Live data from Hacker News

Terms of Service; Didn’t Read

tosdr.org

111–120 of 174 posts

Re: Terms of Service; Didn’t Read

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absolutely astounding to me how many folks blindly sign legal documents. Especially employment related. Whenever I've pushed back on an employment contract, NDA, or similar it's always met with sudden confusion - as though this has never happened before. In fairness, it's almost never met with negatively. But it shows that no one else has ever bothered to question it. And when I talk to colleagues I definitely g…

When I have pushed back on the same topic, it usually is met with negativity. I believe recruiting and hiring staff have some incentives to treat you like you’re crazy if you want special provisions or need clarification on complex terms. In my career, I’ve negotiated - a severance package in my offer letter from a company that said, “we don’t offer severance packages as a matter of policy.” - a sign on bonus from a…

Do you mind if I ask what you do exactly? It would be interesting to know whether:

- you have a specific skillset and experience that give you a negotiating position not enjoyed by most, or

- most developers are significantly underestimating their negotiating position

Re: Terms of Service; Didn’t Read

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest confusion I have with the modern web is why these cookie agreements never remember that Ive agreed to them before. I wouldn't mind being tracked so much if... they could identify that I've agreed to being tracked on the 7 websites I visit 1000 times before.

If this was being handled honestly and straight forwardly this would just be a preference set in the browser they complied with. Then someone who was never accept could just be that way, someone else could always accept and others could choose once for each site. But then we had that with headers and such and we all know they just ignored it, because the entire point is to steal the data as often as they can.

But a lot of people think that it’s supposed to be all or nothing with cookies (not: required (login cookies) and non required (ads)). So if you opt out, people think they’re not allowed to store a cookie saying you opted out.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn’t Read

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You deliberately chose not to read it. Why should you then be allowed to use the service AND claim not being bound by the terms? (And yes, I think german law has the right principle there: clauses which are "unexpected" to an average consumer are invalid with consumers (different in B2B context), thus risk as consumer is low when blindly accepting)

>Why should you then be allowed to use the service AND claim not being bound by the terms? It is like a child signing a contract. The child isn't bound to it, but the other party is. In this case, a corporation attempted to use an extreme disparity in knowledge and power to take advantage of a much weaker party. The disparity is larger than that between an average adult and an average child. As a consequence of this,…

The Child is assumed to be unable to sign a legal contract.

You are able and chose not to. (Unless maybe you have a mental disability and then some caretaker)

Re: Terms of Service; Didn’t Read

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this was being handled honestly and straight forwardly this would just be a preference set in the browser they complied with. Then someone who was never accept could just be that way, someone else could always accept and others could choose once for each site. But then we had that with headers and such and we all know they just ignored it, because the entire point is to steal the data as often as they can.

But a lot of people think that it’s supposed to be all or nothing with cookies (not: required (login cookies) and non required (ads)). So if you opt out, people think they’re not allowed to store a cookie saying you opted out.

No, no, no. They pretend to not know this, because they want to make it as inconvenient as possible for people who click “No”.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn’t Read

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a quiz in middle school where the end of the directions said to ignore everything and put down your pencil. Really wish all schools taught this.

I had a similar quiz. I never really liked them because it always bothered me why I was expected to follow the last instruction first, regardless of what it said. Even if it said to ignore the previous instructions, I would only be following it once I reached it, which would mean all other instructions had been followed. Nothing in the initial rules that said to read all instructions gave any indication that one shou…

> I never really liked them because it always bothered me why I was expected to follow the last instruction first, regardless of what it said.

I had a similar one, in fairness it started with something along the lines of: "read these instructions completely before you start".

Re: Terms of Service; Didn’t Read

#116
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem arises especially when the document is written in legalese. I also feel like I'm not really qualified to understand these documents - they are generally written for people who have the appropriate qualifications. For example when buying a property in the UK, the soliciter will be the one parses the legal documents. It's crazy to think that normal people are expected to fully understand these, and it doesn…

That's why documents written in legalese always define the words used before they start using them. At least in the U.S.

In Germany it is even considered another language, kind of.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verwaltungssprache

Which kind of translates into Officialese as per Wikipedia.

Defining words is not enough, the grammar and sentence formulation are also very convoluted in regards to the common language.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn’t Read

#117
post #116
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why documents written in legalese always define the words used before they start using them. At least in the U.S.

In Germany it is even considered another language, kind of. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verwaltungssprache Which kind of translates into Officialese as per Wikipedia. Defining words is not enough, the grammar and sentence formulation are also very convoluted in regards to the common language.

Simply from my own experience in dealing with U.S. legal documents, specifically U.S. law, it is usually enough to Google the terms and understand the meaning. If the phrasing is convoluted to the point of needing Academics explain it, then it's usually defined by a court ruling on its meaning.

Terms of service is generally easier to read because it's more simplified and typically doesn't use Latin or existing legal language that is uncommon to the layperson.

Of course, this is still in the context of U.S. law and the English/Latin language.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn’t Read

#118
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Germany it is even considered another language, kind of. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verwaltungssprache Which kind of translates into Officialese as per Wikipedia. Defining words is not enough, the grammar and sentence formulation are also very convoluted in regards to the common language.

Simply from my own experience in dealing with U.S. legal documents, specifically U.S. law, it is usually enough to Google the terms and understand the meaning. If the phrasing is convoluted to the point of needing Academics explain it, then it's usually defined by a court ruling on its meaning. Terms of service is generally easier to read because it's more simplified and typically doesn't use Latin or existing legal…

Unfortunately it isn't that simple, that only works for very basic documents, imagine a 50 A4 page contract written that way.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn’t Read

#120
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I have pushed back on the same topic, it usually is met with negativity. I believe recruiting and hiring staff have some incentives to treat you like you’re crazy if you want special provisions or need clarification on complex terms. In my career, I’ve negotiated - a severance package in my offer letter from a company that said, “we don’t offer severance packages as a matter of policy.” - a sign on bonus from a…

How did you do this without scaring the hiring manager? Assuming the hiring manager has to vouch for you to their bosses to get the negotiated terms, you must have a very sought after skill set? Or is this purely negotiating with HR and/or legal for contract terms concessions without hiring manager as it doesn't come from their budget?

The first thing you have to realize is that the hiring apparatus in the company is bureaucratic. They aren’t scared, mad, judgmental, whatever. They are going to be thinking more about what’s for lunch and whether they can cut out early next Friday than about your candidate profile or negotiation.

As long as you are polite but firm, they aren’t likely to think anything. They’ll just figure they either like your profile and want to work with you, or they’ll figure they know they can’t meet your requests.

Always present flexibility even if you aren’t actually flexible. In theory, if they cannot give a severance package, maybe they can give a much higher sign on bonus, or something else you want. Let them know what’s important to you, but that if there are other ways to address what you’re looking for, you’re open to hear it and think about it.

Once you’re at the stage of making concrete requests, don’t be vague and don’t accept vague alternatives. Always ask for concrete alternatives and once it is stated, always take time to think about it offline, always. That way if you decide you’re not actually flexible, you have breathing room to process your decision and respond.

You should also project confidence about your worth and why you are asking for something.

For example, for negotiating a severance package, you should be very clear about it. In my case, that mattered to me because I was relocating to a new area and at the same time I was switching from individual contributor to manager. I felt the risk of the local job market for an inexperienced manager was high, so if the company I was joining would have restructuring or sudden cuts and I am laid off, the money to float myself in the new region would be high. To feel comfortable about this, I just wanted to know for sure if that kind of change was coming, I would have X months of salary as a cushion.

If a recruiter or hiring manager is too immature to appreciate this as a sincere concern / request of a candidate, and would punish me just for asking either by acting like severance is a taboo way to protect insecurities of being fired or acting like I’m a prima donna, well that makes the decision to walk away pretty obvious for me.

The main thing is just remember they don’t owe you any special features in a job offer and they absolutely won’t offer them unless you ask and make it clear it matters to you.

But you also don’t owe them anything either, certainly not any expectation about being “too fussy” or “scaring” them. Nobody’s going to look out for what you want as a candidate except you.

As long as you’re polite but firm, and you make clear asks and require clear commitments, you should feel completely confident asking for anything you want. Whether you’re willing to compromise or you need to say “no,” you’ll be doing yourself a big favor.

Post reply on HN