Regardless, from a freedom of information standpoint, which I subscribe to (where reasonable), I can’t see why banning certain countries ONLY FOR GEOPOLITICAL REASONS isn’t as bad as it really is in our database.
there is nothing the service can do. The countries are sanctioned by the services government, making bushiness with a sanctioned customer knowingly is going to get you shut down real fast.
also a service like hostinger is in no way unique. There are plenty of alternatives available in these countries.
I am aware that these are legal obligations. We could be here all day discussing the causes, consequences and the general context surrounding this, but let’s avoid politics.
I am viewing this through a lens of freedom of information exclusively. In my opinion, regardless of nationality, it really sucks to be excluded based on where you live.
Regardless I can see your point, but I still believe that this should be a bigger penalty, as this means certain users will be banned from using certain services.
Some of these don’t necessarily have an alternative available in said countries, and usually if there exists one it may not be up to quality.
So far this case has only be applied to services that specifically mention it in their ToS. Which sounds to me more like, its a get out of jail free card for the service so they can go “look they promissed us they aren’t sanctioned” when a regulator ultimately asks them about it.
In my opinion this point needs to be applied to every service that is incorporated in a country that does sanctions, so all of them. If we increase its impact, its just going to lower the grades of all services on our data base. I see no point in doing that.
This case existing with a bad classification in the first place eliminates the possibility of there being a service with an A rating, if we do apply it to all services.
In my view the role of ToS;DR is to summarise legal documents, punishing a service for something they are required to do by law, that is common in probably all countries. For me, is besides the goal.
Currently there isn’t a level between blocker and bad. (I am not even sure that I want blockers to be a thing,)
I don’t agree entirely. You have a point but we only review based on what is EXPLICITLY stated in the service’s terms, so if they don’t mention something in their terms then it’s out of scope for us. It is the service’s responsibility to provide complete legal documentation.
But we do punish for stuff required by law in many other cases:
Case 214 - Bad score, yet services might require this, for instance, to process payments
There shouldn’t be a level between blocker and bad, only harms us and particularly the users.
Also, I’m of the opinion that blockers are justified since, for the users using our browser extensions/reviewing our website/etc., it acts as a RED FLAG for them. Removing blockers will make critical concerns less visible for the user (i.e. won’t be able to differentiate between other “less bad” points).
@shadowwwind
Remember that common users don’t even interact with the site, and the scoring system is displayed internally, for the most part. The purpose of this project is to convey hard-to-read legalese into easy-to-digest ratings, aiming for privacy and transparency.