This is misleading. For people paying for the IDE nothing changed, data sharing remains an opt-in option. For users of their free licenses data sharing was enabled by default. Still a shitty thing to do especially as it hits a lot of OSS developers but lets criticize that instead of creating memes that are misinformation.
You do add important detail, but I’d make the counterpoint that if the corporation is bullying their least privileged users today, stealing their lunch money privacy, they’re not going to stop with only them. This is testing the waters for them.
In this case, the product was free to OSS developers not because they were the product, but because they’re influencers likely to end up encouraging their users and/or employers to buy the paid version, so it was the marketing that those people could do that was the product.
This change with the data harvesting makes those developers the product, though.
They’re doing as much of a bad thing as they think they can get away with. I don’t feel a particular duty to carefully acknowledge that in some circumstances they feel obligated to do the right thing instead. If they don’t like the “misleading” aspects of that, they’re free to just do the right thing completely.
This may be controversial, but trying to collect the data of your free users to offset the costs of the infrastructure/resources needed to support the free users is not a bad thing - especially when you give those users an option to opt-out.
You make it sound like their goal is to do bad things. That’s not true. Corporations are not good or evil, they are amoral. They don’t care if what they are doing is good or bad - it just matters if they make money.
they’re free to just do the right thing completely
This is misleading. For people paying for the IDE nothing changed, data sharing remains an opt-in option. For users of their free licenses data sharing was enabled by default. Still a shitty thing to do especially as it hits a lot of OSS developers but lets criticize that instead of creating memes that are misinformation.
You do add important detail, but I’d make the counterpoint that if the corporation is bullying their least privileged users today, stealing their
lunch moneyprivacy, they’re not going to stop with only them. This is testing the waters for them.Plus - it’s also messed up that they can fundamentally change the nature of the 501©(3) donated version and will likely try to claim a tax benefit as though it’s equivalent to a paid copy.
As the saying goes, if a product is free then that means you are the product
In this case, the product was free to OSS developers not because they were the product, but because they’re influencers likely to end up encouraging their users and/or employers to buy the paid version, so it was the marketing that those people could do that was the product.
This change with the data harvesting makes those developers the product, though.
They’re doing as much of a bad thing as they think they can get away with. I don’t feel a particular duty to carefully acknowledge that in some circumstances they feel obligated to do the right thing instead. If they don’t like the “misleading” aspects of that, they’re free to just do the right thing completely.
This may be controversial, but trying to collect the data of your free users to offset the costs of the infrastructure/resources needed to support the free users is not a bad thing - especially when you give those users an option to opt-out.
You make it sound like their goal is to do bad things. That’s not true. Corporations are not good or evil, they are amoral. They don’t care if what they are doing is good or bad - it just matters if they make money.
What exactly would that entail?