(I may have discussed this in the past; I'm not sure.)
This is part rant and part question.
There are many definitions of "free." The one listed first in most dictionaries is "not costing or charging anything." (Merriam-Webster.) Later in the list is a broader definition: "not obstructed, restricted, or impeded."
Having worked for years with open source software, I've become accustomed to the latter definition. Linux and other open source software are usually free under both definitions: no money changes hands, and the software is not otherwise encumbered by requiring any sort of signup or requiring me to give up any information about myself. Further, it's usually (but not always) up-front if it sends usage data back to whoever wrote it.
However, it seems everyone else uses only the narrower definition of "no money changes hands."
Using this logic, the child of a slave is a free person because the master didn't pay for him or her.
Worse, you get slimy marketers who say "FREE item (with the purchase of another item)," which makes a mockery of pretty much any definition of "free."
My question: When a site says it's "free," do you get upset when it requires an account? Especially after you've done some interaction with it and it refuses to give you results?
I do, because there (and their) "free" means only that no money changes hands. But there are impediments to using the site by requiring me to go through a sign-up process, which almost always requires giving out an email address.
To me that's "free" only in a narrow sense, and I detest the almost universal use of that interpretation.
This is part rant and part question.
 |
I was checking out AI Image Generator sites. fotor.com is headlined in DuckDuckGo search results as "AI Image Generator: Text to Image in Seconds for Free." The instructions are (abridged):
So I tried it out. I gave it some text and clicked the "Generate" button. The site spun its wheels for a few seconds, then: Quote:
|
There are many definitions of "free." The one listed first in most dictionaries is "not costing or charging anything." (Merriam-Webster.) Later in the list is a broader definition: "not obstructed, restricted, or impeded."
Having worked for years with open source software, I've become accustomed to the latter definition. Linux and other open source software are usually free under both definitions: no money changes hands, and the software is not otherwise encumbered by requiring any sort of signup or requiring me to give up any information about myself. Further, it's usually (but not always) up-front if it sends usage data back to whoever wrote it.
However, it seems everyone else uses only the narrower definition of "no money changes hands."
Using this logic, the child of a slave is a free person because the master didn't pay for him or her.
Worse, you get slimy marketers who say "FREE item (with the purchase of another item)," which makes a mockery of pretty much any definition of "free."
My question: When a site says it's "free," do you get upset when it requires an account? Especially after you've done some interaction with it and it refuses to give you results?
I do, because there (and their) "free" means only that no money changes hands. But there are impediments to using the site by requiring me to go through a sign-up process, which almost always requires giving out an email address.
To me that's "free" only in a narrow sense, and I detest the almost universal use of that interpretation.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/tinoaO4
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire