5 ms·
The terms of service prohibits deep linking. Here's me breaking it: https://store.app/terms https://store.app/terms Seriously though, WTF? So much for "the web
by perilunar 3y ago
The terms of service prohibits deep linking. Here's me breaking it: https://store.app/terms https://store.app/terms
Seriously though, WTF? So much for "the web always wins".
- _Algernon_ 3y agoSeems very unenforceable. The fact that it is included speaks volumes about the creator of the site though. Wouldn't want to use such a service.
- notpushkin 3y agoLooks like generic boilerplate ToS to me. It's still bad, but I think this is unintentional.
- Philip-J-Fry 3y agoHe's not talking about the contents of the ToS. Click the back button on the page, it takes you back here. You'd expect it to take you back to the homepage of the site. If you deeplink to that page then there's no way out other than editing the URL.
- notpushkin 3y agoI'm pretty sure he does. “The terms of service prohibits deep linking” is a pretty unambiguous phrase, and it is prohibited indeed: > Additionally, you agree not to, and will not assist, encourage, or enable others to: [...] Deep-link to any portion of the Services any purpose without our express written permission The fact that the back link is broken on that very page adds yet another level of irony here though.
- tuxone 3y ago> The fact that the back link is broken on that very page adds yet another level of irony here though. The original Privacy and Terms links do open in a new tab so the back button is broken on the website but works when deep linked.
- hombre_fatal 3y agoNo, they're just using history.back() on that button, not making a statement. That's just being lazy on a /tos or /privacy page as most of us have done in our life.
- presson 3y agoFix is on staging. Also updated terms to remove the bullet about deep linking, which should not have been included.
- cacois 3y agoI find it discouraging that the poster is very active in comments to this post, but thus far is ignoring concerns like this.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- freedomben 3y agoLooking at the timestamps from the activity, they probably haven't seen this concern yet. I'm guessing they are West Coast USA and are still asleep for the night. Let's give them some time.
- cacois 3y agoThat's a good point, and fair. Sorry to jump the gun.
- presson 3y agoIndeed, I was asleep. We have a lawyer who handled the terms, presumably adding a bit of boiler plate text that we should have removed. This should definitely not be the case, thank you all for flagging. Will update today.
- prmoustache 3y agoThese kinds of terms are not legally enforceable in most juridictions anyway but yes, doesn't paint the authors in a good way.
- stolsvik 3y agoHow many megabytes of text is it reasonable to expect a user to read? This could have been interesting, rendered meaningless by overflow of legalese.