10 ms·

> over the last few years many companies have adopted so-called arbitration clauses in which, simply by clicking the “accept terms” button, users waive their ri

> over the last few years many companies have adopted so-called arbitration clauses in which, simply by clicking the “accept terms” button, users waive their rights to join class actions. The move discourages plaintiffs’ lawyers because, unless they can sue on behalf of many clients at once, there is hardly any money in filing cases. “It may only be a matter of time before it is impossible for employees and consumers to file class actions,” Mr. Fitzpatrick said. This is scary, especially considering that many of the big technology companies are monopolies over the types of services they provide, and we are forced to use them if we want to succeed in modern life.

icebraining 12y ago
Which companies are we forced to use to succeed in modern life?
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Oil and water companies.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Did you read the post I was replying to? Because I don't think your response makes much sense in the context.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  LinkedIn has one of the strongest cases.
  - vinceguidry 12y ago
    I deleted my LinkedIn profile a long time ago and never looked back. I can't think of a better example of the meaningless that is only meaningful because other people say it is. I don't even think about LinkedIn unless it's mentioned here, that's how irrelevant to my life it is.
    - xnull2guest 12y ago
      > meaningless that is only meaningful because other people say it is Couldn't this also describe dollars (currency), bitcoins, pretty much any social media site, fashion and rules of hygiene (beyond what is merely sanitary)? Yes LinkedIn is only meaningful because other people say it is. But it's meaningful and there are industries where people simply can not get hired without a LinkedIn profile.
      - vinceguidry 12y ago
        Not at all. Things that have meaning have that meaning because other people actually want them. Money is a means of exchange, legitimized by government. It has a relevance that bitcoin does not have. Plenty of things have conditional relevance. Hygiene matters as much as your aspirations to social status. Social media matters only so much as you want to connect with others. Fashion is hard to describe, but I believe it's ultimately meaningful. If you completely ignore fashion it does affect you in certain ways. Note that I'm not just referring to clothes, technology is filled with fads as well. LinkedIn is bullshit. Bullshit you can and should ignore. I refuse to believe that there are entire industries that, collectively, firms in that industry won't even talk to you without such a profile. You can believe that, or you can believe that its your skills and ability to sell yourself that maintains your hireability.
- HarryHirsch 12y ago
  Cellphones and credit cards.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Cellphones isn't a company; is there a monopolist provider? Where I live, we have three plus a few MVNOs. As for CCs, are you really forced to have one to succeed in the US? According to a Gallop poll, 29% of Americans don't have any CC, though I assume that correlates pretty well with the poor and dispossessed.
    - HarryHirsch 12y ago
      In the US, you have to have a history of credit card use for any bank to give you credit. That's right, a history of credit card use, not a history of paying expenses on time. Credit in this context includes mortgages. It's insane.
dccoolgai 12y ago
This is how corporatuions engineer impunity for themselves to hurt people 300 - 400 dollars at a time. "Sure, you can get your 400 dollars back from us - just pay this arbitrator who we picked that sides with us 95 percent of the time 1000 dollars to hear your case."
- gergles 12y ago
  In most cases, the company agrees to pay the arbitrator, so it's even worse. You're in private court where the judge is paid by your opponent. The statistics on how often outcomes go against the company are about where you'd expect them to be. You don't have to pay, but good luck getting anything out of the 'neutral' arbitrator.
jsprogrammer 12y ago
Any claim that someone waived their constitutional rights by clicking a button will collapse under even the most mild scrutiny.
- click170 12y ago
  Is there any precedent for arbitration clauses being thrown out? I didn't think there was (in fact, quite the opposite), and that that's why they've become so common in everyone's EULA. If it had already been shown to be useless, why would they keep trying to use it?
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    I'm not really considering having a single clause thrown out. The entire concept of someone providing assent through a checkbox is highly suspect. A company will be able to provide no evidence, which will stand up to even mild scrutiny, that I understood and assented to any language that they claim I did. For instance, Facebook is going to bring a database row where they have set `agreed_to_terms_xyz` to 1 into evidence? Maybe, but I will either destroy that argument real quick or I will have Facebook's entire codebase brought into evidence and then tear it apart line-by-line.
    - click170 12y ago
      I agree that the idea of providing assent via a checkbox is highly suspect. But unfortunately I think the law is on their side on this one because: almost ever piece of software that I've seen that presents that checkbox refuses to continue with the installation unless it is selected. Therefor, if you have their software installed and are using it, you agreed to their terms or violated their copyright. I'm not saying I agree with that line of reasoning, I'm just saying that's what I would expect their argument to be. And in court, I think they might unfortunately win with it.
- hodag 12y ago
  That may well be true, but two things to think about in that regard: 1) You don't have a Constitutional right to have private companies not collect your data. You don't have a Constitutional right to sue those private companies if they use your data in ways you don't like. These may be important things, but they're not in the Constitution. 2) In fact, arbitration clauses are almost always enforceable. Once you check that box and click OK on a contract containing an arbitration clause, it's almost a sure thing that the court is going to enforce it. That's because of the Supreme Court's ultra-rigid interpretation of a law called the Federal Arbitration Act, and it's not going to change anytime soon. You can have a look at http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_LLC_v._Concepcion http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_LLC_v._Concep... for an example of how it works.

icebraining 12y ago

Which companies are we forced to use to succeed in modern life?

lotsofmangos 12y ago
Oil and water companies.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Did you read the post I was replying to? Because I don't think your response makes much sense in the context.
xnull2guest 12y ago
LinkedIn has one of the strongest cases.
- vinceguidry 12y ago
  I deleted my LinkedIn profile a long time ago and never looked back. I can't think of a better example of the meaningless that is only meaningful because other people say it is. I don't even think about LinkedIn unless it's mentioned here, that's how irrelevant to my life it is.
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    > meaningless that is only meaningful because other people say it is Couldn't this also describe dollars (currency), bitcoins, pretty much any social media site, fashion and rules of hygiene (beyond what is merely sanitary)? Yes LinkedIn is only meaningful because other people say it is. But it's meaningful and there are industries where people simply can not get hired without a LinkedIn profile.
    - vinceguidry 12y ago
      Not at all. Things that have meaning have that meaning because other people actually want them. Money is a means of exchange, legitimized by government. It has a relevance that bitcoin does not have. Plenty of things have conditional relevance. Hygiene matters as much as your aspirations to social status. Social media matters only so much as you want to connect with others. Fashion is hard to describe, but I believe it's ultimately meaningful. If you completely ignore fashion it does affect you in certain ways. Note that I'm not just referring to clothes, technology is filled with fads as well. LinkedIn is bullshit. Bullshit you can and should ignore. I refuse to believe that there are entire industries that, collectively, firms in that industry won't even talk to you without such a profile. You can believe that, or you can believe that its your skills and ability to sell yourself that maintains your hireability.
HarryHirsch 12y ago
Cellphones and credit cards.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Cellphones isn't a company; is there a monopolist provider? Where I live, we have three plus a few MVNOs. As for CCs, are you really forced to have one to succeed in the US? According to a Gallop poll, 29% of Americans don't have any CC, though I assume that correlates pretty well with the poor and dispossessed.
  - HarryHirsch 12y ago
    In the US, you have to have a history of credit card use for any bank to give you credit. That's right, a history of credit card use, not a history of paying expenses on time. Credit in this context includes mortgages. It's insane.

dccoolgai 12y ago

This is how corporatuions engineer impunity for themselves to hurt people 300 - 400 dollars at a time. "Sure, you can get your 400 dollars back from us - just pay this arbitrator who we picked that sides with us 95 percent of the time 1000 dollars to hear your case."

gergles 12y ago
In most cases, the company agrees to pay the arbitrator, so it's even worse. You're in private court where the judge is paid by your opponent. The statistics on how often outcomes go against the company are about where you'd expect them to be. You don't have to pay, but good luck getting anything out of the 'neutral' arbitrator.

jsprogrammer 12y ago

Any claim that someone waived their constitutional rights by clicking a button will collapse under even the most mild scrutiny.

click170 12y ago
Is there any precedent for arbitration clauses being thrown out? I didn't think there was (in fact, quite the opposite), and that that's why they've become so common in everyone's EULA. If it had already been shown to be useless, why would they keep trying to use it?
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  I'm not really considering having a single clause thrown out. The entire concept of someone providing assent through a checkbox is highly suspect. A company will be able to provide no evidence, which will stand up to even mild scrutiny, that I understood and assented to any language that they claim I did. For instance, Facebook is going to bring a database row where they have set `agreed_to_terms_xyz` to 1 into evidence? Maybe, but I will either destroy that argument real quick or I will have Facebook's entire codebase brought into evidence and then tear it apart line-by-line.
  - click170 12y ago
    I agree that the idea of providing assent via a checkbox is highly suspect. But unfortunately I think the law is on their side on this one because: almost ever piece of software that I've seen that presents that checkbox refuses to continue with the installation unless it is selected. Therefor, if you have their software installed and are using it, you agreed to their terms or violated their copyright. I'm not saying I agree with that line of reasoning, I'm just saying that's what I would expect their argument to be. And in court, I think they might unfortunately win with it.
hodag 12y ago
That may well be true, but two things to think about in that regard: 1) You don't have a Constitutional right to have private companies not collect your data. You don't have a Constitutional right to sue those private companies if they use your data in ways you don't like. These may be important things, but they're not in the Constitution. 2) In fact, arbitration clauses are almost always enforceable. Once you check that box and click OK on a contract containing an arbitration clause, it's almost a sure thing that the court is going to enforce it. That's because of the Supreme Court's ultra-rigid interpretation of a law called the Federal Arbitration Act, and it's not going to change anytime soon. You can have a look at http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_LLC_v._Concepcion http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_LLC_v._Concep... for an example of how it works.