4 ms·

They actually did this when they had a public spat with Improbable and stealth-changed the ToS to forbid Improbable's use of Unity. When called out, Unity poste

by tapoxi 2y ago

They actually did this when they had a public spat with Improbable and stealth-changed the ToS to forbid Improbable's use of Unity. When called out, Unity posted the ToS to GitHub as a promise of transparency going forward. They deleted the repo it a few months before rolling out the runtime fee and published it again after being called out. So it's great in concept, but we've already seen it completely ignored in practice.

jarrell_mark 2y ago
Finally a legit use case for blockchain
- stavros 2y ago
  Because they couldn't just also move off of the blockchain?
  - hollow-moe 2y ago
    Use legaleese to fight legaleese, just write in the ToS itself only the blockchain version is applicable. If they want to move off they at least have to update the blockchain version to remove the blockchain requirement for applicability.
    - stavros 2y ago
      Why couldn't they do the same with Github, then? What problem does the blockchain actually solve that git (or just a website) wouldn't?
    - theginger 2y ago
      They could of course just do that, so there is no benefit from it being in block chain compared with anywhere else. The only advantage block chain provides is you don't have to trust anyone. Eg you don't have to trust GitHub to not delete or modify the repo themselves, but they weren't any part of the problem here.
      - Flemitplo 2y ago
        [dead]
  - jarrell_mark 2y ago
    Blockchain history cannot be manipulated unlike in git. This was meant as a joke though. There’s other ways to achieve this besides blockchain. the internet archive way back machine can pull up the TOS on a certain date. Here’s some more info on file deletion using git and blockchain: https://chatgpt.com/share/67096e57-d6e0-8004-9f68-ae646bb4712e https://chatgpt.com/share/67096e57-d6e0-8004-9f68-ae646bb471...
- moron4hire 2y ago
  Git is a blockchain
labster 2y ago
At least it worked as a ToS canary. The repo goes down, and you know shenanigans are incoming.

by tapoxi 2y ago

jarrell_mark 2y ago

Finally a legit use case for blockchain

stavros 2y ago
Because they couldn't just also move off of the blockchain?
- hollow-moe 2y ago
  Use legaleese to fight legaleese, just write in the ToS itself only the blockchain version is applicable. If they want to move off they at least have to update the blockchain version to remove the blockchain requirement for applicability.
  - stavros 2y ago
    Why couldn't they do the same with Github, then? What problem does the blockchain actually solve that git (or just a website) wouldn't?
  - theginger 2y ago
    They could of course just do that, so there is no benefit from it being in block chain compared with anywhere else. The only advantage block chain provides is you don't have to trust anyone. Eg you don't have to trust GitHub to not delete or modify the repo themselves, but they weren't any part of the problem here.
    - Flemitplo 2y ago
      [dead]
- jarrell_mark 2y ago
  Blockchain history cannot be manipulated unlike in git. This was meant as a joke though. There’s other ways to achieve this besides blockchain. the internet archive way back machine can pull up the TOS on a certain date. Here’s some more info on file deletion using git and blockchain: https://chatgpt.com/share/67096e57-d6e0-8004-9f68-ae646bb4712e https://chatgpt.com/share/67096e57-d6e0-8004-9f68-ae646bb471...
moron4hire 2y ago
Git is a blockchain

labster 2y ago

At least it worked as a ToS canary. The repo goes down, and you know shenanigans are incoming.