• Metaright@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    When not even the companies take these massive documents seriously, it’s clear that we need to rethink how this all works.

    • RQG@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      True. It doesn’t even state what happens if I have a pre-established eldritch pact going before signing this.

    • Syo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t mind these contacts / TOS. But the courts have to separate fixed contaycts open to the public vs. negotiated contracts in private.

      Fixed contacts, which do not allow for negotiations, should not be able to use individual arbitration clause.

    • DV8@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      They do take it seriously enough to mention that jurisdiction fir everything except clause 5 is in Ireland. This definitely went to some lawyer before they used it

      • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Obviously, shits very serious so clauses to exclude clause 5 needed to be written. That said, still hilarious to see

    • ultimate_question@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Agreed, sneaking crap like this in contracts should be grounds for nullifying them since it shows the companies don’t have the expectation that people who click the accept button have read through 20 pages of deliberately obtuse legal junk (never mind actually understanding it enough to make an informed decision to agree to it).

      That’s not even mentioning the shitty condescending attitude of “lol look at this wacky stuff we do…but we’re reserving the right to financially destroy you based on the terms hidden in this document alone”