Well this is eleventy-million kinds of Fucked Up. LA Times (who once contracted with me as a freelance reviewer and whom I struggled to get paid by) asserts that *merely reading its website* constitutes a permanent waiver of your right to sue it under *any circumstances*. This means that freelancers like me who read the website would lose the right to sue the company if we got stiffed. #consenttheater #bindingarbitration #dickovers
7 Boosts
0 Likes
Oh For Fuck Sake! Yet Even More Enshittification...
@pluralistic Should we call it RPDG? Seems fitting.
@pluralistic If shown to a California resident this seems like it should be at least a dark pattern under CCPA, possibly a violation of other rights.
You have privacy rights that a site ToS can't override -- also they must acknowledge GPC if turned on.
Maybe someone in California can file a complaint with CalPrivacy over this?
https://cppa.ca.gov/announcements/2024/20240904.html #california #privacy
@pluralistic@mamot.fr scareware
@pluralistic It's funny, are we supposed to believe that every AI-bot-scraper which has sucked up all their content has accepted this declaration on behalf of their employer ? If they are immune, you and I are immune to any consequences from such drivel.
Corporations would love to have the public believe that Terms of Service are written in stone and carry the weight of actual law. They don't.
Even the Supreme Court has made it clear that people cannot simply waive away all their legal rights through a clickwrap agreement, but companies certainly want you to think otherwise.
as someone who has read articles in the Los Angeles Times, and therefore legally bound into their legal collective,
i hereby grant to all reading this that in as much as i am a part of the LA Times data collective, so i grant access to me through this public network of instances that constitute the fediverse for all who want access to all property of the Los Angeles Times of which i am now part
⊶𝕎𝕋⓻ #WT7 😁 💙
@pluralistic So does this mean they can libel anyone they want, if they can show that the libeled party read their libelous article?
Wow. I saw that myself when trying to look at one dumb article and noped out, but didn’t think of broader implications. The media oligarchs can’t stop shooting themselves in the foot.
@pluralistic as I'm sure others have said, the LA Times position would not stand up in court.
@pluralistic
I am NOT a lawyer, so I would not presume to test this language in the real world (OR the simulation in which we may be living), but I greatly enjoyed the exercise of turning your paragraph on its head by rejiggering the first few words to serve ME rather than the vendor:
"By selling me this product or charging me a fee, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges."
#TermsOfService #CoryDoctorow #CorporateShenanigans
@pluralistic
In a sane country, T&C can be unenforcible and even automatically invalid if they violate law or rights.
i fucked off the LA Times when they put their website behind a paywall.
By reading this thread,, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges.
@pluralistic Have any lawyers outside the LA Time provided a take on this?