188
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by alphacyberranger@sh.itjust.works to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ArmoredCavalry@lemmy.world 58 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Vultr posted their response to the concerns here - https://www.vultr.com/news/a-note-about-vultrs-terms-of-service/

The portion of the ToS that people were worried about had been in place for years and had nothing to do with server intellectual property. They are removing it to avoid future confusion.

I don't disagree that it was poorly worded, but the amount of people jumping to the worst possible conclusions on this is concerning. What happened to Hanlon's Razor?

[-] ubergeek77@lemmy.ubergeek77.chat 20 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I still don't like how flippant they've been in every public communication. I read the ToS. It's short for a ToS, everyone should read it. They claim it was taken "out of context," but there wasn't much context to take it out of. The ToS didn't make this distinction they're claiming, there was no separation of Vultr forum data from cloud service data. It was just a bad, poorly written ToS, plain and simple.

They haven't taken an ounce of responsibility for that, and have instead placed the blame on "a Reddit post" (when this was being discussed in way more detail on other tech forums, Vultr even chimed in on LowEndTalk).

As for this:

Section 12.1(a) of our ToS, which was added in 2021, ends with "for purposes of providing the Services to you." This is intended to make it clear that any rights referenced are solely for the purposes of providing the Services to you.

This means nothing. A simple "we are enhancing your user experience by mining your data and giving you a better quality service" would have covered them on this.

We only got an explanation behind the ToS ransom dialog after their CMO whined in a CRN article. That information should have been right in the dialog on the website.

In both places, they've actively done vague things to cause confusion, and are offended when people interpret it incorrectly.

[-] krnl386@lemmy.ca 10 points 7 months ago

If this is their attitude to a clear self-inflicted fuckup, then that’s plenty reason for me to avoid them and their services. It’s not like their services were distinct in any way… just a dime in a dozen cloud provider.

load more comments (11 replies)
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
188 points (87.9% liked)

Selfhosted

39677 readers
467 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS