Post AX7NFs4bxiTiy5jcZ6 by Stoat@mastodon.scot
 (DIR) More posts by Stoat@mastodon.scot
 (DIR) Post #AX7NFs4bxiTiy5jcZ6 by Stoat@mastodon.scot
       2023-06-27T11:45:37Z
       
       0 likes, 2 repeats
       
       If you're on the fence about Meta or even calling others on here "idiots" for disagreeing with you, may I point out this article and let you ruminate on what it could mean for the fedi."As first noted by The New Scientist and Animal New York, Facebook's data scientists manipulated the News Feeds of 689,003 users, removing either all of the positive posts or all of the negative posts to see how it affected their moods."#Meta #Ethics https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook-manipulated-689003-users-emotions-for-science/
       
 (DIR) Post #AX8zMlkFscG6mhtDM0 by Sfwmson@universeodon.com
       2023-06-27T13:08:06Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @Stoat I'm sure that was in the user agreements, though!  🙄   We all know we blindly click "yes" to those...we are fools, mostly.
       
 (DIR) Post #AX8zMmSvCXzJ1EmsyW by Natanox@chaos.social
       2023-06-27T13:26:49Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @Sfwmson @Stoat The article states that it was unknowingly. So they weren't asked.
       
 (DIR) Post #AX8zMn6ync1x1TWsPg by Sfwmson@universeodon.com
       2023-06-27T13:46:38Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @Natanox @Stoat Yeah, I was being sarcastic, having seen an episode of Black Mirror about user agreements.
       
 (DIR) Post #AX8zMnjySdDqyPm1C4 by SteveTux@mastodon.social
       2023-06-27T14:05:24Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @Sfwmson @Natanox @Stoat Guess this was the source of the authors idea ... This episode of Black mirror was worrying.
       
 (DIR) Post #AX8zMoQrt9X97RqH3I by Jeramee@mastodon.social
       2023-06-28T04:34:12Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @SteveTux @Sfwmson @Natanox @Stoat Even John Roberts (yes, the Chief Justice of SCOTUS) admits that he doesn't read those contracts. I can't blame him. They are written in obtuse legalese, and are generally so vague and ambiguous that they are truly meaningless.But, if the Head of SCOTUS can't be bothered to read them, then how valid should we consider them as a matter of agreement or law?https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/chief_justice_roberts_admits_he_doesnt_read_the_computer_fine_print
       
 (DIR) Post #AX8zMp5zQGQXAz579E by SteveTux@mastodon.social
       2023-06-28T04:48:07Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @Jeramee @Sfwmson @Natanox @Stoat Interesting. Would be surely very interesting to see how this case would be treated in court. With all the pros and cons on the matter.And the point that it shouldn't be legal because of common sense.Raises the question why they are written like that and why people don't care. I know the easy answer for every single person: one is overwhelmed, lazy to read and its written badly.But why and when did this agreements become so complicated? Curious.
       
 (DIR) Post #AX8zMpmAtQAfHoontw by Jeramee@mastodon.social
       2023-06-28T04:57:55Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @SteveTux @Sfwmson @Natanox @Stoat I wrote contracts, K, in law school & after. A K must be general to cover many possible issues, but that often leads to vagueness.Most law schools don't teach Plain English drafting. Students learn by reading old, indecipherable contracts. They assign a meaning to the language that makes sense to them, but language has many ambiguous words. Each ambiguity makes a new interpretation. Soon, it's too many possibilities to comprehend, unless you wrote it.
       
 (DIR) Post #AX8zMqI4yngwslkHdA by Natanox@chaos.social
       2023-06-28T08:03:16Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @Jeramee @SteveTux @Sfwmson @Stoat Sounds like we dug ourselves a cultural rabbit hole and jumped right in. Reminds me of this ChatGPT joke. Perhaps LLM's will serve as wakeup call for many how ridiculous it is to create a more and more complex legal jargon that's often used to prevent legal participants from reading and understanding it.It's obvious why this happened though; the more ambiguous the text, the more you can get away with. Just look at "we care about privacy" declarations.