Timeline for Should unethical questions be closed?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 10, 2017 at 16:48 | comment | added | Dan Henderson | ...who finds the answer here, and would otherwise have purchased the app, to instead use the answer found, than it is that the OP, who actively took steps to obtain a bypass method, is actually a potential purchaser. | |
| Sep 10, 2017 at 16:48 | comment | added | Dan Henderson | ...has even been denied future money would require that OP would have purchased the app if they did not find a way to avoid the trial. But it's entirely possible (I would even say quite likely) that in that scenario, the user would simply discontinue using the app after the trial, which puts the author in no different financial position. Now, if OP were to share the method with others, or if we gave an answer and then OP disclosed the app in question and confirmed that the answer worked, then there would be a greater potential for cost to the author, as it's far more likely that someone... | |
| Sep 10, 2017 at 16:47 | comment | added | Dan Henderson | "Avoiding trial periods costs the author money" Not quite. First, it doesn't cost the author money, because the author does not have less money than they would have had if OP never existed. At most, it denies the author theoretical future money that they might have gained later. To equate that with cost implies that, for example, my decision to eat at home today costs McDonald's money. It would be different if the author actually incurred some individual cost in order for the trial to be installed on that user's device. Secondly, in order to legitimize the assertion that the author... | |
| Sep 1, 2017 at 14:22 | history | edited | Andrew T.Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 19 characters in body
|
| Aug 20, 2017 at 17:36 | history | answered | allo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |