3 ms·

I agree that, from the user perspective, I'd prefer if all of the software terms and EULAs I sign online were more favorable to me. But I think it's a major ov

I agree that, from the user perspective, I'd prefer if all of the software terms and EULAs I sign online were more favorable to me. But I think it's a major overstatement to say you'll save yourself a headache by not agreeing to one-sided terms. They are literally everywhere. This very website we're posting on right includes these terms in its terms of service: We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to change or modify portions of these Terms of Use at any time. YOU WILL ONLY BE PERMITTED TO PURSUE CLAIMS AGAINST Y COMBINATOR ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, NOT AS A PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER Y Combinator reserves the right to modify or discontinue, temporarily or permanently, the Site (or any part thereof) with or without notice. Y Combinator reserves the right to investigate and take appropriate legal action against anyone who, in Y Combinator’s sole discretion, violates this provision, including without limitation, removing the offending content from the Site, suspending or terminating the account of such violators and reporting you to the law enforcement authorities.

npc12345 4y ago
[dead]
nerdponx 4y ago
Indeed. This is the classic hole in the economics argument about market forces. You can easily set up a game theory model of the prisoner's dilemma with many players, in which the payoff from deviating is so small that "everyone colludes" becomes a stable equilibrium.
whatshisface 4y ago
>They've told you how they do business the first time — believe them the first time. I'm agreeing more with that than the idea that there are no good nonmutual commercial interactions.
marcus0x62 4y ago
I’d be a little more worried about HN’s terms and conditions if I had to pay to use the site. There’s a world of difference between someone (or a company) who is providing a free service attempting to shield themselves from expensive litigation and generally insisting the free service be as hassle-free for them to run as possible and a a company charging me money for a product or service and putting these kinds of one-sided terms in a EULA.

npc12345 4y ago

[dead]

nerdponx 4y ago

Indeed. This is the classic hole in the economics argument about market forces. You can easily set up a game theory model of the prisoner's dilemma with many players, in which the payoff from deviating is so small that "everyone colludes" becomes a stable equilibrium.

whatshisface 4y ago

>They've told you how they do business the first time — believe them the first time. I'm agreeing more with that than the idea that there are no good nonmutual commercial interactions.

marcus0x62 4y ago

I’d be a little more worried about HN’s terms and conditions if I had to pay to use the site. There’s a world of difference between someone (or a company) who is providing a free service attempting to shield themselves from expensive litigation and generally insisting the free service be as hassle-free for them to run as possible and a a company charging me money for a product or service and putting these kinds of one-sided terms in a EULA.