this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
84 points (96.7% liked)

datahoarder

6783 readers
11 users here now

Who are we?

We are digital librarians. Among us are represented the various reasons to keep data -- legal requirements, competitive requirements, uncertainty of permanence of cloud services, distaste for transmitting your data externally (e.g. government or corporate espionage), cultural and familial archivists, internet collapse preppers, and people who do it themselves so they're sure it's done right. Everyone has their reasons for curating the data they have decided to keep (either forever or For A Damn Long Time). Along the way we have sought out like-minded individuals to exchange strategies, war stories, and cautionary tales of failures.

We are one. We are legion. And we're trying really hard not to forget.

-- 5-4-3-2-1-bang from this thread

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 79 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Using what you're offered is considered abuse now? Huh...

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Unlimited* plans are always sold on the idea that a sizeable part of the user base aren't going to use an actual unlimited amount of the resource.

Unless there is a contract regarding a fee over a period of time, there isn't that much that users can do to compel a service to offer a service they no longer want to offer.

[–] UsernameLost@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 year ago

Oh no, a small number of my users are actually using my service the way I advertised it. Better change it

[–] splendoruranium@infosec.pub 4 points 1 year ago

Unlimited* plans are always sold on the idea that a sizeable part of the user base aren’t going to use an actual unlimited amount of the resource.

Unless there is a contract regarding a fee over a period of time, there isn’t that much that users can do to compel a service to offer a service they no longer want to offer.

Absolutely! But I don't think that's the point of contention here. The problem is the "abuse" rhetoric, since it's not just incorrect but disingenuous to basically claim that the users did anything wrong here. They're imposing limits because they miscalculated how many heavy users they could handle.
Again, that's a completely reasonable move, but framing it as anything but a miscalculation on their part is just a dick move.