@pluralistic

All more reason to read LA Times through sites like archive.ph ...

@pluralistic That LA times "read this article and you are bound to our terms of service" thing violates an informal, but important aspect:

This is *not* a clearly accepted-by-you license. This is kind of a half-way station on the way between the LA times not saying anything (but asserting you are bound to the license) and a full click through license (which is a much stronger argument that you actually mentally understood and agreed.)

A click-through license has the "accept" trigger next to the actual license text - that's why a lot of 'em put the button at the end and you have to scroll through the whole thing.

Eric Goldman at Univ Santa Clara has articulated this stuff far better than I could.

@ericgoldman

@pluralistic have an agent read it for you:-) But I will raise your, twelvety-million ways this is f'd.

@pluralistic Now , that’s some kind of magnificent self serving Trumpish kind of logic… 🤔

@pluralistic Someone seriously needs to challenge that in court, otherwise drawing breath on this planet will be acceptance of some corporate POS TOS.

@pluralistic Perhaps this can be circumvented by a JS blocker...

@pluralistic

Later, in court: "Uh, I didn't read it. My AI agent did. You didn't mention agents in your waiver notice."

@pluralistic Have any lawyers outside the LA Time provided a take on this?

@pluralistic

Oh For Fuck Sake! Yet Even More Enshittification...

@pluralistic Should we call it RPDG? Seems fitting.

@pluralistic This uBlock Origin filter (provided one understands enough to enable trusted user-defined filters without exposing oneself to risk from copy/pasting a malicious filter) skips the check without necessitating setting the c_tos cookie to 1:

latimes.com##+js(trusted-set, window.ctUser, { "loggedIn": true, "ready": true, "subStatus": "1" })

#adblocking #uBlockOrigin #gotchaClause #adhesionContract #onerousTerms

@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

@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.

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.