6 ms·

More or less you should assume that any consumer contract promises you exactly the minimum allowable within the framework of applicable laws. That is the inten

More or less you should assume that any consumer contract promises you exactly the minimum allowable within the framework of applicable laws. That is the intent. Practically what this means is that it is useless to negotiate with big companies or really even read their terms (unless you have skills to spot errors) - the best one can do is support campaigns for expanded privacy laws, consumer rights etc.

hutzlibu 3y ago
That seems to summarize it and is my take as well except that you can negotiate with them to an extent as you can avoid that product and this can have an effect if you can also convince other people of doing so. Sure, usually people don’t care (or think they have no choice), but sometimes they do care enough to at least push alternatives as seen in the cases of twitter and reddit.
LightBug1 3y ago
We're in really horrible territory and it's getting worse. c.f. the whole "video calls to train their AI at Zoom" (later: "unless you opt out", sorta) pullava ...
bilsbie 3y ago
I like that strategy but what’s stopping them from saying they get your car or something really outrageous?
- __s 3y ago
  It wouldn't hold up in court. Just because you agree to a contract doesn't mean it's legally binding
  - bilsbie 3y ago
    Where’s the limit though? What decides wha they can put in there and what they can’t?
    - rolph 3y ago
      in my neck of the woods, a contract cant contravene the law, any such thing is invalid upon creation.
    - smsm42 3y ago
      In common law jurisdictions it'd likely be the courts setting the limits, using judgement and precedent to set what is reasonable and what is not in the contract. If they put there that they get your car, and come to collect, you tell them to take a hike, they can sue and likely lose because a judge would say it's unreasonable, and they'll be on hook for court costs. In the borderline cases, may still be worth it for them, but pushing it too far is just losing money.

hutzlibu 3y ago

That seems to summarize it and is my take as well except that you can negotiate with them to an extent as you can avoid that product and this can have an effect if you can also convince other people of doing so. Sure, usually people don’t care (or think they have no choice), but sometimes they do care enough to at least push alternatives as seen in the cases of twitter and reddit.

LightBug1 3y ago

We're in really horrible territory and it's getting worse. c.f. the whole "video calls to train their AI at Zoom" (later: "unless you opt out", sorta) pullava ...

bilsbie 3y ago

I like that strategy but what’s stopping them from saying they get your car or something really outrageous?

__s 3y ago
It wouldn't hold up in court. Just because you agree to a contract doesn't mean it's legally binding
- bilsbie 3y ago
  Where’s the limit though? What decides wha they can put in there and what they can’t?
  - rolph 3y ago
    in my neck of the woods, a contract cant contravene the law, any such thing is invalid upon creation.
  - smsm42 3y ago
    In common law jurisdictions it'd likely be the courts setting the limits, using judgement and precedent to set what is reasonable and what is not in the contract. If they put there that they get your car, and come to collect, you tell them to take a hike, they can sue and likely lose because a judge would say it's unreasonable, and they'll be on hook for court costs. In the borderline cases, may still be worth it for them, but pushing it too far is just losing money.