Post AvH9StCun0d4UFMusC by OrionKidder@mas.to
(DIR) More posts by OrionKidder@mas.to
(DIR) Post #AvGnb5kRqgTIhsYkgi by pluralistic@mamot.fr
2025-06-18T23:09:29Z
0 likes, 2 repeats
In reading a fascinating and important discussion of the lack of a termination clause in the new Mastodon.social Terms of Service, I was GOBSMACKED to discover that the new ToS including a "binding arbitration waiver," which takes away your right to sue, no matter how badly the service abuses you.These are profoundly unethical, terrible clauses. They should never, ever appear in "adhesion contracts" (that is, contracts that you merely click through, rather than negotiating.)
(DIR) Post #AvGnb71r5RzQg9iASW by pluralistic@mamot.fr
2025-06-18T23:11:40Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
No one, and I do mean NO ONE, should ever, ever, EVER agree to a binding arbitration waiver. These are the most grotesquely unfair contractual terms in routine use today. The potential for abuse is literally unlimited.Remember when a Disney World visitor died of an allergic reaction after being assured that her food order was allergen-free? Disney argued that her family couldn't sue because her husband had clicked through an arbitration waiver when signing up for a free trial of Disney Plus.
(DIR) Post #AvGnb7rG0L6fFZlDZw by pluralistic@mamot.fr
2025-06-18T23:13:37Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
I am very shocked to see this in the ToS for the flagship Mastodon instance, promulgated by the Mastodon nonprofit. To be clear, I think this is *much* worse than, say, requiring users of mastodon.social to agree to have their posts used to train LLMs. The harms of having your work fed to an AI are mostly hypothetical and relate to moral qualms.By contrast, a binding arbitration waiver would literally allow the management of mastodon.social to cause your DEATH and face no consequences.
(DIR) Post #AvGnbEnyAxdUnPHBvU by pluralistic@mamot.fr
2025-06-18T23:15:44Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
I am trying not to be dramatic here, but this is a deal-breaker for me - literally. I changed dentists because I wouldn't sign binding arbitration. I changed solar installers because I wouldn't sign binding arbitration.I could never, in good conscience, recommend that someone use a service that required binding arbitration as a condition of use - which means that as of July 1, I would no longer be able to recommend that people get an account on mastodon.social.
(DIR) Post #AvGnbM9qq0IZbIZGVM by pluralistic@mamot.fr
2025-06-18T23:17:41Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
And since mastodon.social is the flagship instance, which sets the moral example - and the workaday template - for most instances in the Fediverse, this catastrophically bad clause is likely to proliferate far and wide throughout the Fediverse, rendering most of this new, better internet unfit for use.Please, @Gargron, reconsider this. It is a very bad look - and worse still, it's a very, very bad example.
(DIR) Post #AvGnj2Bky0eZz37VYm by lispi314@udongein.xyz
2025-06-18T23:19:53.527725Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@pluralistic Binding arbitration should just be illegal.What's the point of being a citizen if some random contract can completely cut off one from the local legal system?
(DIR) Post #AvGozggAIADA9Mqduq by picofarad@noauthority.social
2025-06-18T23:39:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lispi314 @pluralistic what's hilarious is some lawyers have figured out how to cost companies that use binding arbitration against them. I'm in the Valve class-action, although it's not technically a class action yet because valve has a binding arbitration clause. So this team of lawyers filed over 3000 cases at the same time. still working through everything.Valve has removed the arbitration from their TOS.Arbitration is gating; these lawyers knocked the gate down. Maybe others can too?
(DIR) Post #AvGpYvisLrfUwVv9zk by pluralistic@mamot.fr
2025-06-18T23:32:54Z
1 likes, 2 repeats
@Gargron Also, I saw your note on the Github issue about using pro-bono counsel. If you'd like me to ask EFF's lawyers about helping Mastodon come up with fair and user-rights-preserving ToS, please email me at cory@eff.org
(DIR) Post #AvH57LtH48XDG6elgu by sekka@shark.community
2025-06-19T00:01:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lispi314 @pluralistic This is such a tough issue. If someone sued some of the smaller (fully non-profit) projects I'm involved in, they (and I, having separate no legal fiction for them) would simply be destroyed. We know arbitration is bad, but how do we balance the existence and survival of projects intended for civic good with the potential harms they could cause, when even a basic legal defense can bankrupt the person behind the project?
(DIR) Post #AvH57NCoAzkpKynsmG by pluralistic@mamot.fr
2025-06-19T00:02:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sekka @lispi314 With reasonable indemnity clauses and liability insurance, which every nonprofit should carry (and which every nonprofit whose board I've ever served on DOES carry).
(DIR) Post #AvH57Nsze9UxRoXZWy by juliewebgirl@mstdn.social
2025-06-19T00:34:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pluralisticFrom what I've seen from posts asking for help paying their monthly hosting bills, I don't think every instance has non-profit status nor funds to pay liability insurance. Isn't that the *point* of Mastodon? Anybody can run an instance?@sekka @lispi314
(DIR) Post #AvH57Orc0lzITotz16 by lispi314@udongein.xyz
2025-06-19T00:38:06.867329Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@juliewebgirl @sekka @pluralistic It's a wonderful example of decentralized failing to provide the advantages of distributed.Hosting other people as a service is always a major source of liability. Doubly so without proper anonymization.Sometimes the legal system permits throwing money at the problem to mitigate the liability, but not always.
(DIR) Post #AvH57Qm0uYhKP2IXZI by sekka@shark.community
2025-06-19T00:02:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lispi314 @pluralistic I'm wondering if anyone has addressed this issue in a comprehensive way.
(DIR) Post #AvH57UINofNBKISvwG by pluralistic@mamot.fr
2025-06-19T00:03:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sekka @lispi314 If your org can structure itself as a 501(c)3, it can also get insurance (and any good board member would make this the first order of business for any (c)3).Cory
(DIR) Post #AvH9StCun0d4UFMusC by OrionKidder@mas.to
2025-06-19T00:54:59Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@pluralistic @Gargron Gargron, you should do this. You will find no one who's a bigger fan of what Mastdon is and could be than Mr. Doctorow, here. If you lose him, a LOT of us will go with him. That's not meant as a threat. Just a statement of fact. I trust Doctorow's judgment, here.
(DIR) Post #AvH9U8EKQ8VnMvcdGa by mpjgregoire@cosocial.ca
2025-06-19T01:33:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pluralistic There's an enormous potential for abuse in binding arbitration clauses, absolutely. But the legal system is also easy for people (with money) to abuse, as, e.g., patent trolls show.Is there a better way to resolve disputes with some sort of arbitration? Or are the law courts as good as it gets?
(DIR) Post #AvH9U9FmcDGmXjJJAm by pluralistic@mamot.fr
2025-06-19T02:34:33Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@mpjgregoire narrow, fair indemnity clauses and insurance
(DIR) Post #AvHBulGM7WChrdOcVM by tomjennings@tldr.nettime.org
2025-06-19T03:56:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GargronIf somehow there is good reason for this decision now is the time to explain it. This issue will not go away by ignoring it. Guaranteed. @pluralistic
(DIR) Post #AvHNOG39pforF5USqu by fenixmaster@mastodon.social
2025-06-19T06:04:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tomjennings @Gargron @pluralistic This could lead to a user exodus.
(DIR) Post #AvHyDHmKlHhriqFiPw by addressforbots@social.apcn.nz
2025-06-18T23:32:03Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@pluralistic @Gargron Who would be willing to bet that they hired a lawyer that specialises in stuff like drafting TOS for online services and they just went with what the lawyer recommended. With the lawyer probably having all kinds of convincing arguments about how this was "industry standard" and why the terms were necessary if they wanted the project and/or the not for profit to not be sued.
(DIR) Post #AvIOOBBAEicLFQio2S by oscarfalcon@mastodon.social
2025-06-19T00:05:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pluralistic Oh man... Does this mean I HAVE TO CHANGE INSTANCES??? IT DOES DOESN't IT!Blast!
(DIR) Post #AvIOOCBYUkWaMvudHs by cnx@awkward.place
2025-06-19T01:15:12.742737Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
You don't have to, @oscarfalcon, but you definitely should: please see the Mastodon monoculture problem by @rysiek.Cc: @pluralistic
(DIR) Post #AvISzEf0egTiZnbgga by pluralistic@mamot.fr
2025-06-19T13:17:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Good to see that @Mastodon has hit pause on the new ToS and are going to revisit the offending clauses.https://mastodon.social/@Mastodon/114709820512537821
(DIR) Post #AvISzFZ1IRHVNVoPzM by holdenweb@freeradical.zone
2025-06-19T18:35:57Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@pluralistic @Mastodon good news. This shif needs to be as bulletproof as human ingenuity can make it. Thanks for listening!
(DIR) Post #AvqAmV6Z8VWn9Q5cie by indyradio@kafeneio.social
2025-06-19T05:55:23Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@pluralistic Cory, thank you for finding this, and applying your usual thorough analysis."no matter how badly the service abuses you." is not a surprise to me.There are people who were bounced early in the propaganda phase because their thinking was not approved by the GMBH. They were clueless, walked away and didn't care.It would be a long project to go back to the commits by invisible devs, and commits made by the GMBH for anonymous contributors, but it looks to me...(next)
(DIR) Post #AvqAmc9IwisUzwQPSa by indyradio@kafeneio.social
2025-06-19T05:56:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pluralistic (cont.) like some of these devs really need that clause and no, it does not surprise me they have the right lawyer.