian bargain (without asserting the majority are.)

I am ensaddened that experiments like Bitcoin seem to have devolved into ponzi schemes rather than effective micropayment vehicles. Such a platform could conceivably open up new business models which would allow entrepreneurs to ignore this particular devil.

> What if you were a couple weeks away from laying everyone off and a shady partner sidled up to you and suggested such a move. I believe it would be a moral crisis for any entrepreneur: shaft your customers or shaft your business, its investors and its employees.

That is the difference between ethical and unethical operators

I love you to death, but this 'aint helping.