On today’s episode of “This shouldn’t be legal”…
No satire? Guess anything on the internet is out of the question then.
Engaging or providing subjective negative reviews
What do they think a review is?! If they wanted an advertisement, buy an ad spot on Google ya cheap bastards.
Vespair@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Fucking bonkers. Between this an McD’s changing their ToS to say using their app waives any right to non-arbitration dispute, something needs to be done about companies trying to effectively write new laws into their ToS. This shit is beyond egregious
brbposting@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
Number three combo, hold the freedom please
Image
Vespair@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Sincere thank you for providing what I was referencing 👍
mriormro@lemmy.world 5 months ago
They can write anything they want in a TOS, doesn’t mean it’s legally enforceable.
reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 5 months ago
even then, it’s essentially paywalling your rights. you need to go to court, wait for the matter to be adjudicated, hope it works out in your favor, run out any potential appeals, all while paying attorneys and not being able to do something you’re legally entitled to do. If you can’t do all that, then your rights are moot.
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
Yeah, it’s time to nip this on the front end though. ToS are such a part of daily life now. They should be regulated to be concise, use standardized consumer-friendly language, and have bounds against non-arbitration and other nonsense like this. This sort of legislation is well overdue.
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Having unenforceable or illegal clauses in a legal contract means the contract wasn’t written in good faith, which should void the whole thing. Regardless of any “if parts of this contract are deemed illegal, the rest still stands”.
It would be nice to see more proactive involvement of the legal system with this, like have some people whose job it is to challenge these consumer contracts and standardize them kinda like how some open source licenses are standardized. Modularize it, so instead of writing out the whole “limited liability” section, they could refer to an established one by name. Then each module can be the subject of study and challenge, like if a more limiting one should come with other compromises elsewhere.
I think at that point, most honest companies would just pick a standard license or contract, plus maybe a few modifications and shady ones will have more trouble hiding shit like this in the middle of pages and pages of the same boring shit you’ve read hundreds of times before if you actually do read these things before signing or clicking agree.
At this point, most contracts should probably be unenforceable because few people actually do understand what they are agreeing to, which is supposed to be one of the essential parts of a contract. So many parts should probably have an “initial here to show you agreed to this” at the very least. But I’m no fool, this is likely considered a feature rather than a bug for most of the people involved in making and enforcing these things.
Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Bingo! It’s written in a “cover my ass” but that ass can get kicked by the courts.
Arbiter@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Good luck getting it thrown out, that’ll be an expensive legal battle even if you do win.
xkforce@lemmy.world 5 months ago
If enough people believe that it is, they’re not going to be as likely to fight things that they should be.
EatATaco@lemm.ee 5 months ago
We aren’t talking about something in production, like this app, we are talking about play testing a game in alpha. I would be upset if this was in a released game, or even like the beta test, but if it’s still under serious development it seems incredibly reasonable to me.
Vespair@lemm.ee 5 months ago
A general NDA is reasonable, sure, but allowing only comments which glaze the game but not those which criticize it is not. I genuinely cannot even fathom how you think the contrary; I don’t mean that in offensive, so if you can articulate why you believe that way I would like to try and understand.
CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
If it’s still in alpha, then a standard non disclosure should be fine.
A non-disparagement clause is overkill.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 5 months ago
It’d be a lot more reasonable if they simply said “No public discussion of this game, period”
Trying specifically to squelch the negative comments so any positive comments can go unchallenged is bullshit and entirely unreasonable.
JoMiran@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
The problem is that unless the agreement explicitly states that the non-disparagment section applies only to the test playtest, the agreement would essentially place a gag order on that creator for the life of the game.
reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 5 months ago
which tv manufacturer was it that updated their eula and if you didn’t agree it bricked your tv?
Randomocity@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
Roku had a new agreement that if you didn’t agree you couldn’t access the TV
maccentric@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
Revo, but they don’t manufacture TVs
Emerald@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I really don’t understand the point of a McD’s app anyways. They have a drive thru
DumbAceDragon@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
Vespair@lemm.ee 5 months ago
What a wonderful and poignant aside that adds absolutely nothing to the discussion at hand.