3 ms·

> … or part of ToS. Let’s forget employment for a sec and just look at a product’s terms. Why can’t you just not use the product? “It’s popular” is hardly an

by koolba 2y ago

> … or part of ToS. Let’s forget employment for a sec and just look at a product’s terms. Why can’t you just not use the product? “It’s popular” is hardly an excuse for something new if you’re picking the platform. If it’s an existing community and you feel forced to join a closed system with too many rules for your tastes, skip it. The community will suffer and hopefully they change to something you’ll like. But if not, screw em.

foota 2y ago
Avoiding a large part of society isn't a practical response. Besides, many may not know of the forced arbitration, despite it negatively impacting them. People are famously bad at these coordination problems.
- koolba 2y ago
  > Avoiding a large part of society isn't a practical response. In my personal experience, it’s worked out fine. > Besides, many may not know of the forced arbitration, despite it negatively impacting them. People are famously bad at these coordination problems. Not reading the thing you’re agreeing to is not an excuse. Otherwise it’d be an out for any contract. And again, consumers can vote with their feet by only agreeing to terms that are understandable.
  - noodlesUK 2y ago
    Countries regularly legislate and regulate against various forms of unfair terms in contracts, ranging from the deceptive and absurd to fairly mundane things. You can’t enter into contracts requiring illegal behaviour for instance. This is true in the U.S. and all other countries that I’m aware of. In the UK and other European countries, particularly regarding consumer goods or other kinds of contracts with an inherent asymmetry of negotiating power, there are lots of things you can’t agree in contracts, such as disclaiming general fitness for purpose and safety. Deciding that you can’t agree away your rights to redress through the judicial system seems like a reasonable extension of these kinds of rules.
  - handoflixue 2y ago
    > In my personal experience, it’s worked out fine. Okay, but you do realize other people have a different experience of the world, right? Discord is super-easy to avoid right up until it turns out the only communities for something are on Discord. Or your teacher assigns you work that requires using it. Or your work requires you to use it. Or... And the thing is, 99% of us will never run into any of those situations! It's easy not to be affected personally, right up until you are > Not reading the thing you’re agreeing to is not an excuse. Okay, but I did read the entire TOS at the time - now I'm required to also read every update and respond within a 30 day period. Which, again, easy not to be personally affected right up until you're on vacation in a region with bad internet, or just super-busy with work and you miss that one email > And again, consumers can vote with their feet by only agreeing to terms that are understandable. We ban all sorts of contracts - you can't sell yourself into slavery, you can't agree to commit a crime. So what's wrong with voting with our actual vote, instead? Especially since I'm interested in protecting not just myself, but other people who might not realize how much this potentially disadvantages them.
Akronymus 2y ago
I know a few students who are required to use discord due to the teacher distributing courae work over it.
- foresto 2y ago
  It makes me sad to learn that someone's education is locked behind Discord's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
  - ronsor 2y ago
    Wait until you learn how much education is locked behind Google's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, or Microsoft's...
    - foresto 2y ago
      Are you trying to make me cry?
teeray 2y ago
Voting with your feet only works if your feet have somewhere else to go. Binding arbitration is a cancer that is everywhere and spreading. Your due diligence to choose products that have no binding arbitration are futile, because they can change the game any time. You can opt out, but then they play the arbitration do-over card like Discord is doing here and nullify that unless you opt out again. You can’t win.
8note 2y ago
Discord is the sole distributor for products that they do not themselves, the conversations done by third parties. If chat required interoperability like telephones do, this would not be an issue. The government has failed at making proper regulations

by koolba 2y ago

foota 2y ago

Avoiding a large part of society isn't a practical response. Besides, many may not know of the forced arbitration, despite it negatively impacting them. People are famously bad at these coordination problems.

koolba 2y ago
> Avoiding a large part of society isn't a practical response. In my personal experience, it’s worked out fine. > Besides, many may not know of the forced arbitration, despite it negatively impacting them. People are famously bad at these coordination problems. Not reading the thing you’re agreeing to is not an excuse. Otherwise it’d be an out for any contract. And again, consumers can vote with their feet by only agreeing to terms that are understandable.
- noodlesUK 2y ago
  Countries regularly legislate and regulate against various forms of unfair terms in contracts, ranging from the deceptive and absurd to fairly mundane things. You can’t enter into contracts requiring illegal behaviour for instance. This is true in the U.S. and all other countries that I’m aware of. In the UK and other European countries, particularly regarding consumer goods or other kinds of contracts with an inherent asymmetry of negotiating power, there are lots of things you can’t agree in contracts, such as disclaiming general fitness for purpose and safety. Deciding that you can’t agree away your rights to redress through the judicial system seems like a reasonable extension of these kinds of rules.
- handoflixue 2y ago
  > In my personal experience, it’s worked out fine. Okay, but you do realize other people have a different experience of the world, right? Discord is super-easy to avoid right up until it turns out the only communities for something are on Discord. Or your teacher assigns you work that requires using it. Or your work requires you to use it. Or... And the thing is, 99% of us will never run into any of those situations! It's easy not to be affected personally, right up until you are > Not reading the thing you’re agreeing to is not an excuse. Okay, but I did read the entire TOS at the time - now I'm required to also read every update and respond within a 30 day period. Which, again, easy not to be personally affected right up until you're on vacation in a region with bad internet, or just super-busy with work and you miss that one email > And again, consumers can vote with their feet by only agreeing to terms that are understandable. We ban all sorts of contracts - you can't sell yourself into slavery, you can't agree to commit a crime. So what's wrong with voting with our actual vote, instead? Especially since I'm interested in protecting not just myself, but other people who might not realize how much this potentially disadvantages them.

Akronymus 2y ago

I know a few students who are required to use discord due to the teacher distributing courae work over it.

foresto 2y ago
It makes me sad to learn that someone's education is locked behind Discord's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
- ronsor 2y ago
  Wait until you learn how much education is locked behind Google's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, or Microsoft's...
  - foresto 2y ago
    Are you trying to make me cry?

teeray 2y ago

Voting with your feet only works if your feet have somewhere else to go. Binding arbitration is a cancer that is everywhere and spreading. Your due diligence to choose products that have no binding arbitration are futile, because they can change the game any time. You can opt out, but then they play the arbitration do-over card like Discord is doing here and nullify that unless you opt out again. You can’t win.

8note 2y ago

Discord is the sole distributor for products that they do not themselves, the conversations done by third parties. If chat required interoperability like telephones do, this would not be an issue. The government has failed at making proper regulations