4 ms·

Nobody reads T&Cs. Company directors know that. Lawyers know that. They are rarely written in plain language and they obfuscate what the deal really consists of

Nobody reads T&Cs. Company directors know that. Lawyers know that. They are rarely written in plain language and they obfuscate what the deal really consists of. Facebook/Google could easily write on their landing pages "We provide this service in exchange for use of your personal information". People who agree to that would be giving real, informed consent. Any of us that talk to non-geek, non-SV human beings know that most people don't understand the deal they're making when they sign up to these services, instead seeing Google/FB as some kind of supercool charities that make stuff for free just to be nice. Thankfully that's starting to change. Pretending that clicking 'accept' under a page of legalese constitutes consent in any meaningful way is disingenuous and as a society we need to grow past it.

bitmapbrother 8y ago
The same logic can also be applied to virtually any contract you sign that contains pages and pages of legal text. Should the same rights be applied to legally binding contracts that require only a signature? Shouldn't there be a required intermediary that explains the full details of what your signing in a language you can comprehend?
- supercanuck 8y ago
  >The same logic can also be applied to virtually any contract you sign that contains pages and pages of legal text That's the problem, they took physical, real world products like Mortgage documents that were easy to understand, kept on paper and but had stipulations and they applied it to things like storing your information in some unknown company in some unknown country and relinquishing liability in the event your personal details ended up on the DarkWeb.
- jgowdy 8y ago
  There are a lot of considerations around making sure that all parties have adequate representation and they're able to read the terms of the agreement or have it explained in their native language. So yes, I think all binding legal contracts should require either common person accessible language or require access to counsel to advise the person on what they're agreeing to. This would motivate companies to make terms that not only protect them but are also reasonably accessible to the people signing them. Right now they're only optimizing for their own protection.
AdamM12 8y ago
They write it in a certain manner because the choice of words and grammar matters [1]. Sure no one (barely anyone) reads them but they could. That isn't a failing of the company. They provide it. It's a contract. You can read it and chose not to use it. My main point really is forced consent can only be forced through violence which the state is the only one who has the legal right to it's use. Zuck (as funny as an image of it may be) isn't putting a gun to anyone's head and telling them to use to service. To me this seems to enshrine FB and other services as a legal right vs. an economic transaction. Using a service constitutes an economic transaction which the business has the right to outright charge for (subscription/transaction fee) or in contemporary society trade data for ad purposes. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/oxford-comma-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/oxford-comma-lawsuit.h...
- jgowdy 8y ago
  I know case law disagrees with me on shrink wrap licenses, but I'm going to state my argument that T&C aren't really a contract. If the language is inaccessible to one party who also doesn't have representation, and they plainly aren't reading it, and they're clicking "I agree" mindlessly rather than signing, then I don't see how you can claim there's any sort of meeting of the minds. When prenuptial agreements are signed for example, if one party has an attorney, the other party should have an attorney if they expect the agreement to hold up later. I believe the case law around shrink wrap licenses is nothing more than a pragmatic recognition of a business "need" (desire) to have complex legal terms to defend themselves against claims. I believe it falls short of what we should recognize as a valid contractual agreement as a society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds I also don't think "the right to pay me money and use my service" is really valid consideration. But I'm not a lawyer and that's just my opinion about the way things should be, not how they actually are in today's varying jurisdictions.
  - AdamM12 8y ago
    > I also don't think "the right to pay me money and use my service" is really valid consideration. I mean the service is incurring a cost to develop and maintain so if you want to use it the service/good should have the right to charge. Whether they exercise that right is a different question. They can choose not to charge or sell for a loss (i.e. free chips and salsa at tex-mex, fremium SASS). Also this is kinda how consensual economic transactions work. As far as the "not a contract" part goes, no one is stopping you from hiring a lawyer to explain the T&S before signing up. Also signing up to me is a pretty explicit action that isn't carried out under the threat of violence. FB & other similar services aren't a right so government can't protect the user from facing undue costs of usage. Idk this screams of people wanting government to change private enterprises business models instead of letting competition do it; A concept I am not a huge fan of. Also again to me seems to legalize free-riders which is just theft by government.

bitmapbrother 8y ago

The same logic can also be applied to virtually any contract you sign that contains pages and pages of legal text. Should the same rights be applied to legally binding contracts that require only a signature? Shouldn't there be a required intermediary that explains the full details of what your signing in a language you can comprehend?

supercanuck 8y ago
>The same logic can also be applied to virtually any contract you sign that contains pages and pages of legal text That's the problem, they took physical, real world products like Mortgage documents that were easy to understand, kept on paper and but had stipulations and they applied it to things like storing your information in some unknown company in some unknown country and relinquishing liability in the event your personal details ended up on the DarkWeb.
jgowdy 8y ago
There are a lot of considerations around making sure that all parties have adequate representation and they're able to read the terms of the agreement or have it explained in their native language. So yes, I think all binding legal contracts should require either common person accessible language or require access to counsel to advise the person on what they're agreeing to. This would motivate companies to make terms that not only protect them but are also reasonably accessible to the people signing them. Right now they're only optimizing for their own protection.

AdamM12 8y ago

They write it in a certain manner because the choice of words and grammar matters [1]. Sure no one (barely anyone) reads them but they could. That isn't a failing of the company. They provide it. It's a contract. You can read it and chose not to use it. My main point really is forced consent can only be forced through violence which the state is the only one who has the legal right to it's use. Zuck (as funny as an image of it may be) isn't putting a gun to anyone's head and telling them to use to service. To me this seems to enshrine FB and other services as a legal right vs. an economic transaction. Using a service constitutes an economic transaction which the business has the right to outright charge for (subscription/transaction fee) or in contemporary society trade data for ad purposes. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/oxford-comma-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/oxford-comma-lawsuit.h...

jgowdy 8y ago
I know case law disagrees with me on shrink wrap licenses, but I'm going to state my argument that T&C aren't really a contract. If the language is inaccessible to one party who also doesn't have representation, and they plainly aren't reading it, and they're clicking "I agree" mindlessly rather than signing, then I don't see how you can claim there's any sort of meeting of the minds. When prenuptial agreements are signed for example, if one party has an attorney, the other party should have an attorney if they expect the agreement to hold up later. I believe the case law around shrink wrap licenses is nothing more than a pragmatic recognition of a business "need" (desire) to have complex legal terms to defend themselves against claims. I believe it falls short of what we should recognize as a valid contractual agreement as a society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds I also don't think "the right to pay me money and use my service" is really valid consideration. But I'm not a lawyer and that's just my opinion about the way things should be, not how they actually are in today's varying jurisdictions.
- AdamM12 8y ago
  > I also don't think "the right to pay me money and use my service" is really valid consideration. I mean the service is incurring a cost to develop and maintain so if you want to use it the service/good should have the right to charge. Whether they exercise that right is a different question. They can choose not to charge or sell for a loss (i.e. free chips and salsa at tex-mex, fremium SASS). Also this is kinda how consensual economic transactions work. As far as the "not a contract" part goes, no one is stopping you from hiring a lawyer to explain the T&S before signing up. Also signing up to me is a pretty explicit action that isn't carried out under the threat of violence. FB & other similar services aren't a right so government can't protect the user from facing undue costs of usage. Idk this screams of people wanting government to change private enterprises business models instead of letting competition do it; A concept I am not a huge fan of. Also again to me seems to legalize free-riders which is just theft by government.