4 ms·

So if I hit the "agree" button on TOS that are long and complex enough that I am not expected to reasonably understand, I am not bounded by them, because I neve

So if I hit the "agree" button on TOS that are long and complex enough that I am not expected to reasonably understand, I am not bounded by them, because I never provided consent? What if instead of TOS, we're talking about the tax code? Or the law? I am not trying to invalidate what the article says, but I think the subject is more nuanced than just "lie -> no consent"

crazygringo 6y ago
That's not what the article says. The article explicitly describes how most people believe you do consent even if lied to. As does the law. The article actually is very nuanced, which is what makes it so interesting.
- jbombadil 6y ago
  Oh I agree that the article is very interesting. I never said otherwise. I was using the resource of hyperbole. I _know_ that the article is more subtle than "lie -> no consent". Through the two examples I was trying to say that IMO, the subject is more complicated than what the article suggests. It covers one aspect of consent (adult sexual relationships), applying principles from other areas (business transactions). But if that principle is expanded into other areas (like TOS / tax code / law), the argument starts to become weaker. (Not stating that I disagree with it out right. Just that it's not as clear)
  - wombatmobile 6y ago
    > But if that principle is expanded into other areas Yes, that's the key. The principle is what it is. What makes it interesting here is the context. Can we rely on one legal construct to give us a civilised result in contexts that vary all the way from consumer law through to sexual morality and inter-personal psychodynamics?
542354234235 6y ago
> So if I hit the "agree" button on TOS that are long and complex enough that I am not expected to reasonably understand, I am not bounded by them, because I never provided consent? That has its own debate. The company is the powerful party with lawyers writing up their TOS. Consumers are laypeople that cannot reasonably retain legal counsel to review every TOS they have to sign, nor do they have the time to actually read them all themselves (it takes multiple months of 40 hour weeks time to fully read all TOS that the average person consents to). Given this asymmetry, why do we have the onus fall on the consumer to be responsible for understanding the terms, when we could put the legal responsibility on the company to be responsible for confirming that the consumer understands the TOS before the company can sell it? If a company had to confirm you knew what you were consenting to, they would by necessity have to simplify and clarify their TOS.

crazygringo 6y ago

That's not what the article says. The article explicitly describes how most people believe you do consent even if lied to. As does the law. The article actually is very nuanced, which is what makes it so interesting.

jbombadil 6y ago
Oh I agree that the article is very interesting. I never said otherwise. I was using the resource of hyperbole. I _know_ that the article is more subtle than "lie -> no consent". Through the two examples I was trying to say that IMO, the subject is more complicated than what the article suggests. It covers one aspect of consent (adult sexual relationships), applying principles from other areas (business transactions). But if that principle is expanded into other areas (like TOS / tax code / law), the argument starts to become weaker. (Not stating that I disagree with it out right. Just that it's not as clear)
- wombatmobile 6y ago
  > But if that principle is expanded into other areas Yes, that's the key. The principle is what it is. What makes it interesting here is the context. Can we rely on one legal construct to give us a civilised result in contexts that vary all the way from consumer law through to sexual morality and inter-personal psychodynamics?

542354234235 6y ago

> So if I hit the "agree" button on TOS that are long and complex enough that I am not expected to reasonably understand, I am not bounded by them, because I never provided consent? That has its own debate. The company is the powerful party with lawyers writing up their TOS. Consumers are laypeople that cannot reasonably retain legal counsel to review every TOS they have to sign, nor do they have the time to actually read them all themselves (it takes multiple months of 40 hour weeks time to fully read all TOS that the average person consents to). Given this asymmetry, why do we have the onus fall on the consumer to be responsible for understanding the terms, when we could put the legal responsibility on the company to be responsible for confirming that the consumer understands the TOS before the company can sell it? If a company had to confirm you knew what you were consenting to, they would by necessity have to simplify and clarify their TOS.