Comment on Bluesky now has 30 million users.
Peffse@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I looked at the terms of service and noticed that they bind you into arbitration, limit your terms to $100, mandate you to travel to Delaware for dispute, and force you into mass arbitration if your dispute is similar to others.
Pass
While I understand that, I’m in America. My first priority has to be getting people off of Twitter.
Would I prefer open source, non-profit software? 100%. It’s the smarter and better choice for so many reasons.
But if Bluesky is going to gain critical mass, I’m not going to fight it. I’m having a hard enough time getting people off Twitter. I’ve written the media address of environments I’m familiar with asking them to organize a move, and I mentioned both Bluesky and Mastodon.
Good take. Bluesky is a good stop-gap.
I’ve also been thinking, if Bluesky never federates and enshittifies in a similar way to Twitter (which it will do much faster, just cause it’s a different era), then the Bluesky exodus will really have a solid reason to try to understand why decentralisation is so important…
then the Bluesky exodus will really have a solid reason to try to understand why decentralisation is so important…
or people will have lost the ability to imagine alternative and better places…
…which is where we come in to make sure they don’t forget!
Yep. Already true to a large extent. But it doesn’t take a majority of the world to make the fediverse work. We just need enough for it to become broadly attractive to a critical mass of people. It’s big enough to self-sustain now, so I think it’s just a matter of time until it hits that point.
Arbitration of what? It’s a free service. What money could they possibly owe you?
If the mods or admin do something that causes you injury, such as ignoring requests that will prevent harassment.
…how would them ignoring requests cause injury??? We’re still talking about bluedky, right? The online twitter clone without musk as it’s main selling point?
If someone was doxxing you on bluesky, for example, and in the doxxing, you got attacked/injured by someone who recognized you/went to your house.
You’re not thinking evil enough, honestly. Two examples off the top of my head, each being fairly innocent mistakes: If you enter your phone number for 2FA, it’s not going to be public-facing. It’s their responsibility to keep that information private from internal and external threats. Ok, so what if it leaks… right? Oh, it turns out the hacker SIM swapped your phone number for the 2FA, and did a password reset on your account via support chat. Still no big deal, its just social media… Except you’ve been giving updates to all your patreon backers on your project that’s shipping soon. It suddenly vanishes off the internet, replaced with a crypto scheme, and all your supporters just flooded your bank with chargebacks. Your attempts at getting your account back are met with silence and your supporters are now furious. Was any of that your fault? No. You get $100.
Let’s try another example: Bounty programs are used by companies to collect bugs and other possibly exploits so they can be fixed. “Too expensive, nobody will know if there’s a bug anyway.” So the app on Google Play store gets installed by 30 million users with a critical flaw… if a very specific image is opened in it, the phone bricks. All the news sites cover the bug, pushing the image to the front page. You open the app and… Your expensive phone just died. Were you at fault for that? No. You get to join the arbitration group and get an individual settlement of $12.
Think more evil. Don’t stick with the “I have nothing to lose” because you almost always have something to lose. The fact these terms were even thought of and written means you do have a financial investment in the platform.
That’s why 2FA via phone number shouldn’t a thing
You have nothing to hide. Just sign away all your rights.
They can break data protection laws and stuff…
Ok…and why would they pay YOU that money? Wouldn’t it be companies and governments they pay?
If a company breaks my rights and causes issues for me due to leaking data, then obviously i can sue them for damages.
I’ve gotten settlement money from it before
During signup, they make it sound like it’s a federated service. It is not. Dumped it when it was explained to me.
Off topic, but I pointing this out reminded me of visiting some ancap circles to see the crazy stuff they discuss. At one point there was a question about how externalities would be handled in their system of private courts and such. When ever I do read some terms and conditions there is almost always something in regard to arbitration. Predictably they were not happy about someone pointing that out and explaining that it is for the benefit of corporations not the customers.
Funny, someone shared an article in another post about all corporate money going to Delaware, icij.org/…/delaware-is-everywhere-how-a-little-kn…
Ulrich@feddit.org 4 weeks ago
Unfortunately that’s standard for pretty much every service in existence until the government determines otherwise or the users demand it en masse. No company is going to willingly expose themselves to any more risk than they absolutely have to. There’s zero benefit to them.
tabular@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Let’s not call disabling the right to sue a “business risk”. That’s like calling the right to stop paying for the service a “risk” - it’s riskdiculous.
Ulrich@feddit.org 4 weeks ago
…and why not?
But…that’s what it is? I promise if they could remove that risk with a few words in the TOS, and it was legal, they’d all be doing that too.
tabular@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
The right to take legal action for harm done is imperative. It’s importance is diminished if conflated with a legitimate business risk (like research and development). It should be illegal to deny it.
Elgenzay@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
By “business risk”, they just mean bad for the business, ethics aside
tabular@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Yes that’s what they mean. I tried to persuade against meaning that.
Serinus@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
And we should just accept that?
Ulrich@feddit.org 4 weeks ago
Doesn’t matter if you should or not. Point is you accept it or you don’t use any service whatsoever.
Serinus@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Looks like there’s a viable alternative here.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
I don’t think forced arbitration has really been tried in court. I remember Disney kind of trying, but it was completely unrelated (e.g. argued that arbitration agreement from Disney+ applied to issues on physical Disney properties).
In order to hold up in court, the contract needs to reasonably benefit both parties instead of only the contract issuer. So there’s a very good chance a court will dismiss the forced arbitration clause, especially if it’s just in a EULA and not a bidirectional contract negotiation.
That said, I tend to avoid services with binding arbitration statements in their EULA, and if I can’t, I avoid companies that force acceptance of EULA changes to continue use of the service.
Ulrich@feddit.org 4 weeks ago
Well I know someone tried it against Valve and they ended up removing the requirement.