> You're setting up quite the extreme straw man. Amazon was using the site in a 'normal' fashion to do something that eBay did not want. This has nothing to do

> You're setting up quite the extreme straw man. Amazon was using the site in a 'normal' fashion to do something that eBay did not want. This has nothing to do with hacking or other sorts of nonsense. That hacking aside is a red herring. > Sites can put whatever they want in their terms of service. This does not make them law, and in many cases the clauses are in no way enforceable. Sites are owned by particular people and organizations, and they have a right to set the terms (withing reason). It's just a like a landlord who puts a term in their contract saying you can't exercise your right of free speech by yelling your opinions through the wall of your apartment at 3AM. > Amazon could add in their terms, 'You may not speak negatively of Jeff Bezos on our software.' and it's completely meaningless. That term is not meaningless, even if it's in bad taste, and I think that's the fundamental point of our disagreement.