You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Of course every service has their own Terms of Service, and they are all different, and they have people of different temperaments (and different levels of giving an F) enforcing them. Maybe we need a broad legal standard, like First Sale Doctrine, but about hosting data.
(A shop can’t decide to un-sell you the book you bought last month because someone on the internet is upset. But if you are paying for the service of being able to read the book, they can. I think people are severely underestimating the effects of this on our everyday freedom).
More like termination of a rental agreement by a landlord leads to immediate house explosion with everything and everyone inside.
"Hosting as a service"...
It's not that you can't host someone's stuff as a service, it's that the longevity of that service, even "free" one, is undefined.
This is exactly the reason I don't understand why #GoogleStadia is even a thing, apart from streaming itself being stupid for any game that requires precise timing.
Google Stadia is not stupid if you're Google. It's stupid only if you're the client. :D
Fair point! Or, again, if you're someone who plays mostly timing-uncritical games such as puzzle- or round-based stategy games.
Well, it's detrimental for the user as well. Users will not mind it, really, the way they don't mind a lot of other things (like Facebook privacy). And they probably are not aware that this is a problem until it'll be too late.
That would be interesting, but too many companies like to pretend they're some kind of moral sheriff so they would prefer banning the bad guys of the day. We get this concept in the EU but our legal system does not yet understand the technology aspect. The USA is a lost cause.
I find it ironically poetic that devs are crying a monsoon of tears over a cloud.
Same thing happened with Adobe unselling old licenses a few weeks ago.
On the other hand, not owning the stuff (the books in this case) anymore frees you from storing them, maintaining them (a bit). #minimalism I assume that most of the books get read excatly one time (if at all) and I didn’t hear much talk about companies „un-selling“ digital stuff
They don't sell digital stuff to begin with, they sell licenses to access their server. Even if you can keep what you download, if you lose your ability to download then you lose what you pay for. Charging for a download is evil, it has 0 scarcity and infinite supply
I see it differently. I am happy to pay for the access (storage, infrastructure, …) to the stuff I like to consume. Netflix, Audible, Amazon just to name a few. Very few items are worth keeping _for me_ (and paying for either in terms of storage, attention (re-read again)).
One of the many reasons all media industries have been pushing digital distribution as hard as possible and even have anti-physical copy propaganda. You can't buy media digitally, you are only paying for a license to access their server. It is just a diff model, law is irrelevant
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
