12 ms·

Companies should really accept a "No" from their users. No I don't want to use a microsoft account just to use my computer. (Without jumping through hoops) Don'

• flangola7 3y ago
  It's terrifying how many people in business clearly have a complete lack of understanding of what consent means. I've heard comments like "behind every no is a yes" made with a straight face, as if it wasn't insanely horrible and gross.
  • midoridensha 3y ago
    It's terrifying how many people absolutely refuse to leave their abusers, and even defend them. "Maybe he'll change."
• AppleBananaPie 3y ago
  probably a hot take but microsoft's product and pm culture is garbage leftover from the microsoft's anti customer era and is most entrenched in windows and other old orgs
  • CRConrad 3y ago
    > leftover from the microsoft's anti customer era Are you saying they're in some different era now?
    • AppleBananaPie 3y ago
      I'm assuming Azure has less of the culture but I haven't personally experienced it. Mostly my thought is the old culture is much stronger in the older orgs. They seem to be trying to change it but the change is really just superficial with the same people using new words but doing the same things.
  • kristopolous 3y ago
    They're still acting like a monopoly when that positioning is long gone.
    • hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
      Not in large orgs. They missed the Internet, but they did one smart thing: they put Novell out of business by offering a free alternative. Everybody got hooked up and now it's too late. Practically all large organizations that have desktop users are using AD.
• xattt 3y ago
  > Companies should really accept a "No" from their users. At some point, it gets into “creepy pervert” territory.
  • afandian 3y ago
    I got this from BBC Sounds app. https://imgur.com/a/CSMwv96 https://imgur.com/a/CSMwv96 A full screen dialogue box with no other way of dismissing it but “maybe later”. “Switch on notifications and we'll find new releases that you might like, so you don't have to. Sounds good Maybe later” No shred of concern for consent. I get if you’re a scrappy startup growth hacking taking ethical shortcuts. But a public service broadcaster should have better standards. (edit - to be clear, scummy behaviour is scummy behaviour whoever's doing it)
    • JohnFen 3y ago
      > I get if you’re a scrappy startup growth hacking taking ethical shortcuts. Nope. Scrappy startup or established corporation, it doesn't matter. Taking ethical shortcuts makes you a Bad Guy.
      • not_a_shill 3y ago
        [flagged]
        • JohnFen 3y ago
          I don't think I agree that ethics are ultimately irrelevant. Regardless, though, I think you're confusing being "manipulative" with being "opinionated". I'm 100% being opinionated. I'm not being manipulative, though, because I am not trying to make anyone do anything -- let alone trying to do it through unwarranted emotional appeals.
          • not_a_shill 3y ago
            [flagged]
• techsupporter 3y ago
  And notice how "Yes" is permanent. Once you "agree," you can never go back without starting all over again, if even then. This is why there are no more "No" selections. The developers--from marketing to the people who ask ChatGPT to spit out the required Python code and then paste it into a GitHub repository--all have financial motivations for you to say "Yes".
  • account42 3y ago
    This is why I think that the GDPR is such an important law not just for the things it covers but because it formalizes the notion of iformed consent for computer interactions - specifically requiring that saying no has to be as easy as saying yes.
• ehPReth 3y ago
  website you've never seen before: "Sign up for our newsletter?" "Yes! I want $10 off my first purchase of $200 or more!" "No, I hate saving money."
  • xattt 3y ago
    “Your answer ‘I hate savings’ contains the letter ‘S’, just like the word ‘yes’. You have been signed up for newsletters anyway.”
  • dizhn 3y ago
    My pet peeve is ones that make you say "Please". I don't know what they are thinking.
  • JohnFen 3y ago
    > "No, I hate saving money." Funny thing -- in my head, that sounds exactly like "No, I hate manipulative assholes."
• chongli 3y ago
  I don't see how we get them to accept a "No" when they know they can make more money by relentlessly badgering the users until they say "Yes".
  • account42 3y ago
    You do it by making sure that in your case it means they make less money, ideally none or even less, and convincing others to do the same.
  • BiteCode_dev 3y ago
    And by the time they get a push back, if there is any, they will have made enough money to spend a 10th of it in PR to buy back their karma points. Few vote with their wallets anyway, so it's a winning strategy.
  • rolph 3y ago
    access to private computer system vs harrassment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment
  • mihaaly 3y ago
    Not paying them, perhaps? : / Not buying their products.
    • public_defender 3y ago
      That doesn't work in this situation. What percentage of windows users "bought the product"? Someone else bought it and put it on the computer without any user input. It's like buying a house and finding out that it has a coin-operated lock on the front door when you try to move in.
      • mihaaly 3y ago
        Without client conciousness clients will be fcked! Sooner or later will be, as their agressive provider shoves more and more crap down their throat without resistance it will only make that provider more and more determined feeding even more crap for fortunes. Not being satisfied and stop. It will continue into the eternity if can. When something is forced on you that you do not want or even harmful for you then not the submitting is the answer but to push back. Be lazy or be fcked! Those are the choices. We seen it before in the history.
• whoopdedo 3y ago
  It's what the phrase "the customer is always right" originally meant. It means you can do all the market research, development, testing, polling, and seeding to sell a product. But the ultimate decider of whether the product is "good" is whether or not the people buy it. If your sales plan flops don't say "it's not the product's fault, I just need to do a better job marketing it." No, the product is wrong, the customer is right. Don't try to change peoples' behavior, instead change your marketing to target what people are actually buying. That could mean scrapping the project because it's unpopular, but could also mean narrowing the focus to the smaller population that really does want what you're selling. Well, that's what it originally meant. Nowadays it's been twisted to mean reacting to every minor complaint and demand in order to retain existing customers, no matter how unreasonable or costly the effort. Rather than helping increase productivity it's become a weapon to punish subordinate sales staffs.
  • test1235 3y ago
    I think the original saying was longer, and something along the lines of, "the customer is always right when it comes to taste".
    • Dylan16807 3y ago
      No, that's a more recent thing.
  • msla 3y ago
    It doesn't matter how much you paid: You aren't the customer, you're the product.
    • soraminazuki 3y ago
      There's a saying in Japanese that precisely describes this situation: 鴨が葱を背負ってくる. The literal translation is "a duck approaches you with a leek on its back." It refers to good luck brought by someone waiting to be exploited. Paying money for a product that works against you is exactly this.
• handity 3y ago
  Users should learn to say "no" to companies. The surveillance advertising economy is not some hapless mistake that companies will suddenly wake up to one day and realize the error of their ways. Whatever Microsoft "should" do is just wishful thinking. Change will come from users or regulation, and regulation seems unlikely.
  • qikInNdOutReply 3y ago
    Just say no to Nestle. Cook your own food! Same goes for piracy, if they feel violated by me not being customer, dont go to the government and its laws as company. Just try to exist without the could-be-customers. Boycott the pirates, by doing nothing.
  • JohnFen 3y ago
    In my comments here over the years, I have occasionally mentioned how I don't do business with certain companies or use certain sorts of products because I find the companies objectionable. What I find interesting/hilarious is how often someone will reply to me saying that my life would be so much easier if I just gave in and used them anyway, or (worse) how I'm being wrong in some way by being selective about who I support with my money. That borg-like "you will be assimilated" sort of commentary is fascinating, disturbing, and goes far to illustrate how there are ordinary people who absolutely don't want you to exert your economic authority.
    • diveandfight 3y ago
      > That borg-like "you will be assimilated" sort of commentary is fascinating, disturbing, and goes far to illustrate how there are ordinary people who absolutely don't want you to exert your economic authority. I've learned not to underestimate the extents to which people will go to rationalize their cognitive dissonance. In person, my tactic has just been to self-censor more - I guess I'm tired/lazy and don't want to be bothered unnecessarily.
      • nobody9999 3y ago
        >I've learned not to underestimate the extents to which people will go to rationalize their cognitive dissonance. In person, my tactic has just been to self-censor more - I guess I'm tired/lazy and don't want to be bothered unnecessarily. I couldn't agree more. As someone with decades of infosec experience, I stopped trying to get my family members (especially those who don't have any technical background) not to use abusive products/services, especially on their smartphones years ago, because I got sick of having to hear about how wrong I was from folks who wouldn't know good security hygiene if it came up and bit them. It just wasn't worth the argument. As in most situations (not just tech/infosec), some lessons can't be learned from others, the mistakes must be experienced personally to actually get it. Those lessons are different for everyone, but are pretty ubiquitous. I've certainly been there myself. Edit: Corrected prose to actually make sense.
• npteljes 3y ago
  Companies should be regulated to offer No as an option, and to make that option for all intents are purposes equally represented. No other way will work. Abuse makes a lot of money.
  • msm_ 3y ago
    Sounds good, but what does it mean in practice? - Does every program need to support offline account? (what about MMO games?) - Does every program need to support online account? (tongue in cheek, for people who prefer online services) - What if I don't want to install a particular Windows update because I dislike something about it? Right now I can stay forever on an obsolete version (I assume), but that's not "equally represented" - my computer is broken now. I think it's very hard (or borderline impossible) to do what you ask for. Even in Open Source, where choice is almost a religion, not all options are equally easy for users.
    • npteljes 3y ago
      I don't think it's hard. If the software uses an online account, it should clearly say so before buying. Not just Windows, games often do this too, for example I just bought Bloons TD 6, and discovered that it didn't sync my progress over Steam cloud. Turns out I have to register, in order to be able to sync progress. Would have been nice to know beforehand. Regarding the options I'm sure you have seen many cookie prompts. Often the Accept all is inviting, and the Reject all is smaller text, or outright hidden or unavailable. But there are cookie prompts that just have uniform buttons for Accept all, Reject all. Simple. Now, I realize that no matter how I phrase this, it can (and would) be abused. I'm not clever enough to avoid that. But as I look at history, humans don't play nice just because. Many of the nice things that we have now all stand on regulation, which previous, bad behavior prompted. For a little example, the common charger for phones. If phone companies can be regulated into one charger standard, I'm sure we could also make software options look and behave equal.
      • mbar0 3y ago
        Just FYI but on the store page Steam lists features a game has. If it does not list Steam Cloud, then it does not use Steam Cloud for save games. Bloons TD 6 does not list Steam Cloud.
• PicassoCTs 3y ago
  But they don't respect the consumer any more. Your selections are never final. Your settings can always be reset on the next update. Your choices can be withered down, like a stone by water. You are the least important part of these monopolies dukeing it out for the crown. You lost your ability to choose years ago. What happens now, is just formalities and preparing future generations for the new normality. The capitalism that worked for the common men, was dead the moment the wall dropped.
• dm319 3y ago
  This is what autonomy and consent is all about.
• firstlink 3y ago
  Companies don't actually care at all when you say no. Developers who can leverage a 2% kpi bump into a promotion care, and are driving this. (And to be clear, they don't get the promotion because "the company" cares, but because their management chain can transitively benefit.
• faluzure 3y ago
  cough Reddit Mobile Web cough
• seanp2k2 3y ago
  Companies realize that they're in monopolistic situations where users don't really have a choice, so they know that they're not in any real danger of a significant percentage of users dropping them just because they're doing something awful / annoying. See also: Comcast. The other place this works is if all of the companies in the market hold the line with a particular brand of BS, like gyms. If any of them just offered access for $60/mo with no subscriptions or sign-up / cancellation fees, they'd destroy the industry for everyone else. I'd guess that if anyone tried to do it, they'd get bought out in short order by one of the other large health club companies. Yay capitalism + weak consumer protections.
• wkat4242 3y ago
  Not just the account. The telemetry should have a complete off switch too.
  • autoexec 3y ago
    They'll never let you disable all of their data collection. They need that data to sell to the government, help them decide which ads to push at you, and to leverage against you in any other way which might benefit them.
• justinclift 3y ago
  It also seems like the MS approach would be very much against the "consent" concept of the GDPR. Maybe they'll have a different model for windows-in-EU vs elsewhere?