Domineering president Musk, this time he came up with a domineering Internet user agreement to Mars

Compared with Musk's Mars immigration plan, we should pay more attention to the "user agreement".

Recently, Musk’s SpaceX (Space Exploration Technology Company) sent an invitation test email containing terms of service to users participating in the Starlink (Starlink project, satellite Internet service) project. The ninth of the terms caused Not a small concern.

The second half of the Google translation reads: For services provided on Mars, or services provided to Mars through interstellar spacecraft or other colonized spacecraft, the parties recognize Mars as a free planet, and there is no government on Earth active on Mars Have authority or sovereignty. Therefore, the dispute will be resolved through the principle of autonomy established in good faith when the Martians resolve it.

This clause may become a landmark event affecting the process of human history, and its significance may be no less than that of Columbus’s discovery of the American continent. For the first time, it uses a commercial clause to clarify the core issue of human colonization or immigration to other planets— — When human beings move or settle on other planets, should they comply with the laws or regulations in force on the earth?

This clause gives the answer: no.

According to expert analysis, if Starlink users agree to the terms of service, no matter how these users land on Mars via any spacecraft in the future, they have already recognized the autonomy of Mars on Earth. Therefore, all disputes that occur on Mars, It must be solved on Mars, "the earth cannot control."

The future is too far away. Now let’s turn our attention to a question now. More and more "perfect and legal" user agreements or terms of service are really based on "voluntary equality"? Users only use certain common services. But you have to agree to agreements and terms of service that are far beyond the scope. Is it reasonable?

disagree? Not for you!

User agreement and terms of service are almost the standard configuration of Internet products. We will see them when we first open or register to use the app.

Most of these terms exist separately in the form of linked pages. The number of words in the agreement of some products is about 10,000 words, and it takes some time to read it completely. For most people, the agreement or terms contain a lot of professional terms. Without consulting professionals, It is difficult to understand exactly.

Two days ago, she chatted with the product manager of an app with millions of users. She said in a calm tone: "The agreement is linked out, and the page will not write'dead', so it is easy to modify it later, (to the page) To be a restriction and not to copy completely, ordinary people don’t have the mind to take one screenshot at a time. Besides, many people don’t look at this. They are all habitually selecting them. ”

When I asked what to do if the user did not agree to the agreement, the product manager took out his mobile phone and gave a demonstration. The user could not proceed to the next step until the user checked the confirmation. When the user returned to the home page, he gave a blank page.

In the era of mobile Internet, if we are refused by several apps to provide services, our lives will be affected far beyond imagination. Take the purchase of subway tickets as an example. After the QR code gate function is popularized, a passenger without a bus code It is much more difficult to buy physical tickets than it was a few years ago, because many sites have reduced the number of physical ticketing points in recent years.

At the same time, the time and energy cost required to purchase tickets invisibly make passengers lag behind "social efficiency under the blessing of the Internet", which is disjointed from society in disguise.

agree? Please pay more

Some apps are openly written that user privacy can be used for other purposes. Disagree with the agreement? Sorry, you can't use this app.

Some apps directly updated the user agreement, and the content you create on my platform belongs to me. Disagree with the agreement? Sorry, the account suspension was not discussed.

Some apps expand the scope of authorization without restriction. When you use my app, you must agree not only to the terms related to the app, but also to some terms that are not related to the use of the app , such as the terms of the Starlink (Starlink project, satellite Internet service) project. Currently, it only provides earth-wide broadband services, but users are required to recognize the "autonomy" of Mars now.

A few years ago, Sina Weibo was criticized and criticized for a service use agreement update incident. In the agreement, Weibo requires users to "agree to irrevocably authorize the Weibo platform as the exclusive publishing platform for Weibo content, and the Weibo content published by users will only be displayed exclusively on the Weibo platform." The three parties directly or indirectly use Weibo content in any form."

In order to use Weibo normally, a large number of users have to agree to the terms. Compared with the copyright ownership of content that has nothing to do with most ordinary users, privacy issues are more concerned by everyone, but they only stay at the level of "concern".

Some people ridicule that in the Internet age, privacy is what users pay for free products .

Game with capital, users are naturally weak

When talking about this topic, a friend said about TA’s understanding:

When I went to a noodle restaurant to eat noodles, the boss explained in advance that customers must use the tableware provided by the noodle restaurant to provide services. This also complies with the shopping mall’s regulations on hygiene and safety and prohibiting forced sales. If the customer does not accept this clause, the boss has The right to refuse to provide services is reasonable and legal. Customers can't forcefully buy, they can leave this noodle restaurant and change to another noodle restaurant.

This logic is right and wrong.

The premise is that there are sufficient competition and enough noodle restaurants in the mall. What is wrong is that if there is only this noodle restaurant in the mall?

If this noodle restaurant in the mall collapses all other restaurants through various operations, is there no second restaurant in the mall at present?

What if most of the businesses that provide various services in the mall have similar format terms?

If we do not go to this mall to solve the needs, we will not be able to maintain the same standard of living as our contemporaries, or even break away from social relations to a certain extent?

In the end, customers can only go to the mall to solve social needs. Most businesses have well-designed "perfect and legal" format terms. Users either accept it or get out. There is no other choice.

As with the current mobile Internet, we will find a pessimistic fact. If the user agreement of all apps on the smartphone is rejected, the smartphone will become the same as the feature phone of more than ten years ago , and will be separated from the mobile The Internet, it can be said that the lives of many ordinary people will become difficult to move forward.

A thought-provoking story

I also gave an example to a friend who holds "Noodle House Theory". Unlike TA's story, this incident happened in real life.

Decades ago in Chile, a South American country, due to various reasons, the government sold the right to operate tap water in some cities to multinational water companies and left it to the market for free development. Through lobbying international organizations and local governments, multinational water companies have succeeded in defining the behavior necessary for survival of humans to use water as market demand behavior.

In the beginning, multinational water companies were "friendly", demonstrated a good sense of service, resolved some residents' demands in a timely manner, and at the same time used their strong capital and market means to continuously increase their market share.

But when they monopolized the market share of tap water, they immediately changed their faces , raising prices unreasonably, ignoring residents' service demands, and refusing to supply water to residents who did not agree to the company's unreasonable conditions. Many impoverished families could not even use it for their daily needs. Of clean water resources.

Like the Internet Protocol, Chile’s tap water supply is a market-oriented behavior. Users are unwilling to "pay unreasonable prices" or "unconditionally agree to the conditions set by water companies". Water companies naturally have the "perfect and legal" right to refuse to provide services. As for the user’s water demand, "I can solve it by myself. It’s just a little hard work. I walk a few kilometers to pick up water and drink. This is also conducive to exercise."

You see, everything is "voluntary and fair" and "perfect and legal."

Coping with cannibalization tests wisdom more than coping with whales

The Internet is extremely open and extremely closed.

The opening of the Internet is embodied in the competitive link. The rapid development of Internet technologies, forms, and models has provided companies with a good competitive environment and created many regulatory vacuums, which objectively facilitates Internet companies' low-cost trial and error and innovation.

But when the monopoly was formed, the extreme closure of the Internet was immediately revealed. In products that are carefully packaged under the format clauses, users must "double refund" the "utility and subsidy costs" during the free period, or comply with the "selling contract" "" user agreement, or the default "skilled" big data algorithm.

For giant-like Internet companies, ordinary ant-like people have almost no possibility of saying "no" at zero cost . This phenomenon is an extremely test of whether the regulatory authorities can keep up with the times.

Recently, some issues with huge impact and people's concern have exposed many contradictions. A very realistic and urgent issue is before the relevant departments, not only related to ordinary people, but also related to itself:

If the products or services elaborately crafted and designed by capital can use "perfect and legal" format clauses to influence, control or restrict the social behavior of the people, its effectiveness is even greater than that of public power in some dimensions. In some fields, people are willing to walk along with profits or the public are helpless to accept them. So what should the relevant departments be wary of?

#Welcome to follow Aifaner's official WeChat account: Aifaner (WeChat ID: ifanr), more exciting content will be provided to you as soon as possible.

Ai Faner | Original link · View comments · Sina Weibo