> If they are still smoking despite that, it's on them.
That's my point: the warnings don't lead to reasonable decisions.
"If you don't pay for it, you are the product" has to be one of the most echoed sentiments of the last few years, and people still demand everything for free, and prefer to pay with their data instead of paying for the content they consume (e.g. on newspapers).
If Amazon gave them a choice of "you're data is most most most likely fine" and "your data is most most most most likely fine, and we'll pay you $1000 if it's not but you pay twice the money each month", I doubt they'll see a lot of people switch over. They'll have some, but not many, because ultimately, people don't care enough.
> the warnings don't lead to reasonable decisions.
The warnings lead to informed decisions. They may not always be reasonable, but at least the person knows what they're getting themselves into.
My intention is not to outlaw "best effort" cloud storage or legally compel the providers to offer an SLA, but merely to make the limitations clear so that customers, including non-technical ones, can make an informed decision.
That's my point: the warnings don't lead to reasonable decisions.
"If you don't pay for it, you are the product" has to be one of the most echoed sentiments of the last few years, and people still demand everything for free, and prefer to pay with their data instead of paying for the content they consume (e.g. on newspapers).
If Amazon gave them a choice of "you're data is most most most likely fine" and "your data is most most most most likely fine, and we'll pay you $1000 if it's not but you pay twice the money each month", I doubt they'll see a lot of people switch over. They'll have some, but not many, because ultimately, people don't care enough.