Not OP, and also not sure where I actually stand on this debate because I think your point has a lot of validity to it, but...
I think there's also an argument in favor of a person having the right to access their money (and I'd argue that accessing your bank's website/app is accessing your money) however they want, and that access to their money is more of an important right than the bank's right to control how that access happens.
I think we can all agree to some "within reason" clauses on both sides (eg not allowing HTTP only access seems reasonable), and I guess a lot of this debate is "is requiring attestation within reason?"
To me, any asymmetry between the rights of the consumer and the rights of the bank should be in the favor of the consumer.
I think the distinction spills into comedy when the discussion focuses on whether or not Epstein or R Kelly or whoever was a pedophile. It doesn't really matter because obviously they were terrible people regardless of that.
It's a far more sensible point to consider when we're discussing the people around these individuals. If the girls surrounding Epstein had been prepubescent, that'd be a much worse look for the people around him.
This is what I appreciate about paywalls, subscription modals, etc: there's a clear definition of the "deal", and I can just nope out. "Please enable ads or don't view our content" is also perfect.
I don't wanna trick anyone into showing me ad-free content, I just want a chance to choose.
Acres are still widely used in the UK and Ireland for measuring rural and agricultural land. The legal documents for the land will use hectares, but lots of people and documents will use acres outside of legal documents.
reply