6 ms·

> the only thing that matters are contracts. even those don't matter. The only thing that actually matters are the consequences.

croes 5y ago
If they break a contract you can sue, that leads to consequences.
- danuker 5y ago
  Except the contract says "we may need to update these Terms from time to time to accurately reflect our services and practices.". Do you have the same liberty to change the terms? No. You are free to stop using the service.
- hansel_der 5y ago
  not all consequences are equal thou
- colpabar 5y ago
  When every EULA in existence contains a "despite everything we just said, we can actually just do whatever we want if we decide we want to" clause, why would you expect a contract to be binding in any meaningful way? Companies this big simply won't enter contracts that could potentially cause real damage if broken. And good look suing a company with billions of dollars. Even with a strong case and good lawyers, they will drag out the process and all the court costs will make it impossible to finish, unless you also have billions of dollars.
- wnevets 5y ago
  which are usually less than amount of profit generated.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
danuker 5y ago
And the consequences are quite asymmetric. If you rub a Big Tech company the wrong way, they will disable your account and dramatically alter your online life. But if they pull the floor from under your feet, you have no practical recourse, maybe a complaint on Hacker News.
- spicybright 5y ago
  You can complain to a developer in the company you follow on twitter. It's a perfect system! /s
- ampdepolymerase 5y ago
  And if your politics do not agree with Hacker News, then expect pontification about how the first amendment only applies to governments and not large corporations with massive network effects.
  - eigen 5y ago
    the first amendment to the US Constitution says: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. can you explain how this should apply to "large corporations with massive network effects." would the other sections of the first amendment apply to private corps such that they couldn't deny medical coverage based on the corporation’s religious views?
    - netr0ute 5y ago
      If corporations effectively become governments, then the amendment should apply.
      - junipertea 5y ago
        If corporations become governments, they can make their own laws?
judge2020 5y ago
I think these sister comments are missing the point that contracts in general lead to consequences - that's what OP means by 'the only thing that matters are contracts', as in you can't trust their promise unless they actually sign a contract that says they won't do <x>. This has nothing to do with the EULA.
- wnevets 5y ago
  Once again even that doesn't mean anything. Companies will absolutely weight the benefit of breaking a contract against not breaking it. If the company decides it is worth it, they will.

croes 5y ago

If they break a contract you can sue, that leads to consequences.

danuker 5y ago
Except the contract says "we may need to update these Terms from time to time to accurately reflect our services and practices.". Do you have the same liberty to change the terms? No. You are free to stop using the service.
hansel_der 5y ago
not all consequences are equal thou
colpabar 5y ago
When every EULA in existence contains a "despite everything we just said, we can actually just do whatever we want if we decide we want to" clause, why would you expect a contract to be binding in any meaningful way? Companies this big simply won't enter contracts that could potentially cause real damage if broken. And good look suing a company with billions of dollars. Even with a strong case and good lawyers, they will drag out the process and all the court costs will make it impossible to finish, unless you also have billions of dollars.
wnevets 5y ago
which are usually less than amount of profit generated.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

danuker 5y ago

And the consequences are quite asymmetric. If you rub a Big Tech company the wrong way, they will disable your account and dramatically alter your online life. But if they pull the floor from under your feet, you have no practical recourse, maybe a complaint on Hacker News.

spicybright 5y ago
You can complain to a developer in the company you follow on twitter. It's a perfect system! /s
ampdepolymerase 5y ago
And if your politics do not agree with Hacker News, then expect pontification about how the first amendment only applies to governments and not large corporations with massive network effects.
- eigen 5y ago
  the first amendment to the US Constitution says: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. can you explain how this should apply to "large corporations with massive network effects." would the other sections of the first amendment apply to private corps such that they couldn't deny medical coverage based on the corporation’s religious views?
  - netr0ute 5y ago
    If corporations effectively become governments, then the amendment should apply.
    - junipertea 5y ago
      If corporations become governments, they can make their own laws?

judge2020 5y ago

I think these sister comments are missing the point that contracts in general lead to consequences - that's what OP means by 'the only thing that matters are contracts', as in you can't trust their promise unless they actually sign a contract that says they won't do <x>. This has nothing to do with the EULA.

wnevets 5y ago
Once again even that doesn't mean anything. Companies will absolutely weight the benefit of breaking a contract against not breaking it. If the company decides it is worth it, they will.