5 ms·

Maybe this was intended as a joke, but if someone with legal experience can reply, I'd be interested to know how far this can actually fly. After all, companie

Maybe this was intended as a joke, but if someone with legal experience can reply, I'd be interested to know how far this can actually fly. After all, companies frequently have "drive-by" EULAs that you "agree" to by simply not leaving the site, so if that's legally binding, why is the reverse not true?

kanon 8y ago
After all, you're the first one to send a request to the webserver, including your terms. By responding they are automatically agreeing to your terms.
Animats 8y ago
Look up "Battle of the Forms".
- freen 8y ago
  Fascinating! If I understand correctly, the last provided contract is what holds for service transactions. So, unless tracking pixels also serve a tos back, my terms of service provided in the header determine the legal status of the transaction. Websites, on the other hand, because the html includes the TOS, and the final contract.
seandougall 8y ago
I certainly hope it was a joke. I don't personally want to see a Web where every HTTP request has to be manually reviewed by a human, let alone a whole legal department, before a response can be issued.
- tagrun 8y ago
  And I certainly hope you're joking. I also don't personally want to read a terms of service, let alone hire a lawyer to tell me it's consequences for every HTTP request, before it gets shoved down my throat one-sidedly in the form "if you're using this site you agree everything our legal department wrote which gives us the right to trample your rights however we like using all the legal loopholes out there, and sometimes even beyond, and hey we'll also be forcing US laws on you even if you're in a totally independent country while ignoring your hard-earned rights protected by your country's laws", but it's somehow the standard practice. That kind attitude is a serious double standard going on for years, favoring corporations and companies over the rights of individuals. So forgive me when I find it very hard to sympathize with anything you said.
  - danShumway 8y ago
    It's both stupid to attach an implicit TOS to an HTTP request and stupid to attach one to an HTTP response. I want to see us move away from implicit TOS. I don't want to see us go farther down that hole. It's like claiming, "well, if my local factory can dump toxic waste in the river, why can't I?" You're right, it's a double standard that you're held to more accountability than your local factory. But the correct way to fix that double standard is to go after the factory, not to say, "well heck with it, everybody can dump now." My ultimate goal is to keep the river clean, not to make things fair.
    - tagrun 8y ago
      > well, if my local factory can dump toxic waste in the river, why can't I? Yes, that can be one interpretation, but only with intended irony, not literally. But suppose you're saying it literally; you wouldn't because you're living there. And also because regulations will never allow you to, because your local company has your politicians in their pockets and they effectively get a free pass in the form of bills thanks to ~~legitimized bribing~~ lobbying while you'll just be sent to prison. Which is a part of the irony I was trying to point out. > My ultimate goal is to keep the river clean, not to make things fair. It's very easy to say such things. Words are cheap. How exactly were you going to keep the river clean toward your ultimate goal, again? By offering your stashed billions on the moon as counter-lobby during next elections? Are you also going give us World Peace and unicorns while you're at it? Or assuming you also know how unrealistic you actually sound, would you just be content by opposing the dissent in favor of the status quo by pretending to take the moral high ground?
      - danShumway 8y ago
        I assume that most people here are trying to make a point with the suggestion, not actually to trying to suggest an action that normal people should take. The fact that it's ridiculous to imagine tying a TOS to an HTTP request is illustrative of the fact that it's ridiculous to tie a TOS to the response. > It's very easy to say such things. How exactly were you going to keep the river toward your ultimate goal, again? Again, I get that you're probably just trying to talk about how broken our current legal system is and how difficult it is to change that. I agree, and I'm probably preaching to the choir when I say this. But if you mean it meant literally, I would say that a good starting point is trying not to one-up the factories with our own pollution. It is very hard to stop factories from dumping toxic waste into the river. It is harder to stop both factories and every one of my neighbors from dumping toxic waste into the river. That's all that I'm getting at. TOS reform is already a very hard problem, and we should avoid making it harder than it already is. I can imagine that it might feel good for someone to say, "if corporations don't want to play fair, then we'll make it so literally every action on the web will require a lawyer," in the same way that it might feel good to say, "if corporations don't care about the environment, we'll see how they feel once we've just burned all the trees." But that would really be cutting off our own noses to spite our collective face.
- stordoff 8y ago
  That's almost exactly the situation we're in now (with the _slight_ difference that it's before I can use the response to a request).

kanon 8y ago

After all, you're the first one to send a request to the webserver, including your terms. By responding they are automatically agreeing to your terms.

Animats 8y ago

Look up "Battle of the Forms".

freen 8y ago
Fascinating! If I understand correctly, the last provided contract is what holds for service transactions. So, unless tracking pixels also serve a tos back, my terms of service provided in the header determine the legal status of the transaction. Websites, on the other hand, because the html includes the TOS, and the final contract.

seandougall 8y ago

I certainly hope it was a joke. I don't personally want to see a Web where every HTTP request has to be manually reviewed by a human, let alone a whole legal department, before a response can be issued.

tagrun 8y ago
And I certainly hope you're joking. I also don't personally want to read a terms of service, let alone hire a lawyer to tell me it's consequences for every HTTP request, before it gets shoved down my throat one-sidedly in the form "if you're using this site you agree everything our legal department wrote which gives us the right to trample your rights however we like using all the legal loopholes out there, and sometimes even beyond, and hey we'll also be forcing US laws on you even if you're in a totally independent country while ignoring your hard-earned rights protected by your country's laws", but it's somehow the standard practice. That kind attitude is a serious double standard going on for years, favoring corporations and companies over the rights of individuals. So forgive me when I find it very hard to sympathize with anything you said.
- danShumway 8y ago
  It's both stupid to attach an implicit TOS to an HTTP request and stupid to attach one to an HTTP response. I want to see us move away from implicit TOS. I don't want to see us go farther down that hole. It's like claiming, "well, if my local factory can dump toxic waste in the river, why can't I?" You're right, it's a double standard that you're held to more accountability than your local factory. But the correct way to fix that double standard is to go after the factory, not to say, "well heck with it, everybody can dump now." My ultimate goal is to keep the river clean, not to make things fair.
  - tagrun 8y ago
    > well, if my local factory can dump toxic waste in the river, why can't I? Yes, that can be one interpretation, but only with intended irony, not literally. But suppose you're saying it literally; you wouldn't because you're living there. And also because regulations will never allow you to, because your local company has your politicians in their pockets and they effectively get a free pass in the form of bills thanks to ~~legitimized bribing~~ lobbying while you'll just be sent to prison. Which is a part of the irony I was trying to point out. > My ultimate goal is to keep the river clean, not to make things fair. It's very easy to say such things. Words are cheap. How exactly were you going to keep the river clean toward your ultimate goal, again? By offering your stashed billions on the moon as counter-lobby during next elections? Are you also going give us World Peace and unicorns while you're at it? Or assuming you also know how unrealistic you actually sound, would you just be content by opposing the dissent in favor of the status quo by pretending to take the moral high ground?
    - danShumway 8y ago
      I assume that most people here are trying to make a point with the suggestion, not actually to trying to suggest an action that normal people should take. The fact that it's ridiculous to imagine tying a TOS to an HTTP request is illustrative of the fact that it's ridiculous to tie a TOS to the response. > It's very easy to say such things. How exactly were you going to keep the river toward your ultimate goal, again? Again, I get that you're probably just trying to talk about how broken our current legal system is and how difficult it is to change that. I agree, and I'm probably preaching to the choir when I say this. But if you mean it meant literally, I would say that a good starting point is trying not to one-up the factories with our own pollution. It is very hard to stop factories from dumping toxic waste into the river. It is harder to stop both factories and every one of my neighbors from dumping toxic waste into the river. That's all that I'm getting at. TOS reform is already a very hard problem, and we should avoid making it harder than it already is. I can imagine that it might feel good for someone to say, "if corporations don't want to play fair, then we'll make it so literally every action on the web will require a lawyer," in the same way that it might feel good to say, "if corporations don't care about the environment, we'll see how they feel once we've just burned all the trees." But that would really be cutting off our own noses to spite our collective face.
stordoff 8y ago
That's almost exactly the situation we're in now (with the _slight_ difference that it's before I can use the response to a request).