I'm sure they'll miss your business, but this change will hardly impact their bottom line. Most users will continue to use it, even if they're aware of and are concerned by this, as the cost and inconvenience of switching is too high.
I am really puzzled how are they able to "quietly" update the terms without notifying their users? Everybody was joking about the emails (We have updated our terms...) raining from every company when GDPR et al. got introduced. What changed?
Section 15 of the agreement ("MODIFICATIONS TO THIS AGREEMENT") allows for Zoom to unilaterally change the terms without providing notice other than updating them on the website.
In such jurisdictions, it would be unenforceable, but not illegal. The agreement is executed in California per section 33.3, where it is perfectly legal.
You really ought to read “No Filter” by Sarah Frier. She talks about exactly this, except with Apple and iTunes in 2001.
Apple’s biggest change wasn’t “digitizing music”, it was enabling a system that allows arbitrary changes to terms and conditions for services they offered. Apparently if you presented a digital copy of a TOS and users clicked one button, it was legally binding.
Other companies caught on and started doing it, and well that’s how Zoom is able to do this - people don’t bother to read what they’re agreeing to so legally it’s the user’s fault if the software does something they don’t like.
Possibly they've done something illegal here. Let's wait and see (or, if you're in the EU, take action and report it to your data protection authority and NOYB).
The UPI system adopted by India sounds promising to solve problems like these, where users can use the app of their choice and connect it to the bank account of their choice.
Eventually, you have a system where bank-to-bank transfers happen instantly with no intermediary apps holding your money.
Because that can be seen as a money making opportunity by one of their executives in future and the number of accounts that would need support could rise.
I never understood the Indian ban. Aren't BBC documentaries available in the UK only anyways? Indian residents couldn't have accessed it without a VPN anyways.
Hardly only the UK, BBC world and many other divisions like the recently shuttered BBC Arabic focused on content and distribution primarily in commonwealth or emerging countries .
iplayer is how you get free access in the UK to BBC because residents pay the TV tax for it . Rest of the world you pay for it in some way as part of cable deal , subscriptions etc, or BBC decides to make it free or ad supported .
——
Keep in mind BBC is no different than aljazeera it is state sponsored and is import part of soft power toolkit of the UK government uses
this doesn’t mean they are wrong or biased in anyway on the Modi documentary nothing in it is new or not widely known , for example until he became PM he was blocked from getting a U.S. visa for his role in the riots .
BBC content can be good like aljazeera (especially for non Qatari /ME content) can be but the inherent politics of it cannot be forgotten or ignored
It’s the result of a thin skinned paranoid government ruling the country.
There was gonna be absolutely no impact whatsoever if they had just kept quiet and not said a thing.
Instead their touchiness has meant that this has become a much bigger deal and is actually impacting their favorability negatively, at least anecdotally.
It's so pathetic how thin skinned this "strong"men are. Oh, you think I bear a nearly non-existent resemblance to a much loved storybook bear? Off to """reeducation""" camps with you!
You make a milquetoast documentary about things I did a decade ago that were pretty bad, GTFO!
"No you're a puppet, you are you are"
It's just pathetic. How does anyone look at these people and think they are strong?
> Why should a British funded propaganda machine be even allowed in a foreign country?
Same reason why any other foreign website is allowed in India or why other countries watch Bollywood movies. Globalization is a win-win for everyone. No country in the world is self-sustaining.
There’s little one can do if some in the country are hell bent on putting their heads in sands like an ostrich. Doesn’t change the truth, unfortunately.
As for Al Jazeera and other channels you mentioned, they can be watched online – unlike the Modi documentary.
> the BBC think it is right and every other foreign country is wrong lOL
Actually that's what BJP thinks. Whenever anyone says anything against them, they are termed as a 'Conspiracy against the nation' or 'anti-national'. It is BJP who thinks they are right and everyone else is wrong, not the other way round :)
he said she said, but the proof is in the data, they won the last 2 elections with large majorities, so what india thinks is not what the bbc thinks ;)
Indian here. This seems to be blown a bit out of proportion. I am residing in a Tier-1 city in India and have an internet connection with a local ISP. I am able to access the content on the supposed blocked domain, so this is probably one ISP proactively blocking the domain without it being formally asked to do so (court order can't be ISP-specific AFAIK).
I work in a large consultancy firm and have friends in other Indian IT consultancy firms. GitHub is very commonly used across these firms for quite large projects and blocking that domain would certainly slow down the work of thousands of employees across the country instantly. No way can this block be carried ahead.
I did mention that it's only ACT blocking it so far.
> one ISP proactively blocking the domain without it being formally asked to do so
Very unlikely. Court orders are not ISP specific, but ISPs are not time-bound to apply them. It's all very secretive, so there's really no way for us to find out. It's better to assume the worst (ACT is blocking it on a court-order, and more ISPs might follow).
Other ISPs are known to do blocks without court orders (mainly Jio and BSNL) but ACT - not so much. It has been blocked for almost a week, with small media coverage, little outrage, and no response.
The post specifically mentions which one ISP is doing the blocking. If you're not using them, then it likely wouldn't affect you... until your ISP also starts following the order.
If anything, your comment is trying to heavily downplay what is happening.
If other ISPs start following the same, you are right in saying I'm downplaying the situation.
But I also mentioned it is unlikely to happen since all major IT Consultancy firms in the country rely on GitHub for their work in one way or another. And not just with their code but also with their client's code.
The fourth largest ISP in India blocking Github for the past week is a big deal. Them outright saying it was blocked due to a court order is a bigger deal. 2 million subscribers don't have access to Github right now.
Just because your ISP hasn't caught up does not mean it's not news. Why, exactly, do 2 or more ISPs need to do this for it to become important enough for you to care?
And why, exactly, do you think that getting to HN front page is "blowing it out of proportion"? The poster was upfront about what was happening, who it's affecting, and why it's being done. People interested in this have brought it up to the front page. What, exactly, did OP do that made it "blown out of proportion"?
And how is you anecdotally saying that it's not affecting you therefore a non-issue not downplaying the situation? The definition of "downplaying" is "make (something) appear less important than it really is" which is literally what you're doing.
What do you mean blown out of proportion? OP has mentioned that it's a partial block and shared a source showing multiple people facing the same issue.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230401045359/https://explore.z...