Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Terms of Service; Didn’t Read

tosdr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 174 posts

Re: Terms of Service; Didn’t Read

#141

Post by WindyLakeReturn »

eitland wrote: post #115
WindyLakeReturn wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Yes, but you still start with the first instruction.

It is like a function that changes behavior after the first time in executes. The first execution will still do what it says. You have to explicitly call out that you want the last step that modifies the previous steps to be ran first.

It is like when I help someone learning to code and they question why their statement on line 30 doesn't change what is happening on line 15.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn’t Read

#142

Post by byecomputer »

1ncorrect wrote: post #131
byecomputer wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the idea is a form with a checklist?

That’s one major function it would provide if clauses were included which weren’t covered by the pre-populated profile. A core component would be standardising clauses so they could be handled individually and automatically. If you’ve already answered the clause, and the parameters (time spans, quantities) were within the range you’d set, it would be ‘green’ and could be hidden. Clauses which you had answered but are…

Ahh, okay. That part didn't stand out to me in the initial description. So, like, a Common Application for ToS agreements, right? One ToS to rule them all, and one ToS to (legally) bind them.

One concern I'd have is that the level of access I'm willing to give websites isn't always universal, even within the same category. On the other hand, there's some things I really just don't care about and whatever website can help themselves. Just something to consider.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn’t Read

#143

Post by de_nied »

pjmlp wrote: post #118
de_nied wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you provide me with an example?

Re: Terms of Service; Didn’t Read

#144

Post by 1ncorrect »

byecomputer wrote: post #142
1ncorrect wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s one major function it would provide if clauses were included which weren’t covered by the pre-populated profile. A core component would be standardising clauses so they could be handled individually and automatically. If you’ve already answered the clause, and the parameters (time spans, quantities) were within the range you’d set, it would be ‘green’ and could be hidden. Clauses which you had answered but are…

Ahh, okay. That part didn't stand out to me in the initial description. So, like, a Common Application for ToS agreements, right? One ToS to rule them all, and one ToS to (legally) bind them. One concern I'd have is that the level of access I'm willing to give websites isn't always universal, even within the same category. On the other hand, there's some things I really just don't care about and whatever website can…

I’d see the option to maintain multiple profiles if you so desire, choose what level you’re comfortable with per instance. The key is that the clauses are subject to individual scrutiny.

Another component would be the ability to rigorously diff agreements as they change, only those components that change or are in some way dependant are presented for attention.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn’t Read

#145

Post by bigwavedave »

WindyLakeReturn wrote: post #140
bigwavedave wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's like a child signing a contract. I don't know if I'd go that far. There's a whole class of laws around protecting children (two quick examples here in the US: age of consent; being tried as a minor vs tried as an adult) because the reality is that, in general, children are easier than adults to exploit. I mean, I convinced my nephew over the holiday that eating all his broccoli was like doing extra credit for S…

Our current law makes a sharp divide between children and adults, but I think when you ignore the current law and instead look at the reasoning and the data we have, the comparison is pretty sound. The gap in knowledge and domain specific reasoning ability between the average child and adult is smaller than the gap between the average adult and a corporate team of lawyers. While I think that is already a sign the iss…

That's fair, I'll concede that.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn’t Read

#146

Post by [deleted] »

WindyLakeReturn wrote: post #141
eitland wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

Yes, but you still start with the first instruction. It is like a function that changes behavior after the first time in executes. The first execution will still do what it says. You have to explicitly call out that you want the last step that modifies the previous steps to be ran first. It is like when I help someone learning to code and they question why their statement on line 30 doesn't change what is happening o…

[deleted]

Re: Terms of Service; Didn’t Read

#147

Post by pjmlp »

de_nied wrote: post #143
pjmlp wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Can you provide me with an example?

A car sales, or a house rental contract.

Both can be around 20 - 50 pages long, all of it written in such language.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn’t Read

#148

Post by colejohnson66 »

gorgoiler wrote: post #125
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My take is that if one party to a contract does not have a reasonable expectation that the contract was read by the other party, the contract should be invalid. People need to know what they’re signing. Imagine if a celebrity was signing a bunch of autographs for fans, and someone surreptitiously stuck a contract under their hand. We can agree that wouldn’t be valid, right?

Serious contracts are witnessed or, better, notarised. These witnesses attest to the good faith involved in the signing ceremony. Accept button clicking is not witnessed. Any contract so-signed should be good for all of $10 worth of dispute. No more.

Assuming that became a law: I now need to get witnesses to me checking a box to use some software? What’s to stop me from just being my own witness under a fake name? I get the explosion of TOS contracts are stupid and need to be fixed, but we can’t just be crazy with fixing it.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn’t Read

#149

Post by colejohnson66 »

m463 wrote: post #139
hundchenkatze wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a case between Uber and a blind person [0]. TLDR: - Someone is suing Uber for discrimination because drivers didn't allow the person's guide dog in the car. - Uber's terms state users can't sue Uber and must go through Uber's arbitration process - Uber's terms were presented in the "By continuing you agree to these terms" fashion - Person claimed they never agreed to arbitration and that they should be allowed…

California allows you to opt-out of binding arbitration at the time of signing or for a period after signing.

That’s actually part of the Federal Arbitration Act; It’s not specific to California. However, California’s labor laws do have some restrictions on arbitration in the workplace.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn’t Read

#150

Post by colejohnson66 »

rdpintqogeogsaa wrote: post #11
castorp wrote: post #3

Ages ago I installed a shareware product. And it also had a scrollable "terms and condition" screen (about 2 pages long) when starting it for the first time. When you clicked the "I Agree" button too quickly it would ask you "Do you really agree to the terms you read in only 0.76 seconds?"

If there is an acceptance screen anyway, is there a reason not to tie this to actually reading the terms? Please consider the following idea: The installer presents the end-user license agreement (EULA). Immediately following it, it presents a multiple-choice quiz that asks questions about core parts of the EULA, such as permissible use, cancellation, refunds, jurisdiction/arbitration. The installer then contains all…

The idea behind a checkbox is that it’s an affirmative. You are stating that you did read them. And as long as that checkbox was unchecked when you opened the page, that’s enough.

However, your idea of an installer is novel. The problem is that it adds friction to the install process than would turn many users away.

Post reply on HN