5 ms·

Can someone explain the legalese. I'm having a hard time deciphering it

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
Which part specifically is confusing you? Like, it's a long TOU, so I don't think anyone's gonna write down the whole explanation here, but let's pick one paragraph: > Commercial Use: Unless otherwise expressly authorized herein or in the Site, you agree not to display, distribute, license, perform, publish, reproduce, duplicate, copy, create derivative works from, modify, sell, resell, exploit, transfer or upload for any commercial purposes, any portion of the Site, use of the Site, or access to the Site. The buying, exchanging, selling and/or promotion (commercial or otherwise) of upvotes, comments, submissions, accounts (or any aspect of your account or any other account), karma, and/or content is strictly prohibited, constitutes a material breach of these Terms of Use, and could result in legal liability. This means: don't use the content of the site to make derivative works to make money, otherwise we might sue you. It's mostly straightforward stuff like that. If there's a specific part that you're having trouble with, I'm happy to have a crack at explaining it.
- brighton36 5y ago
  Why anyone has the authority to compel public expectations based on the arrangement of bits.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    Not to get too reductive or anything, but the reasons are very similar to why people have the authority to compel public expectations based on the arrangement of atoms (e.g. you aren't allowed to stab me, etc.). Namely: those with the power to enforce those rules think it's a good idea to do so, and the public continues to support that configuration of the legal system.
    - brighton36 5y ago
      Absolutely. I think that's how we got here. But, the thought regulation regime is pretty new historically. I don't know why we accept it, on the basis.... That thoughts ... Take up space?
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
        I'm afraid I'm a little confused about what your question is. I don't think the notion that thoughts take up space has anything to do with why TOUs are enforceable in the US. It's more because the relevant stakeholders are either largely not very interested in or impacted by TOUs (the public at large) or are interested in and positively impacted by TOUs (the services offered with TOUs).
wizzwizz4 5y ago
ToS;DR has your back: https://tosdr.org/en/service/636 https://tosdr.org/en/service/636 (Though it's not complete yet.)
- bifrost 5y ago
  I like this, curious if the interpretations are legally survivable but still very cool.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    If the interpretations are accurate and complete, they'll presumably have the same impact as what is being interpreted. If the interpretations are inaccurate, then your reliance on them will not be a defense. For example, suppose TOU;dr got the arbitration requirements wrong. You could not sue ycombinator then argue that you had relied on TOU;dr, thus you were not bound by the arbitration agreement in the ycombinator TOU.
- RuffleGordon 5y ago
  Wow. That is a brilliant link. Thanks for sharing. I don't know why terms can't be written that simply in the first place.
  - paxys 5y ago
    Two reasons: 1. Legal contracts are supposed to be as detailed as possible so there's as little room for disagreement as possible when taken to court. 2. It's better for companies if users don't take the time to read and understand their terms, and beyond a certain length and complexity they will just scroll through and click yes.
    - skrebbel 5y ago
      3. Lawyers are incentivized to write incompehensibly because it helps keep them in business. 4. It's easier to write incompehensible legal text than simple English that a layman can follow, and customers seldomly call lawyers out on it because they've been trained to accept this as the status quo (also see 3).

Which part specifically is confusing you? Like, it's a long TOU, so I don't think anyone's gonna write down the whole explanation here, but let's pick one paragraph: > Commercial Use: Unless otherwise expressly authorized herein or in the Site, you agree not to display, distribute, license, perform, publish, reproduce, duplicate, copy, create derivative works from, modify, sell, resell, exploit, transfer or upload for any commercial purposes, any portion of the Site, use of the Site, or access to the Site. The buying, exchanging, selling and/or promotion (commercial or otherwise) of upvotes, comments, submissions, accounts (or any aspect of your account or any other account), karma, and/or content is strictly prohibited, constitutes a material breach of these Terms of Use, and could result in legal liability. This means: don't use the content of the site to make derivative works to make money, otherwise we might sue you. It's mostly straightforward stuff like that. If there's a specific part that you're having trouble with, I'm happy to have a crack at explaining it.

brighton36 5y ago
Why anyone has the authority to compel public expectations based on the arrangement of bits.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  Not to get too reductive or anything, but the reasons are very similar to why people have the authority to compel public expectations based on the arrangement of atoms (e.g. you aren't allowed to stab me, etc.). Namely: those with the power to enforce those rules think it's a good idea to do so, and the public continues to support that configuration of the legal system.
  - brighton36 5y ago
    Absolutely. I think that's how we got here. But, the thought regulation regime is pretty new historically. I don't know why we accept it, on the basis.... That thoughts ... Take up space?
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      I'm afraid I'm a little confused about what your question is. I don't think the notion that thoughts take up space has anything to do with why TOUs are enforceable in the US. It's more because the relevant stakeholders are either largely not very interested in or impacted by TOUs (the public at large) or are interested in and positively impacted by TOUs (the services offered with TOUs).

wizzwizz4 5y ago

ToS;DR has your back: https://tosdr.org/en/service/636 https://tosdr.org/en/service/636 (Though it's not complete yet.)

bifrost 5y ago
I like this, curious if the interpretations are legally survivable but still very cool.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  If the interpretations are accurate and complete, they'll presumably have the same impact as what is being interpreted. If the interpretations are inaccurate, then your reliance on them will not be a defense. For example, suppose TOU;dr got the arbitration requirements wrong. You could not sue ycombinator then argue that you had relied on TOU;dr, thus you were not bound by the arbitration agreement in the ycombinator TOU.
RuffleGordon 5y ago
Wow. That is a brilliant link. Thanks for sharing. I don't know why terms can't be written that simply in the first place.
- paxys 5y ago
  Two reasons: 1. Legal contracts are supposed to be as detailed as possible so there's as little room for disagreement as possible when taken to court. 2. It's better for companies if users don't take the time to read and understand their terms, and beyond a certain length and complexity they will just scroll through and click yes.
  - skrebbel 5y ago
    3. Lawyers are incentivized to write incompehensibly because it helps keep them in business. 4. It's easier to write incompehensible legal text than simple English that a layman can follow, and customers seldomly call lawyers out on it because they've been trained to accept this as the status quo (also see 3).