4 ms·

As someone hiding behind a throwaway account in an effort to avoid doxing and harassment, and getting my more legitimate online presence removed due to hysteric

As someone hiding behind a throwaway account in an effort to avoid doxing and harassment, and getting my more legitimate online presence removed due to hysterics: I welcome the idea of this change. Though I think it is wrong the way it is implemented. I do not speak Polish, and maybe perhaps the Polish law is more nuanced than the article describes. There should be a law that says you cannot produce a unilateral terms of service (you know, the shit everyone skips over when they sign up for a website to get their data harvested) that says your account can be terminated at any time for whatever reason. It should be a bilateral agreement: -I agree to follow the rules of your service -You agree to not arbitrarily remove me from your service There are dozens of examples and minutia to digest that have lead us to where we are today. Voices are being silenced because feelings are too easily hurt. Misinformation too easily spread, and egos too easily bruised. People are specifically being targeted for hearsay, and because they lack a megaphone in the Court of Public Opinion, they lose catastrophically with real world consequences. Hiding behind monopolistic corporations with snide remarks about "private platforms can do what they want" is genuine cowardice. For right now you are nothing more than a jester, and one bad joke away from your head rolling off, gleefully oblivious of your own downfall.

commandlinefan 6y ago
> I agree to follow the rules of your service You have to be careful there, too, though: Amazon is claiming that Parler (to use the most currently relevant example) did violate their terms of service, because their terms of service are so vague and broad that they can be used to apply to almost anything.
- enkid 6y ago
  I haven't used Parler, but from what I read there were loads of people actively calling for violence. Sure, there's no set line, but Amazon shouldn't have to support that if they don't want to.
  - numpad0 6y ago
    They sort of broke due process of law, that’s the problem. They exercised the force in their possession that should not belong to them.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
CydeWeys 6y ago
> You agree to not arbitrarily remove me from your service Per basic contract law, this is only going to fly if money is changing hands. You and Facebook sign a contract with these stipulations and you pay them for the privilege of using their platform, and now if they remove you you have damages that can be enforced. Absent you paying them they have no obligation to host any of your content. Are you willing to pay Facebook to use it in exchange for these rights?
- Chris2048 6y ago
  > Absent you paying them they have no obligation to host any of your content. Except for a Polish law that would explicitly obligate them to host it..
- EliRivers 6y ago
  I'm not sure that's true. Typically (and of course other jurisdictions vary anyway) there doesn't have to be money; there just has to be a consideration, which can be money. Something of value flowing both ways. A lot of contracts end up with a consideration on one party of something nominal like a dollar or a pound, but it doesn't have to be money. "You get my details and my attention and can harvest my data and make money from it" certainly sounds like it could be argued as having value.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    You're out on a bit of a shaky limb here. There's clear precedent in contract law for damages when money is changing hands. But non-compensated access to data? I'm doubtful. Do you have any established case law in this vein you can point to?

commandlinefan 6y ago

> I agree to follow the rules of your service You have to be careful there, too, though: Amazon is claiming that Parler (to use the most currently relevant example) did violate their terms of service, because their terms of service are so vague and broad that they can be used to apply to almost anything.

enkid 6y ago
I haven't used Parler, but from what I read there were loads of people actively calling for violence. Sure, there's no set line, but Amazon shouldn't have to support that if they don't want to.
- numpad0 6y ago
  They sort of broke due process of law, that’s the problem. They exercised the force in their possession that should not belong to them.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

CydeWeys 6y ago

> You agree to not arbitrarily remove me from your service Per basic contract law, this is only going to fly if money is changing hands. You and Facebook sign a contract with these stipulations and you pay them for the privilege of using their platform, and now if they remove you you have damages that can be enforced. Absent you paying them they have no obligation to host any of your content. Are you willing to pay Facebook to use it in exchange for these rights?

Chris2048 6y ago
> Absent you paying them they have no obligation to host any of your content. Except for a Polish law that would explicitly obligate them to host it..
EliRivers 6y ago
I'm not sure that's true. Typically (and of course other jurisdictions vary anyway) there doesn't have to be money; there just has to be a consideration, which can be money. Something of value flowing both ways. A lot of contracts end up with a consideration on one party of something nominal like a dollar or a pound, but it doesn't have to be money. "You get my details and my attention and can harvest my data and make money from it" certainly sounds like it could be argued as having value.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  You're out on a bit of a shaky limb here. There's clear precedent in contract law for damages when money is changing hands. But non-compensated access to data? I'm doubtful. Do you have any established case law in this vein you can point to?