The product is technically capable to fulfill your greatest needs and desire as someone who purchased it, yet it has built-in mechanisms to enforce the will of someone else on your life. But the manufacturer enforces that you use it however they please, not you. Technically, it's wine that's intended to be drunk. It's like selling a bottle of wine (marketed as such), that will purposefully self-destruct if you try to open it in a setting that the manufacturer does not approve of, say an orgy or a popular ball (as opposed to a bourgeois banquet). That relation was abusive to start with, and that some people find little benefits in it does not bother me from an ethical perspective. It's only logical that if you paid for a device, and some money of that went into providing you free Internet services, you get to do what you want with both the device and the Internet access and Amazon should have no control over what you do because they CHOSE to sell that to you in an attempt to exploit your attention and control what you can read. Having acquired hardware should give you full access to put your own system (right to repair). Having access to the network should give you full access to the network (net neutrality). It's a bit like when Facebook wanted to bring "Internet" into countries where bandwidth is expensive, by branding unlimited access to Facebook as "Internet". Why would they get to choose what you can do with it? However they sold you a device with access to the Internet as a feature (not just a SIM slot to put your own).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |