SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Bleh. Apparently not caring what you do on other sites or even requiring any personal information isn't good enough for the state of Confusion^WCalifornia, so we have a shiny, new, temporary Privacy Policy posted on every page and linked at the top of the nav bar.
If you feel like prettying the language, layout, or whatever up before I get around to it, feel free to do so and submit a pull request.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Meta: Conspicuous Privacy Policy
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 141 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits.
-- Mark Twain
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2020, @09:45PM (11 children)
1) Why would California law apply to an organization that does not do business in California? Actual impact, not potential impact claimed by consultants to sell privacy policies.
2) Is this related to TMB possibly abusing his admin access to find out the author of a comment: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=36169&cid=960914 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2020, @10:09PM (6 children)
SN doesn't block Californians from using it.
One endpoint of the transaction is therefore in CA jurisdiction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2020, @10:18PM
So why isn't CA already blocking websites that don't comply with its laws because that's how it ends isn't it?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2020, @10:45PM (4 children)
SN does not do business in California. The corporation is not regulated by California. Is there a federal law that makes a Delaware non-profit subject to state laws of another jurisdiction?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 24 2020, @01:41AM
Shitty bench law, yes.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 24 2020, @02:53AM (2 children)
This isn't directly relevant to your question but SoylentNews is NOT legally a non-profit. Absolutely false. They are registered in Delaware as a public benefit corporation. A PBC can make a profit. However, the board of directors is under no legal obligation to prioritize shareholder profits above all else. SoylentNews may choose not to turn a profit at this time, but that is absolutely NOT the same as a non-profit.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 24 2020, @01:29PM (1 child)
This is true. To date there's been no functional difference though. Our two shareholders still refuse to let us even pay them back (buy back the stock), much less start paying dividends or anything like that.
I'm really not sure why we went the stock route instead of having debt on the books. Apparently there's some accounting/taxes reasons it's better.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by martyb on Friday March 06 2020, @12:00AM
My recollection is a bit hazy, but my understanding is that we needed an initial "stake" to get the site up-and-running. Having benevolent shareholders (who also happen to be our current board of directors) was a means to an end. It also afforded us a means to control our own destiny insomuch as we are not financially beholden to some outside entity.
As for paying the shareholders back, I have recently been made aware that what I thought had been an operating surplus (subscriptions less expenses) has actually been an operating loss the past couple of years. A story is currently scheduled to go out tomorrow morning which will provide more information and provide documentation as to our current financial state.
--martyb
Wit is intellect, dancing. I'm too old to act my age. Life is too important to take myself seriously.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2020, @10:56PM (2 children)
Hopefully this: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/california-consumer-privacy-act-series-part-1-applicability-0 [natlawreview.com]
can shed some more authoritative light on the matter.
Haha, no.
As for the applicability of foreign entities:
SN does not sell data in California. So all the excitement a nothingburger.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 24 2020, @01:39AM (1 child)
We actually do qualify because we take subscriptions from California residents and handle personal information (email addresses) regarding at least 50k consumers, households, or devices. Now I'm pretty sure we could get any legal action thrown out because California is not entitled to legislate for any consumers, households, or devices outside California and we do not do business with enough Californians. But it would be a pain.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by martyb on Friday March 06 2020, @12:10AM
As of my writing this, we have a total of 9,673 registered nicknames for the site. That is well below he 50K threshold... even tallying up separate devices or households, I could argue that we are currently under the limit. That said, there is the matter that if ever were taken to court, unless we could find pro bono representation, any such activity would likely quickly drain our coffers. It behooves us to avoid, therefore, even the appearance of impropriety.
AFAIK, IANAL, YMMV, EIEIO! =)
Wit is intellect, dancing. I'm too old to act my age. Life is too important to take myself seriously.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 24 2020, @01:34AM
That's not abuse. That info is clearly and intentionally displayed on every comment for all editors and admins.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.