SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
There is a browser add-on which summarizes terms of service warnings for web sites requiring an all-or-nothing click-through to use their services. The add-on tosdr uses crowd-sourcing to digest scores of pages into short, concise sentences or paragraphs warning what is hidden behind excessively verbose legalese. The database has been around for years but has recently been converted into a wiki.
What if, before you consented, you could at least read the SparkNotes? That's the goal of ToSDR—short for Terms of Service; Didn't Read—a website that turns lengthy terms of service agreements into bulleted summaries, and then rates those terms from Class A (very good) to Class F (very bad). It functions as a sort of Wikipedia for terms of service agreements. Anyone can submit a bullet point and share their analysis of a service's terms, which get turned into a rating of a site's overall policy. The site, which has existed since 2012 but is relaunching next month on a new platform, hopes to create a broad network of shared knowledge.
Unlike written contracts where it is easy to cross out offending paragraphs and clauses before both parties sign, these online forms are all-or-nothing. In some of the sites with larger network effects, such as Facebook, it might be that such a forced agreement could be construed as extortion.
Sources:
Wired: Welcome to the Wikipedia for Terms of Service Agreements
Boing Boing: Terms of Service; Didn't Read: a browser add-on that warns you about the terrible fine-print you're about to "agree" to
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 19 2018, @04:42PM (3 children)
Is that a new word?
(Score: 4, Funny) by janrinok on Thursday April 19 2018, @05:59PM
I have redited "requirining" into a newing wrod.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Megahard on Thursday April 19 2018, @06:06PM
Apparently not.
Google
requirining
About 450 results (0.24 seconds)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 19 2018, @06:24PM
The next word... and should be an?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Thursday April 19 2018, @05:03PM (4 children)
I don't bother reading EULAs and Terms of Service. Why should anyone? Most people have figured out they're a load of bull, full of untrue assertions and lying propaganda about the rights they claim to have and you don't, and deliberately obfuscated and lengthened in order to confuse and discourage anyone who does try to read it. Use a fake name, if a name is required, and get on with life.
Be nice to see ToS's really cleaned up. However, this browser add-on sounds like the wrong direction. Prefer seeing the courts or the legislature put an end to this aggravating custom by smacking down the companies and lawyers who practice it.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Chromium_One on Thursday April 19 2018, @05:18PM (2 children)
Efforts like this one can be a wedge towards fixing an issue, but in this case I suspect it'll be ineffective. Still worth trying until something better comes along. Definitely needs more contributors though. As of yesterday, the number of sites rated was laughably small.
When you live in a sick society, everything you do is wrong.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 19 2018, @08:05PM (1 child)
Just the opposite, I think. Right now, the TOS is so long and complicated that most judges rule it unreasonable to hold a person to it. That is, it is not reasonable to expect a person to fully read and fully understand a 200+ page document written by lawyers for lawyers. If the TOS gets too simplified then we might well be expected to understand and comply with it.
(Score: 1) by Chromium_One on Thursday April 19 2018, @08:51PM
I don't believe that would be universally bad, more of a mixed bag. In theory, users would have a better idea of expectations. Overly abusive ToS elements should get winnowed out over time, though it seems debatable to me which abusive behaviors would get groused about, litigated, or ignored.
When you live in a sick society, everything you do is wrong.
(Score: 2) by corey on Thursday April 19 2018, @10:11PM
On Australia, and other countries presumably, the consumer protection laws trump anything in Eula's or tps:s.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Thursday April 19 2018, @05:31PM
*Everything you say or do can and will be used against you.*
It could hardly be more straightforward.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 19 2018, @06:02PM (2 children)
Why not? I just use my browser debug tools (use F12 to open them in nearly any browser) and edit the DOM to remove unwanted clauses. I see no reason my modifications wouldn't be legally valid, other than that a clickwrap contract with no signatures is no contract at all.
(Score: 1) by DECbot on Thursday April 19 2018, @06:52PM (1 child)
What do you do then? Print it out, sign it, and then mail it back to the company?
If that works, I'm making a new google account and ensure that the new TOS included verbiage indicating that I will be paid a nickle for every byte google sends from their servers to my network or devices and a quarter for each ad served. I'd even point my DNS to their servers and disable my adblocker. Hell, I'd even consider quitting work just to use google products all day. I'd even move to a location where I could get google fiber! Then every byte would be a google byte!
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday April 20 2018, @10:46AM
It depends a bit on how the submission works. I'm aware of a couple of cases. In one, someone edited the ToS in a text field in the installer that had been left editable. The judge ruled that since the edited version was provided to software under the control of the company that the software was acting on their behalf and was treated as accepting it. You could argue that editing it on their web site on a form that will send information to them is the same thing: it's not your fault if the thing asking for agreement sends back the fact that you agreed but not the contents of the text that you agreed to - they chose not to read the contract.
My favourite case like this, which I came across quite recently, was someone who got fed up with credit card postal offers and amended the T&Cs on one to say that the company owed him $20K if they ever imposed fees, then copied it and mailed it back. The company didn't bother checking that the document that he'd signed was the one that they expected and so sent him a card, then imposed the fees a few months later. He got his $20K.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Thursday April 19 2018, @06:25PM (5 children)
So, when someone messes up shortening an intentionally confusing EULA and get sued by a company. Won't they then turn around and sue tosdr for bad legal advice?
Or when they do pick out an intentionally confusing EULA that the company did not want known to the public, wont they get sued by the company for something or other?
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Funny) by inertnet on Thursday April 19 2018, @07:45PM (1 child)
I don't know, what do the TOS of tosdr say about that? And do they have a shortened version thereof?
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Thursday April 19 2018, @09:16PM
And if you feed the shorterend tos back into tosdr...
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Thursday April 19 2018, @08:04PM
I think EULAs are contracts of adhesion (standard-form contracts) so typically information regarding them falls under legal information rather than (bad) legal advice. But I'm no lawyer nor do I play one on TV...
compiling...
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Thursday April 19 2018, @08:49PM (1 child)
Since the browser addons have a standard open source license, they are absolved of all damages caused by the software, and there are no guarantees that the software does what it claims to do.
Gotta love no liability clauses.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Chromium_One on Thursday April 19 2018, @08:57PM
You know, for a free-to-the-user product that isn't monetizing the user, I believe that "good intentions", "best effort", and a policy of "Hey, contact us and let us know if this needs fixing, any help appreciated" are the best we're going to get.
To argue the other side, poisoning the data may have some use to a few shifty people. Yay occasional downside of crowdsourcing. Consider fake reviews on Yelp and others, used to boost business or hurt competitors.
When you live in a sick society, everything you do is wrong.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday April 19 2018, @09:29PM
Who contributes to such a project? Someone A) read the TOS (or passed it through scripts, then read the remainder)? and B) Wrote an abridged sentence about them.
The backend stuff I understand a little better as to who writes it and why.
And I wonder what checks they have to prevent my submitting that Website's X TOS is, "Poop_AIDS Booger AIDS"
Now excuuuuse me... Morty and I have a fantastic adventure to go on!
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by crafoo on Friday April 20 2018, @04:31AM
EULAs shouldn't exist. They are treated as contracts but their is no meeting of the minds and there is no consideration given for valuable information, time, and energy they extract from one of the two participants.
If your internet business absolutely requires a one-sided contract to even have a hope of operating then go away. You are the cancer of the internet.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @08:02AM
Stuff like that is precisely why I try my best to remain anonymous on the internet. Anonymous also meaning that I cannot BUY.
We all know by now that the internet is not a real safe place - there is a helluva lotta fraud going on... worse than a door-to-door salesman. You better know who you are dealing with, or the loss of your purchase price will be the *least* of your worries... the one who scammed you now has your payment credentials!
Oh yes, businesses *love* to scare the hell out of me by presenting me with what they want me to think is a legal binding document that looks more like an income tax demand from the federal government.
Yes! Mr Business Executive.. it DOES scare me!
Enough to make me try my best to hide from you so you don't know who I am... so you won't come after me for doing business with you.
Why would I want to BUY music, for instance? Its NOT the buck. Once I am "in your system" and I have agreed to the terms and conditions of sale, I am now LIABLE.
I find it much easier to avoid LIABILITY by avoiding as much of these "agreements" as I can. That means finding any other way I can get what I want, without having to "agree" to anything... especially long lengthy things I really don't have the time to read and understand.
I realize in the business world, if its YOUR time wasted, you take whatever steps it takes to optimize your business model, you know, that "time is money" thing. I have to do the same thing. It takes your server microseconds to dish out a lengthy agreement but it would take me hours to read some of those things. I will "work with you" and try to understand your business need for me to agree to such things, and I will try my utmost to NOT involve you in it! If I can get what I need without rattling all the cages, I will do it gladly, for the same reason a polite motorcyclist will not wake the entire neighborhood at 2AM so he can demonstrate how loud he can run his machine.
This is one of the things I hate so much about PAID software... its now they have a name if I PAID for it. A name they can do anything they want with, and use with as much reckless abandon as employers that present prospective employees with burdensome non-compete agreements. Again, note the word PAID - that means they also have your payment credentials as well! If I can find an open-source alternative, I am all for it.
Believe me, if Home Depot was as reckless with my payment credentials and forced me to sign all sorts of agreements in order to buy a bolt, I would be scrounging bolts off of whatever junk I could find in order to avoid involving Home Depot in my life. Often Businesses and customers don't think alike at all, and it quickly becomes a predatory arrangement, where businesses are after "customer lock-in", and the customers steal - and neither one got what he wants.
Do I think Piracy is right? No. I do not. But for quite some time, it was the only game in town if you wanted a copy of some music. I can tell you this, though: requiring me to agree to something I haven't the time to read is damn good reason for me to go through any other alternative means available to me other than legally committing myself to some unread legal crap.