this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
938 points (99.6% liked)
Technology
58123 readers
4093 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
For the first example, absolutely. If some execs have a meltdown, it could change future services but anyone who was promised Disney+ on their Tesla with no limit on it should get a fair refund. I understand that there's a slippery slope argument here, and no– the value of Disney+ in a car isn't 100% the value of it. But it's BS that a manchild having an Internet meltdown loses people a service they had and "paid for"
Just trying to figure out exactly what "changing the service" means.
I don't know that non-lawyers need to figure out exactly what it means, but in an ideal world: if you pay for something that includes a continuation of services and the services stop continuing, you should be compensated fairly. I am not smart enough to word that in a way that can't be worked around, "gotcha'd", etc. but I'm guessing the spirit of the rules is fairly common ground for anyone who isn't trying to rug-pull a service out from under those they sell it to.