Comment

Comment on Sokath, his browser’s eyes wide open

I’ve seen this sentiment, but I don’t think it’s credible. I don’t think we should normalize legalize that explicitly enables bullshit; it’s not like it couldn’t be written any other way. It’s written in English, though it has legal intent, and we have words and phrases to clarify such things.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Corgana@startrek.website ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
Perhaps if you gave an example from the TOS to illustrate what you mean by “enabling bullshit” your position would be more clear?

source
- isosphere@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Exhibit A: arstechnica.com/…/firefox-deletes-promise-to-neve…
  
  Exhibit B: www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/
  
  When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.
  
  I don’t agree to this as written; and I am not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt given Exhibit A. I think an argument could be made that selling my data to advertisers would help me “experience” and “interact” with online content. Perhaps it would be a difficult argument, perhaps not. I think skepticism is warranted.
  
  Firefox has struggled to find a profitable business model outside of Google paying to be the default search engine, and it looks like these changes are a pivot to address this. I don’t think it will be good for users.
  
  source
  - Corgana@startrek.website ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    Well I do agree to it as written lol. I didn’t realize this was a matter of opinion.
    
    source