3 ms·

If you enter into an agreement with someone you should follow the agreement to the best of your ability. Purposefully agreeing to agreements when you know you w

If you enter into an agreement with someone you should follow the agreement to the best of your ability. Purposefully agreeing to agreements when you know you will violate them is exploitative behavior as you are taking advantage of someone because you are purposefully not holding up your end of the deal when you know that they will continue to hold up their end.

ada1981 1y ago
I think in modern commerce TOS are things written in small print most reasonable people read of purposely agree too. I saw some BS in an owners manual for a washing machine that was attempting to imply that by using this machine I agreed to the TOS.. I mean, I guess. It doesn't seem like ethics has much to do with it.
dns_snek 1y ago
> If you enter into an agreement with someone Upon review, it looks like you don't have to enter into an agreement with anyone in order to use this software, except its authors under the terms of the AGPL. > exploitative behavior Even if you want to frame it like that, it doesn't look good for you unless you assume we're imbeciles who don't keep score. You do not have any right to complain about exploitative behavior when you willfully exploit hundreds of millions of people by 1000 units and they "exploit" you by 1 unit in return. You're still a net exploiter in the relationship. > when you know that they will continue to hold up their end That's a lie, corporations unilaterally alter the terms of service without offering compensation all time.
rpdillon 1y ago
You'd be correct if all of these contracts weren't essentially contracts of adhesion. The fact that the user has no agency to change the terms of the contract or really any say at all in what the terms of the agreement are waters down your argument significantly. In fact, the contracts are so asymmetrical that only one party has control over them and can change them at any time. The other party has no agency whatsoever.

ada1981 1y ago

I think in modern commerce TOS are things written in small print most reasonable people read of purposely agree too. I saw some BS in an owners manual for a washing machine that was attempting to imply that by using this machine I agreed to the TOS.. I mean, I guess. It doesn't seem like ethics has much to do with it.

dns_snek 1y ago

> If you enter into an agreement with someone Upon review, it looks like you don't have to enter into an agreement with anyone in order to use this software, except its authors under the terms of the AGPL. > exploitative behavior Even if you want to frame it like that, it doesn't look good for you unless you assume we're imbeciles who don't keep score. You do not have any right to complain about exploitative behavior when you willfully exploit hundreds of millions of people by 1000 units and they "exploit" you by 1 unit in return. You're still a net exploiter in the relationship. > when you know that they will continue to hold up their end That's a lie, corporations unilaterally alter the terms of service without offering compensation all time.

rpdillon 1y ago

You'd be correct if all of these contracts weren't essentially contracts of adhesion. The fact that the user has no agency to change the terms of the contract or really any say at all in what the terms of the agreement are waters down your argument significantly. In fact, the contracts are so asymmetrical that only one party has control over them and can change them at any time. The other party has no agency whatsoever.