On 2018-05-18 13:49:35 UTC, Deleted wrote:

imported from 2681

On 2018-05-23 12:41:22 UTC, Deleted wrote:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/tosdr/CoDbkPZxOB8/7Yp3GA5CSCkJ Sometimes there are things that influence how we view a service, but
that are not in the actual legal text.

Examples:

- is the service available as federated free software? (for instance,
wordpress.com also offering wordpress.org is one of the main reasons
why i would talk positively about wordpress.com, and advise friends to
use it)
- do they care about the security your data with things like https
- do they answer to questions
- are their terms easy to read
- do they change the terms often
- are they engaged in standing up against unreasonable laws
- do they (in practice) try to notify you if a government requests
access to your private data or downtake of your publications
- do they send you third party cookies
- or (worse) third party javascript
- is their service accessible for minorities (who may use a screen
reader or who maybe speak Swahili rather than English)

I think these points should have a smaller impact than the things you
are actually made to accept legally. We should also only review these
points if we have objectively quantifiable data, never based on one
single occurrence for instance. We should only focus on online user
rights, so topics like privacy, freedom of speech, freedom to use and
choose technology. Not topics like pricing, usability, features,
etcetera.

And i think we should clearly mark these additional data points as
such, so that it's obvious to the user whether or not something is
part of the contract or not.

When we just got started, we had only one such type of data point (the
one about federated free software), and made it a search filter
instead of a data point. But now i already listed 10, so having 10
filter checkboxes is no longer feasible. Also not mentioning good
points or bad points about a service that do affect our rights a
online users, would give an incomplete view. So i propose to display
them in a separate list, as 'additional data points'.

For instance, if you look at twitter, there are 10 data points, of
which probably about half are 'additional' in the sense that you
cannot point at a specific paragraph in any of their legally binding
terms or policy texts.

Curious what other people think about this.

Cheers!
Michiel

On 2018-05-30 12:50:16 UTC, Deleted wrote:

imported status as declined