• Peffse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months 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

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months 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.

    • Serinus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

        • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          …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?

          • jackeryjoo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

            • SPOOSER@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Then the person liable to you would be the person doxxing you, not Bluesky themselves unless Bluesky themselves was the party that doxxed you and in that case I don’t think a court would hold you to the arbitration.

              • tabular@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                We’ve seen Disney try but then withdraw an attempt to enforce arbitration when a lady died from an allergic reaction in their* restaurant. Her partner had signed up for Disney+ free trial. It’s not unimaginable a court would hold you to it since we’re already in Upsidedown World where forced arbitrary is legal.