SourceForge: Third party offers will be presented with Opt-In projects only

The death throes of a company.

Why is it so hard for many online companies/services that desire to monetize their product(s) to accept that, given the choice, nobody opts-in to ads, marketing, privacy invasion, and other shit that turns them into a product? I've been reading HN for years, and this news cycle of OMG-Custom-Whizbang-Inc-has-opted-you-in-to-Shady-Feature-Fizzbuzz seems to break on the regular.

Want to monetize your product? Start on Day Fucking One, with User Number One. Make them pay.

Want to start off free, and worry about monetizing your product later? Don't fucking automatically opt your users into being the product you sell to advertisers. Don't snoop on them, or otherwise invade their privacy. Don't be an asshole to them and force something on them they haven't already agreed to. Default to every new & existing user being opted out of any of these things. Make it an organizational principal that explicit opt-in behavior is The Right Way™ -- such as signing up for a paid tier of service, like Github and many other good actors do in this regard.

I seriously cannot think of many things that happen in the lifecycle of an online service in which automatically opting users into some process is the best and most honest experience, and the thing most people want. That people accept this crap is beyond me.

Nobody would allow this to happen in their non-digital lives:

"Hey, John, Jerk Pest Control here. You've been using our quarterly service for a while now. We're rolling out a new service that visits every month, and we're going to keep the price the same as before by selling your information to some other local businesses that want you as their customer. We've opted you into the service automatically. Why? Well, we're looking to break out of our cyclic dependency on quarterly fees to help hit business growth targets. There was a small note informing you of this opt-in that went out with your last bill."

grumbling and swearing commences. phone beeps with another call...

"Hey, Mary. Dick's Accounting Service. You left a message about phone calls received from other companies who say we shared your number. We've been taking care of your taxes for the past few years, and are testing out a new service of presenting easy-to-decline third-party financial services to you, based on how well we think they fit what we know about your annual financial picture. We've carefully chosen our partners, and we only share just enough information to help them verify your viability as a candidate for service. We opted you into this service for your convenience. Why? Well, we're trying to maximize the returns of providing excellent service for your needs beyond just the once-yearly tax visits. We sent you an email about new Terms of Service around tax time, and you agreed to them when you used us to file your taxes this year."

grumbling and swearing. inquire about opting out of the service.

"Oh, that's easy. To decline the offers, just tell them you're not interested in the service. When they ask if you would like to confirm you are sure you're not interested in being removed from their call list, or would like to decline being removed from their call list, tell them you're not interested and would like to decline. Piece of cake."

Yes, SourceForge are being total assholes with this whole debacle. But let's maybe take a minute to ponder where they even got the ideas from, and why we are only offended when a once-free service that markets itself as having something to do with "open source" or "free software" is the bad actor.

Too many online companies and services think this behavior is perfectly acceptable, and build up their services in a tech culture that accepts it. It's a bit ridiculous to draw lines in the sand and have so much outrage only for the likes of SourceForge. None of this ought to be that surprising.

Say more, what do you think the distinction is? I think I know what 'open source' means (any software released under a license that complies with OSI's definition of open source[1]), but I'm not sure what you mean by 'free software' and the distinction.

[1](http://opensource.org/osd)

I'll leave it to Stallman: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

But simply - "“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community." This carries with it ethical obligations that Open Source software does not.

In the extreme case, you could have Open Source pacemaker software which kills you if you don't keep up your payments, but the same thing would not be Free Software.

i tried with winrar. i don't think it worked.