|
From: John Harrison | PIB-d [mailto:
]
>>I like Chris’s idea about reversing the burden of contract acceptance. But is there not a one-to-many /
one-to-one problem here ? Given that a corporation deals with thousands of individuals, it is simply impractical for it to negotiate different terms in each case: the logic of numbers forces it to define standard terms and conditions, which are then imposed
on customers. The remedy is for the customers to club together into a group large enough to require / expect bespoke contracts from a corporation. Which takes us back to consumer rights / advocacy groups (such as the Consumers’ Association / “Which” here
in the UK) and recent experiments in collaborative purchasing.<< What I actually envision (see another recent post) is not imposing thousands or millions of
different sets of terms and conditions on corporations. What I envision is developing two or three integrated versions of “standard” individual-respecting terms and conditions, with the individual selecting which of the standard sets they choose
to impose as a condition of accepting web pages from enterprises on-line. >>As so often, it all comes back to the values of the people who design the underlying infrastructure. John
Naughton maintains - in ‘A brief history of the future’ - that the internet and the web succeeded because the academics who designed them believed that openness / distribution / account portability and the like were all important. What we need is infrastructure
that permits and supports collaborative purchasing, working on the side of the consumer. But I preach to the converted . . . . . for which apologies.<< No apologies needed. <g> I envision my little idea here as a first step to giving individuals a collective voice (go figure, that one) in developing that
infrastructure. Right now they have none. Chris S.
|
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.