You must log in or register to comment.
I looked at the terms of service and noticed that they bind you into arbitration, limit your terms to $100, mandate you to travel to Delaware for dispute, and force you into mass arbitration if your dispute is similar to others.
Pass
Unfortunately that’s standard for pretty much every service in existence until the government determines otherwise or the users demand it en masse. No company is going to willingly expose themselves to any more risk than they absolutely have to. There’s zero benefit to them.
Let’s not call disabling the right to sue a “business risk”. That’s like calling the right to stop paying for the service a “risk” - it’s riskdiculous.
Let’s not call disabling the right to sue a “business risk”.
…and why not?
That’s like calling the right to stop paying for the service a “risk”
But…that’s what it is? I promise if they could remove that risk with a few words in the TOS, and it was legal, they’d all be doing that too.
The right to take legal action for harm done is imperative. It’s importance is diminished if conflated with a legitimate business risk (like research and development). It should be illegal to deny it.
I agree. But we weren’t discussing hypotheticals, we were discussing reality.
Cruel pragmatism meets naive idealism. A tale as old as time.
By “business risk”, they just mean bad for the business, ethics aside
Yes that’s what they mean. I tried to persuade against meaning that.
And we should just accept that?
Doesn’t matter if you should or not. Point is you accept it or you don’t use any service whatsoever.
Looks like there’s a viable alternative here.
Really? Who are you going to sue here? And how much money do you think you can sue them for?
Oh no, there’s no money or profit motive here. I guess that’s terrible.
That’s not what I asked.
I don’t think forced arbitration has really been tried in court. I remember Disney kind of trying, but it was completely unrelated (e.g. argued that arbitration agreement from Disney+ applied to issues on physical Disney properties).
In order to hold up in court, the contract needs to reasonably benefit both parties instead of only the contract issuer. So there’s a very good chance a court will dismiss the forced arbitration clause, especially if it’s just in a EULA and not a bidirectional contract negotiation.
That said, I tend to avoid services with binding arbitration statements in their EULA, and if I can’t, I avoid companies that force acceptance of EULA changes to continue use of the service.
Well I know someone tried it against Valve and they ended up removing the requirement.
While I understand that, I’m in America. My first priority has to be getting people off of Twitter.
Would I prefer open source, non-profit software? 100%. It’s the smarter and better choice for so many reasons.
But if Bluesky is going to gain critical mass, I’m not going to fight it. I’m having a hard enough time getting people off Twitter. I’ve written the media address of environments I’m familiar with asking them to organize a move, and I mentioned both Bluesky and Mastodon.
Good take. Bluesky is a good stop-gap.
I’ve also been thinking, if Bluesky never federates and enshittifies in a similar way to Twitter (which it will do much faster, just cause it’s a different era), then the Bluesky exodus will really have a solid reason to try to understand why decentralisation is so important…
then the Bluesky exodus will really have a solid reason to try to understand why decentralisation is so important…
or people will have lost the ability to imagine alternative and better places…
…which is where we come in to make sure they don’t forget!
Yep. Already true to a large extent. But it doesn’t take a majority of the world to make the fediverse work. We just need enough for it to become broadly attractive to a critical mass of people. It’s big enough to self-sustain now, so I think it’s just a matter of time until it hits that point.
Arbitration of what? It’s a free service. What money could they possibly owe you?
If the mods or admin do something that causes you injury, such as ignoring requests that will prevent harassment.
…how would them ignoring requests cause injury??? We’re still talking about bluedky, right? The online twitter clone without musk as it’s main selling point?
If someone was doxxing you on bluesky, for example, and in the doxxing, you got attacked/injured by someone who recognized you/went to your house.
Then the person liable to you would be the person doxxing you, not Bluesky themselves unless Bluesky themselves was the party that doxxed you and in that case I don’t think a court would hold you to the arbitration.
