Comment on Bluesky now has 30 million users.

• tabular@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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.

  source

  • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Let’s not call disabling the right to sue a “business risk”.

    …and why not?

    That’s like calling the right to stop paying for the service a “risk”

    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.

    source

    • tabular@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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.

      source

      • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        I agree. But we weren’t discussing hypotheticals, we were discussing reality.

        source
  • Elgenzay@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    By “business risk”, they just mean bad for the business, ethics aside

    source

    • tabular@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Yes that’s what they mean. I tried to persuade against meaning that.

      source
• Serinus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  And we should just accept that?

  source

  • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Doesn’t matter if you should or not. Point is you accept it or you don’t use any service whatsoever.

    source

    • Serinus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Looks like there’s a viable alternative here.

      source

      • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Really? Who are you going to sue here? And how much money do you think you can sue them for?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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.

  source

  • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Well I know someone tried it against Valve and they ended up removing the requirement.

    source