Yeah, good luck enforcing that contract in any country that has a legal concept of "automatically unfair contract terms".
Technology
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
the arbitration terms are explicitly stated to be US only. unfortunately the US is not a country with a functioning legal system
What are you talking about, the US has the best legal system money can buy
'Money.exe' not found. It may be corrupted or you don't have administration right.
You said it pal, not me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Can you include that in the title and description please? It's a pretty important detail to leave out!
LOL at all these companies suddenly realizing they can just put "you can't sue us" into their ToS.
Another company wants to skip liability. https://odysee.com/@rossmanngroup:a/pixel-phones-come-w-forced-arbitration-a:9
I wonder how long until they inform us about a data breach.
A TOS isn't legally binding.
That's false.
Any contract is legally binding... except for the parts that go against the law.
I'd suggest consulting a lawyer knowledgeable of your particular jurisdiction, before deciding which part may or may not be binding.
Any contract is legally binding
Exactly. And a TOS is not a contract.
If you go to law definitions, contracts have a number of requirements to be such, of which to my knowledge a TOS fails two (Negotiability and Certainty).
IANAL, check with your local lawyer, but AFAIK...
ToS are a "generic contract", where a single entity proposes the same contract to multiple parties.
Negotiability, or more precisely offer and acceptance, are achieved by the simple "take it or leave it". The requirement is that there needs to be an option, it doesn't need to be one to change parts of the document.
Certainty is usually achieved by adding a partial nullifying clause, so any ambiguous parts get automatically trimmed.
Negotiability, or more precisely offer and acceptance, are achieved by the simple “take it or leave it”.
Maybe in the US, where that kind of this would honestly be expected. Here in more decent countries, Negotiability requires that both parties can exercise offer an acceptance to the contract. I consulted to our local digital ethics group about it and they are in accordance, at least to what pertains to my country.
We need a Federated FOSS Discord alternative built to work with the activity pub protocol.
Has anybody made a matrix app that looks like a discord clone? That sounds easier since the federated rich text chat is already made, the current clients don't really appeal to the discord crowd.
Cinny is the closest to Discord in terms of UI, it even has a feature where you can show subspaces within a space as if they're categories of a Discord server.
We welcome anyone back to IRC
No we don't. We need small instances, each with their own specific topics and communities that DO NOT share your information far and wide, like the fediverse does. I don't think the fediverse model is the way forward.
But by not sharing anything, you'd loose users who don't want to sign up for each instance individually. I think it would be a good way to be able to sign up once on one instance and then being able to use all other instances available, but the chats etc of one instance being private to the instance itself.
True, and then there's the other side of the coin. Federation exposes you to trolls, nazis, and doxxing.
Well I guess if you wanted you could just run it defederated? And you could also build in that the instance/guild owner needs to accept joins, I guess?
Or… how about we just treat the fediverse like it is a…. public forum…. and use different tools for having more private conversations?
Isn't there already one? Thought that was what Revolt was
not federated
Is open source though, federation can always come later
That said I'm not sure why they didn't use matrix from the start
Federation isn't something that can be added later. This has to be part of the protocol from the start.
I thought Lemmy started without federation?
It started as a Fediverse-based alternative to Reddit, so it was designed with federation in mind from the start.
Anything "can" be added later... as for the effort required, that's a separate matter.
I also wonder why they didn't use Matrix from the start. Right now, with group chats, spaces, threads, and audio/video streaming, bridges, bots, etc. while allowing E2EE, Matrix already seems to be better than Discord.
So... Lemmy? Mastodon?
Although I think Matrix is better suited for chat, just need a client with voice/video support.
Do I need to worry about this not being in the US? I'm wary of the way I word my opt out incase it causes me some issues down the line
No, this is for US only. Where corporations are permitted to abuse the market and the law (or lack thereof).
Thx for the reminder to get to deleting my discord accs
How are we supposed to opt out? By deleting our accounts?
You must email arbitration-opt-out@discord.com BEFORE MAY 15TH (30 days after ToS effective date) with your username stating that you wish to opt out of the arbitration
If you read the post, it says you can opt out by emailing your username to discord
A few years ago, wasn't there a company (maybe it was uber?) that was being overwhelmed by arbitration fee's for a large number of arbitration cases? I forget the outcome, but it may be due to their agreement stipulating they would cover arbitration fees. Either way, forced arbitration needs to go.
Does that applies to accounts registered in the US but now I'm not physically lived in?