699
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024
699 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59475 readers
2640 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Outrage over ticking a checkbox? Was anything in the updated TOS worth being pissed about or are people just that fucking lazy? The article not having the exact wording of the changes but talking about the dispute resolution arbitration--that's in every TOS for pretty much everything ever isn't mandatory and doesn't say you can't sue--is a bit suspicious.
Dude already had to update the article because he misunderstood one thing already. This reads like the knee jerk reaction of a random person which belongs on a blog, and not a news article that belongs on a news outlet site.
If you can't see that the issue is that the TOS could include anything the company wants and that disagreeing means the device I already paid for is intentionally bricked then I don't know what to tell you.
They've always been able to do that; it's often the very first fucking paragraph of a TOS. If you're just now noticing it I don't know what to tell you.
What flavor is that boot you're licking? Must be pretty tasty.
I don't agree with the practice; but at this point it's not like you can do shit about it unless you're building your own devices. Not that anything illegal added to a TOS would be upheld in court anyway... I'd love to see someone actually sue on this issue, but nobody upset about it seems to have the money or willingness to do so, considering it's been a thing for decades.
Besides: that wasn't the point the article was making, either, which is what I have issue with; The shoddy journalism.
Good luck with that. Everything but food does it. Naive idealist who thinks doing too little, way too late is gonna change a damn thing.
I have a great business idea - sell a roku-like device for half the price and a .99 cent subscription fee. Then when I've captured the market I force them to accept draconian new terms that cost way more or I brick the device. By then it's too late and I can suck all the money out of it from the people that can't switch.
And if they don't like it? Too bad; they signed away their rights to sue.
It's a foolproof plan! As long as I don't get shot in the street but justifiably angry customers.
if there was actual choice involved you might have a point but it doesn't really matter what changes when you don't have the ability to decline.
but for the record I believe this update removed your right to legal recourse and forces you through binding arbitration, so yes, this one does have something worth being pissed about.