I would add, though, that whether the next generation accepts it or not is not really the problem. It won't likely be viewed as a positive thing, whether they accept it or not. Why should the next generation have to accept something that is a net negative for them, just because the current generation has decided for them that it's how it's going to be?
If you do not propagate cultural values that prioritize true ownership to younger generations now, you may be punished for your attempts to assert true ownership later.
I really don't want to jailbreak my automobile when I'm 70, and then get reported to the cops when my grandchild discovers that I have been changing my own oil, or uploading music ripped from 50-year-old CDs to the entertainment system, or modifying the control system for a manual input override, or blocking my usage data from being uploaded to the government.
If their response is merely, "Okay, but we're not responsible for damages," then that's great, who cares. But if they take any sort of measure to remotely disable your car or to hamstring your car's software, that would be a very slippery slope to start down.
You described exactly the problem people have with this idea :)
> Do you think that Tesla should have to make sure that its self-driving software is compatible with every ridesharing app that any random person comes up with? How will that work with liability if somebody sends their self-driving Tesla out to work under a ridesharing app that feeds bad inputs to it?
Then they should prohibit interfacing the car with 3rd party software quoting relevant regulations (or at least a generic "for safety reasons"), not put a blanket ban on commercial use of the self-driving functionality.
For now it seems that they don't even want me to physically sit there in the driver's seat and do something else while the car is driving, which puts your whole speculation about Tesla's motives into question.
And BTW, what if somebody breaks this rule and hacks his car into an autonomous Uber slave? By your logic, if something bad happens Tesla will still get blamed. All they accomplished is CYA and for that a warning about dangers of interfacing with unauthorized software would be sufficient. Even better in fact, because not all unauthorized software must be commercial.
Okay, Tesla's reasonable licensing agreement has a liability waiver when using the app for ride-sharing outside of certified applications.
That's a pretty reasonable piece of licensing. It's also not unheard of to state that a piece of equipment is not warrantied or you waive liability if used in commercial ventures, or outside of normal operation.
I'd be fine with that. It places responsibility on the owner of the car.
edit:
I also have no problem with Tesla not facilitating ride sharing. If the limitation to their network is just because the software makes it difficult to use a third party app then so be it.
If people feel its desirable to combat this trend, they need to be willing to take more legal responsibility for how they choose to use their products. Otherwise, compromising on full unrestricted ownership is the price paid to cover manufacturers' insurance costs.
Note: this isn't absolute - there are many cases of corporations simply abusing this outright, like snowwrestler's Amazon example - but it's certainly the case for Tesla and a lot of others.
The next generation will just get cancer as often as we do. Why bother trying to curb smoking. (okay, this one would be for my grandparents).
Sure we don't like taxation without representation, but the next generation will grow up with and won't mind. Why bother changing it.
