2 ms·
This is incoherent. Every site has a TOS which is violated by those who were banned. Imagining a fake 'contract' exists because you viewed ads is 'dubious'
by nh23423fefe 4y ago
This is incoherent. Every site has a TOS which is violated by those who were banned.
Imagining a fake 'contract' exists because you viewed ads is 'dubious'
- tengbretson 4y agoI understand you may be ignorant to it, but an implied contract is not a concept I just made up. It is not a stretch at all to view the interactions between a website and a user through the lens of an implied-in-fact contract. If you are interested, here is a good place to start reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract Sites have TOS, and users in violation of the TOS should be banned. This is not the same as a shadowban. I don't believe it is within the rights of a site to secretly claim that a user is in violation of the TOS and then punitively altering the user experience they agreed to without giving them any notice.