[HN Gopher] Discord Applying Forced Arbitration - opt-out before...
___________________________________________________________________
Discord Applying Forced Arbitration - opt-out before it is too
late!
Author : MiguelX413
Score : 63 points
Date : 2024-05-03 21:20 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (bsky.app)
(TXT) w3m dump (bsky.app)
| MiguelX413 wrote:
| https://neowin.net/forum/topic/1440754-discord-applying-forc...
| seems like a better link.
| carterschonwald wrote:
| Hugged to death
| hightrix wrote:
| For anyone else with this problem.
|
| ---
|
| TLDR. Send an email before 15th May to: arbitration-opt-
| out@discord.com "I am confirming that as of the date of this
| email, I am choosing to opt out of binding arbitration to
| settle disputes with Discord". Make sure to send it from the
| email you use for your Discord account.
| johnea wrote:
| I think the title was misworded, is should have read:
|
| get-out before it's too late...
| genman wrote:
| Interesting. Does this forced arbitration also apply to EU?
| paulgb wrote:
| This one in particular does not. I'm not sure about the
| enforceability of other forced arbitration agreements in the
| EU.
|
| > To protect our users outside the United States, we've decided
| to modify this clause so that it only affects users in the
| United States. If you are outside of the United States, this
| clause does not apply to you
|
| https://discord.com/safety/terms-of-service-feedback-and-cha...
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| You're correct that it does not, but it's also ambiguous
| about what happens with respect to dispute rights for
| existing accounts if you later move to the US after the opt-
| out deadline, so the conservative approach is to opt out
| regardless of your country of residence.
| meepmorp wrote:
| > To protect our users outside the United States, we've
| decided to modify this clause so that it only affects users
| in the United States.
|
| "We're going to protect our users outside the United States
| from a thing we've freely chosen to do to our users in the
| United States."
| lnxg33k1 wrote:
| I am not sure, I think it can't apply to Italy, as we have a
| tiered set of laws and one lower tier can't override higher
| tiers, and contracts/tos are the lowest tier
| lnauta wrote:
| Not to be nitpicky but this message also talks of jury trial,
| which EU countries generally don't have.
| poizan42 wrote:
| Probably not
|
| From https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-
| treat...
|
| > Here are some situations where contract terms may be judged
| unfair under EU rules:
|
| > ...
|
| > 17. Limited rights to legal action
|
| > Terms which restrict how and where consumers can take legal
| action and obliging them to provide proof which is the
| responsibility of the other party to the contract.
| grubbs wrote:
| I literally can't keep up with every company I do business with.
| It's impossible so I just give up.
| Wool2662 wrote:
| That's how you know it's working as intended!
| agluszak wrote:
| Let the enshitification begin!
| TheRoque wrote:
| I'm very curious about the form that the discord
| enshittification will take. For sure, they can't do infinite
| storage, infinite streaming forever, yet they claim that they
| don't resell the data. And I doubt that nitro and other
| gimmicky fees give them any money. So I'm really curious about
| how it will look when they want to start cashing in on that
| massive community and personal data they sit on.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Think Reddit had it bad with r/jailbait, etc.? And how they
| (somewhat) cleaned house before the IPO? (A few years ago,
| anyway).
|
| Discord is going to have a horror show if they try to attempt
| anything similar. It is -trivial- on Disboard or other
| Discord search sites to find Discord servers with explicit
| sexual themes aimed at and targetted at minors, and even
| worse than that, ones with explicit sexual themes that have
| age ranges that include minors and adults (like "Community of
| 14-28 year olds...").
|
| When more people start pulling at that thread, it's going to
| unravel really quickly.
|
| Discord has been doing -some- housecleaning, but only on the
| most egregious "sexual 'violence'" offenders.
| jhgg wrote:
| FYI, the forced arbitration clause has existed in the ToS since
| 2018. This is not new.
|
| Blog post from 2018: https://discord.com/safety/terms-of-service-
| feedback-and-cha... Archived version of ToS from may 2020:
| https://discord.com/terms/terms-of-service-may-2020
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| It is new again, actually - if you opted out previously, you
| have to opt out again to stay opted out, according to the
| wording of the new terms. One opt out per Discord account, if
| you have multiple, in each case within 30 days of registering
| that account or of April 15, 2024, whichever is _later_. This
| provision does not make reference to the first time you
| accepted a version of these terms with an arbitration clause,
| or a similar phrase that would obviate the need for a new opt-
| out.
|
| On the plus side, if you didn't opt out before, you get a new
| opportunity to opt out, which according to the new terms will
| remove all disputes that have not yet been filed from the scope
| of previous arbitration agreements with Discord.
|
| Since the clause only applies if you are a US resident, it's
| very unclear how that opt-out deadline applies to existing
| Discord accounts for people who relocate into the US after the
| deadline. The conservative approach is to opt out wherever in
| the world you live, in case you later move to the US.
| malka wrote:
| Thanks for the info. Just in case, I setup a script to send a
| daily mail to arbitration-opt-out@discord.com
| teeray wrote:
| It really would be nice for some legislation to restore access to
| the justice system.
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| Such legislation has gotten proposed in every session of
| Congress in recent years. It hasn't passed yet. I hope it does,
| eventually.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| This is what we need, yeah. I don't have a problem with binding
| arbitration if parties with equal leverage agree to it, but it
| should be flat out illegal to require it as terms of employment
| or part of ToS.
| eadler wrote:
| Amusingly bluesky has the same style of (abusive) forced
| arbitration clause.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| I can't even use discord in the first place because it always
| demands a mobile phone verification that I refuse to provide.
| Animats wrote:
| Discord hasn't yet obtained approval for their contract from the
| American Arbitration Association. They're not on the list.[1]
| Until a company gets on that list, which has a fee, the AAA will
| refuse to run arbitrations involving contracts specifying AAA
| arbitration. The AAA does this to prevent companies from adding
| additional unfavorable terms to arbitration agreements.
|
| At least Discord specified AAA arbitration. They're considered
| legitimate. There are arbitration services that are much worse.
| One is a front for a debt collection company.
|
| [1]
| https://apps.adr.org/ClauseRegistryUI/faces/org/adr/extapps/...
| taylorbuley wrote:
| [delayed]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-03 23:00 UTC)