4 ms·
Reading that page, the “user consent” is dependent on third parties who are monetizing their app through this service to inform their users. I … um … doubt the
by ipython 5y ago
Reading that page, the “user consent” is dependent on third parties who are monetizing their app through this service to inform their users. I … um … doubt the third party app developers give a crap to accurately describe the traffic that will subsequently emanate from their users’ devices.
Just like everything else in this industry, the retort will be “but it’s the users fault! They didn’t scroll through the 2,375 page privacy policy, user agreement, hold harmless indemnification agreement, and terms of use when they agreed to an ad free experience for their mahjong app! What a stupid user! Ha!”
To that I say, enjoy the coming oppressive regulations. It’s already started. As a kid, I always wondered why we required stupid laws to regulate common sense. Now I know why.
- KirillPanov 5y agoWe don't need oppressive regulations; we simply need courts to adopt a sane definition of "agree". If you're foisting an adhesion contract on more than 1,000 people, they are not deemed to have "agreed" unless a majority of a random sampling (say, ten) of them actually read and understood the entire document. Otherwise it's void. "Read and understood" is decided by a jury as part of any litigation involving the contract. "Random sampling" is made by court evidentiary procedures. If the contract is negotiated or it was presented to less than 1,000 people the rules stay the way they currently are, since those are the kinds of contracts that English common law was developed for.