LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 10-04-2021, 03:37 PM   #31
rkelsen
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 3,118
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
Yeah. I take full responsibility for my own actions. If my conduct were to cause me to be banned from all of those, then I probably deserved it.
OK, as long as you recognize that according to the powers that be, you do deserve it. As in, right now.
What contract have I breached?
 
Old 10-04-2021, 04:19 PM   #32
Ser Olmy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 3,123

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
What contract have I breached?
"You post has been found in violation of our policy against hate speech."

There. That's all it takes. And you have, without a doubt, said or posted something in the last year or so that someone, somewhere can interpret as "hateful." Everyone has. Remember, "off-platform activities" count as well.

Not that the censors really have to go to the trouble of interpreting anything, as they're not obliged to provide an explanation for their decisions. The policies are vague for a reason, and subject to change at any time. You just get to click "Accept." After all, it's their service, and they can do with it whatever they want, right?

Lots of people have lost their Facebook/YouTube/Twitter account in precisely this manner. When they complain, they receive no reply. There's no recourse.

Once you've been thrown off social media, the mainstream media outlets can then report on it as "Facebook deleted thousands of far-right accounts." Now you may want to argue that you are not and have never been "far right" or anything even close to it, but remember: You don't get to speak here.
 
Old 10-04-2021, 04:29 PM   #33
dugan
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Distribution: distro hopper
Posts: 10,148

Rep: Reputation: 4704Reputation: 4704Reputation: 4704Reputation: 4704Reputation: 4704Reputation: 4704Reputation: 4704Reputation: 4704Reputation: 4704Reputation: 4704Reputation: 4704
Reminder that a ban on hate speech is LQ's first rule. If you find that to be a problem, then you shouldn't be here.
 
Old 10-04-2021, 04:45 PM   #34
Ser Olmy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 3,123

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by dugan View Post
Reminder that a ban on hate speech is LQ's first rule. If you find that to be a problem, then you shouldn't be here.
Interesting.

The term "hate speech" was invented by the Soviets to undermine ongoing work on a U.N. resolution on the right to free speech. They wanted that provision added so that they could never be held accountable for the egregious censorship and persecutions they conducted across their entire society. They succeeded.

There is no definition of what "hate speech" is or isn't. In fact, as the term "hate" itself, it's entirely subjective and thus can be anything you want it to be. And that was exactly the point.

And it gets even more absurd: Since it's obviously not possible to tell what another person feels, or whether or not that feeling motivated a statement he or she made, the entire concept of policing "hate speech" is preposterous on its face. It's just a convenient label one can use against people or ideas that one actually hates oneself. The good, old "accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing to them" tactic.

Note that I used terms like "he or she" in the text above. In many circles, that's considered pretty extreme "hate speech". Will I be banned now? Or is the "hate speech" clause in the rules just sitting there as a convenient excuse to be used at a more opportune moment?
 
Old 10-04-2021, 04:59 PM   #35
fido_dogstoyevsky
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2015
Location: Victoria, Australia
Distribution: Slackware 14.2
Posts: 446
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 518Reputation: 518Reputation: 518Reputation: 518Reputation: 518Reputation: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamison20000e View Post
I guess we'd have to define: social media, are we on it now?...
LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General ?

Very definitely a social medium. And, because of the uncivilised behaviour accepted by other sites to which I contributed, my last remaining online social medium.
 
Old 10-04-2021, 05:31 PM   #36
rkelsen
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 3,118
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
"You post has been found in violation of our policy against hate speech."
Well if that was the case, then I deserved it like I said previously.

You still seem to be conflating the whole public/private thing for no purpose other than muddying the waters. They don't need to be. The situation is quite clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
If the "right" to voice your opinion means that if you do so you get fired, evicted, expelled from college or university, lose your bank account and credit card, and find yourself unable to shop or participate in any public discourse online, then the entire "right" is fictional.
What you seem to be asking, albeit in a rather alarmist fashion, is this:

"What value is a right if private service providers require that you sign it away in order to use their services?"

Well then you head down the slippery slope of government intervention into private business. How far down that rabbit hole do you want to go? Where do you draw the line?

Are the private service providers not exercising their rights by stipulating the terms upon which they provide service? Why should business have fewer rights than the consumer in this regard?

Whose fault is this? It's the consumer. Not government. Not some huge conspiracy. Rights aren't being taken away. They're being given away. That has been my principal beef with FB since the start, and remains a significant part of the reason I still don't have an account.

If everyone stopped using Facebook and Twitter overnight and put them out of business the market might change.

Until then, complaining about something you've lost because you gave it away seems rather silly doesn't it?

The market is being driven by garbage because consumers increasingly consume it. Demand drives supply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
Private businesses have always been regulated when they become monopolies because monopolies are against the public interest. Why are online monopolies different?
It's kind of hard to argue that AWS have a monopoly on web hosting when you have a web server sitting under your desk...

Slackware, which I know you use Hazel, comes with all of the software required to run a service like Parler... just like every other Linux distribution. And it'll do so on commodity hardware. The whole argument that they "was dun wrong" is ridiculous.

Last edited by rkelsen; 10-04-2021 at 06:20 PM.
 
Old 10-04-2021, 06:15 PM   #37
Ser Olmy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 3,123

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
Well if that was the case, then I deserved it like I said previously.
Erm, so if someone doesn't like you for whatever reason, your conclusion is that they must be right and are entitled to dish out punishment according to their standards? That sounds a bit weird.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
"What value is a right if private service providers require that you sign it away in order to use their services?"
More like "what value is a right, if exercising that right is entirely dependent on you having something to which you have no right?" It's like being told you have freedom of movement while at the same time someone else is free to surround your property with barbed wire.

Facebook was once a web site. Then it turned in to a small social media site. And then it turned into an advertising behemoth and a massive monopoly on social interactions, and that's when the "Marsh v. Alabama" decision kicks in.

If you don't have a Facebook page, you're much less likely to get certain jobs. And if your employer tells you to do something on Facebook but you can't because you're banned, well, certainly you know what will happen next. That's not something that would happen if you were thrown out of LinuxQuestions or banned from the comment section of your local newspaper, so clearly something is fundamentally different with Facebook.

Facebook probably shouldn't be allowed to have such a dominant position, but they do. And since that has come as a result of their own meticulous strategy, why shouldn't they face the consequences of being a monopoly, like every other corporation would?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
Well then you head down the slippery slope of government intervention into private business. How far down that rabbit hole do you want to go? Where do you draw the line?
But we're already there, albeit in the opposite direction.

The social media giants are allowed to act as publishers of information, curating what is published, while at the same time being shielded by a law that treat them as merely a platform. This can happen because these corporations have support from powerful political actors, but the latter demand something in return: That the censorship must disproportionally affect their political opponents.

When a politician can openly state on TV that Facebook must censor "hate speech" more aggressively or else they will be regulated, you know the system is thoroughly corrupt. In most other nations that type of threat would immediately lead to criminal charges being filed, or at the very least impeachment, but in the U.S. nobody seems to bat an eyelid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
Whose fault is this? It's the consumer. Not government. Not some huge conspiracy.
It's just a coincidence that one can get banned from Facebook, YouTube and Patreon on the same day? That's not the result of a conspiring cartel?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
Rights aren't being taken away. They're being given away.
In the beginning, individuals did indeed give away their data to Facebook. Why? Zuckerberg concluded "they're idiots." But now someone else is continuing to give away the rights of the entire population by making sure Facebook becomes a necessity in daily life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
If everyone stopped using Facebook and Twitter overnight and put them out of business the market might change.

Until then, complaining about something you've lost because you gave it away seems rather silly doesn't it?
So unless absolutely everybody somehow agrees to do something at the same time, no-one has the right to complain?

Incidentally, it might have been possible to organize a mass movement of some kind, if there only existed some kind of really popular and accessible social medium that wouldn't instantly shut down any serious attempt to do so...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
It's kind of hard to argue that AWS have a monopoly on web hosting when you have a web server sitting under/on/next to your desk...

Slackware, which I know you use Hazel, comes with all of the software required to run a service like Parler... just like every other Linux distribution. And it'll do so on commodity hardware. The whole argument that they "was dun wrong" is ridiculous.
I'm sorry, but here I must point out that you're spouting absolute nonsense.

You absolutely cannot run any kind of social media site using a server in your home office. You need a massive server park, hundreds of gigabit of bandwidth, and effective DoS protection. I know the costs; I've been involved in building datacenters. And then you need cooling and UPSes, and then you have to pay for programmers to customize the software, for designers to make a working site, and probably for some advertising to get the word out.

This is why services like AWS are so revolutionary, because you can start small and easily scale up as needed (as the money starts pouring in, hopefully). Platform as a Service really leveled the playing field, and made the statement "if you don't like it, go build your own!" possible to live by.

Until AWS decided to selectively drop clients based on ideology, that is. Now it's "if you don't like it, go build your own, which we will then burn down using every dirty trick in the book, because we're backed by the entire establishment and you're not."

There exists only one single social network site that was built from the ground up with dedicated hardware in recent times. One. And they've had their share of teething problems dealing with rapid expansion.
 
Old 10-04-2021, 07:18 PM   #38
rkelsen
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 3,118
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
Erm, so if someone doesn't like you for whatever reason, your conclusion is that they must be right and are entitled to dish out punishment according to their standards? That sounds a bit weird.
Again, if I've agreed to a supplier's terms and conditions and then I go out and breach those terms and conditions, it's not weird at all. It's simple contract law. I can't understand why you don't see that. It really could not be any simpler.

It's not "punishment." It's termination of a contract because a party to the contract breached its conditions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
Facebook was once a web site. Then it turned in to a small social media site. And then it turned into an advertising behemoth and a massive monopoly on social interactions, and that's when the "Marsh v. Alabama" decision kicks in.
Except that in Marsh v. Alabama the defendant was not required to have signed a contract to stand where they stood. Marsh v. Alabama was about someone standing in privately owned and publically accessible space. Facebook is not publically accessible space because you have to sign a contract to get in. Why do you not understand that point of difference?

How different would the result in Marsh v. Alabama have been if the defendant was stopped at the border of the town and asked to sign an agreement, the terms of which included something like, "you cannot hand out religious literature within the boundaries of this town."

A more contemporaneous & relevant case is Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck 2019.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
If you don't have a Facebook page, you're much less likely to get certain jobs.
Really? Well nobody told me that. Not having a Facebook account doesn't seem to have harmed my career.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
Facebook probably shouldn't be allowed to have such a dominant position, but they do.
The same could be said for Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc... but we're a free society right? What's the alternative?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
It's just a coincidence that one can get banned from Facebook, YouTube and Patreon on the same day?
Once it becomes public knowledge that an individual has breached their contract with one provider and so the other providers check the terms of their own contracts? I'd say that it's not an entirely unexpected result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
In the beginning, individuals did indeed give away their data to Facebook. Why? Zuckerberg concluded "they're idiots." But now someone else is continuing to give away the rights of the entire population by making sure Facebook becomes a necessity in daily life.
As I said before, FB would die if people stopped using it. Demand drives supply. Facebook is not necessary for anyone's survival.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
You absolutely cannot run any kind of social media site using a server in your home office.
OK, I'll concede this point.

But it still stands that AWS are a private organisation providing contracted services. You have to agree with their terms and conditions if you choose to avail yourself of those services. While AWS might be the biggest, they're not the first and certainly not the only one offering these types of services.

Last edited by rkelsen; 10-04-2021 at 07:47 PM.
 
Old 10-04-2021, 07:26 PM   #39
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on freest; has been KDE, CLI, Novena but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 4,452

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449
Thought I posted some links saying we can, is this not freedumb?
 
Old 10-04-2021, 07:28 PM   #40
dugan
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Distribution: distro hopper
Posts: 10,148

Rep: Reputation: 4704Reputation: 4704Reputation: 4704Reputation: 4704Reputation: 4704Reputation: 4704Reputation: 4704Reputation: 4704Reputation: 4704Reputation: 4704Reputation: 4704
@jamison20000e

Not that I know anything about Mastodon, but I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up yet.
 
Old 10-04-2021, 08:02 PM   #41
Ser Olmy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 3,123

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
Again, if I've agreed to a supplier's terms and conditions and then I go out and breach those terms and conditions, it's not weird at all.
Well, if you really agreed that they may do with you anything they want, and change the terms unilaterally at any time, then sure. But:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
It's simple contract law. I can't understand why you don't see that. It really could not be any simpler.
It's not covered by contract law at all, because it's not legally a contract. Facebook knows this very well, which is why they have never, and will never, sue anyone for breaching this "contract," no matter how egregious the violation.

One reason why it's clearly not a contract, is that you haven't signed anything, and they cannot document that you, specifically, have agreed to these terms. Another is that the document they present contain the "Terms of Service", indicating that they're providing you with something, but unlike any other agreement you're not being asked to provide payment. That's because you're not the customer, you're the product. Facebook's customers are their ad business clientele.

Third, no contract can contain within itself a one-sided provision that one party may alter the terms of the contract at any time and for any reason. Unbalanced contracts that favor one side of the agreement to the detriment of the other party are declared null and void by courts all the time.

Consider this: If Facebook really considered this click-through document a legally binding contract, they would never try to make the argument that the private nature of the corporation or their "freedom of association" should allow them to ban people, because that would be entirely irrelevant to the conversation: You're out because of Breach of Contract, period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
Except that in Marsh v. Alabama the defendant was not required to have signed a contract to stand where they stood. Marsh v. Alabama was about someone standing in privately owned and publically accessible space. Facebook is not publically accessible space because you have to sign a contract to get in. Why do you not understand that point of difference?
Again, there's no contract between Facebook and its users. But Facebook's click-through agreement is quite like the sign outside a mining town declaring that this is private property, and by entering you agree to such and such. Not a contract, and as we've seen not generally enforceable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
As I said before, FB would die if people stopped using it. Demand drives supply. Facebook is not necessary for anyone's survival.
Have you noticed that an increasing number of non-FB websites will let you log in using your Facebook or Google or Microsoft account. Some offer no other alternatives; you literally cannot create a separate account just for that site.

It'll be interesting to see when online public services will start requiring an account from one of the large tech giants. Something very much like that has already been implemented in my country for claiming benefits.
 
Old 10-04-2021, 08:15 PM   #42
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on freest; has been KDE, CLI, Novena but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 4,452

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449
^Brings to mind "my" Oculus Quest 2, the only reason I have a non used facebook account.
Other companies make VR gaming tho plus I've use a Raspberry Pi to create displays off the brim of a hat (no tip) so I can browse while I walk...
 
Old 10-04-2021, 08:43 PM   #43
rkelsen
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 3,118
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
It's not covered by contract law at all, because it's not legally a contract.
I wouldn't be so sure about that: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...017-08-17.html Pages 28-30 are where you'll find the "meat" of the decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
One reason why it's clearly not a contract, is that you haven't signed anything, and they cannot document that you, specifically, have agreed to these terms.
If you have to tick a box before clicking a button, then that conscious action on your part is sufficient proof of acceptance. That's my understanding of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
Another is that the document they present contain the "Terms of Service", indicating that they're providing you with something, but unlike any other agreement you're not being asked to provide payment. That's because you're not the customer, you're the product. Facebook's customers are their ad business clientele.
In contract law here (i.e. not the US) consideration doesn't have to be monetary. It could be your email address or any other private data about yourself that can be monetised. I'd say it's probably the same in the US, since they also "inherited" many laws from the same place we did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
Third, no contract can contain within itself a one-sided provision that one party may alter the terms of the contract at any time and for any reason. Unbalanced contracts that favor one side of the agreement to the detriment of the other party are declared null and void by courts all the time.
Right, but that's on a case by case basis. And there would be decisions on this both ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
But Facebook's click-through agreement is quite like the sign outside a mining town declaring that this is private property, and by entering you agree to such and such.
As above, if you have to tick a box to indicate acceptance, then that is the equivalent of a signature on paper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
It'll be interesting to see when online public services will start requiring an account from one of the large tech giants. Something very much like that has already been implemented in my country for claiming benefits.
Well here we have a system which you can log into from your "smart" device to apply for benefits. But, of course Android needs a Google account and IOS needs an Apple account, right? We're already there, it seems. But it's not mandatory. You can still file a paper claim or an online claim from the website.
 
Old 10-04-2021, 09:32 PM   #44
Ser Olmy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 3,123

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
I wouldn't be so sure about that: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...017-08-17.html Pages 28-30 are where you'll find the "meat" of the decision.
Not really analogous, because the question was whether Uber had provided "reasonably conspicuous notice" with regards to the terms of service, in addition to whether the defendant had accepted the terms by clicking the appropriate button in the app ("manifestation of assent"). Note that the defendant had already stated that yes, he did indeed click on the "accept" button on his phone.

While the district court had ruled that no, this was not sufficient "manifestation of assent", the appellate court cites this:
Quote:
see also Schnabel,697F.3 dat 128(ʺ[A]cceptance need not be express,
but where it is not, there must be evidence that the offeree knew or should have known of the terms and understood that acceptance of the benefit would be construed by the offeror as an agreement to be bound.ʺ
This was an important factor in their decision to rule in favor of Uber in this instance.

While this could be reasonable when discussing an agreement between Uber and one of their drivers, I have serious doubts whether you could make that same argument in the case of Facebook and their userbase.

There's also the issue of Facebook having no way of knowing who actually clicked the button. In the Uber case, that was not a contested issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
If you have to tick a box before clicking a button, then that conscious action on your part is sufficient proof of acceptance. That's my understanding of it.
No, that depends entirely on the circumstances, as outlined above. After all, neither the box nor the button clicks itself, so what's the big difference between that and having just a button? And both can easily be clicked by accident, by a script, or by a child.

There's a reason why paper contracts require a signature (and sometimes the signature of witnesses), and why digital contracts require, yes, a digital signature. The U.S. has a standard that covers this, because you have to be able to prove the identity of the person signing the contract. Clicking a button or checking a box are absolutely not equivalent to signatures.

And then there's the issue of competency; minors in general can't sign contracts, because they usually lack competence. What's the age limit on Facebook again, and how do they enforce it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
In contract law here (i.e. not the US) consideration doesn't have to be monetary. It could be your email address or any other private data about yourself that can be monetised. I'd say it's probably the same in the US, since they also "inherited" many laws from the same place we did.
Yes, that's probably true for most parts of the world, but it's also usually imperative that a contract specifies exactly what's being exchanged by the parties, and there must also be a balance between what's being offered and what's being given as payment/compensation.

For instance, an agreement that says you must give me "everything you own" in exchange for $100 would be declared void, not only because $100 is an unreasonably low amount, but also because "everything you own" is too broad (both as a term and as being all-encompassing).

Facebooks and Googles "Terms of Service" cannot possibly accurately represent what you're "paying" for the service, as that changes more or less on a day-to-day basis. And even if they were to say "all your personal information and telemetry", while technically true it would be both unreasonably vague and far to all-encompassing. And also worth far more than they offer you in return.

I'd love to see someone challenge Facebook in court, but unfortunately civil suits are only for the rich.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
Well here we have a system which you can log into from your "smart" device to apply for benefits. But, of course Android needs a Google account and IOS needs an Apple account, right?
I don't know about iOS, but you can have an Android phone without a Google account. It's not even difficult. The problem would be if the app could only be downloaded from Google's Play Store.
 
Old 10-04-2021, 10:28 PM   #45
rkelsen
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 3,118
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
While this could be reasonable when discussing an agreement between Uber and one of their drivers, I have serious doubts whether you could make that same argument in the case of Facebook and their userbase.
I'd disagree with you there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
There's also the issue of Facebook having no way of knowing who actually clicked the button.
When you click on "create account" on the Facebook website you get a box which asks for your full name, date of birth and mobile phone number.

So it could easily be argued that they do take reasonable steps to verify your identity, including age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
There's a reason why paper contracts require a signature (and sometimes the signature of witnesses), and why digital contracts require, yes, a digital signature. The U.S. has a standard that covers this, because you have to be able to prove the identity of the person signing the contract. Clicking a button or checking a box are absolutely not equivalent to signatures.
I'd also disagree with you here. The components of a contract are: Offer, acceptance and consideration. Spoken words can make a contract. Of course if there was a dispute there would be no proof, but in the strictest interpretation of the law it is true. You don't need ink on paper. Clicking the checkbox is more than sufficient proof of your intention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
And then there's the issue of competency; minors in general can't sign contracts, because they usually lack competence. What's the age limit on Facebook again, and how do they enforce it?
As a parent of teenagers, I can tell you that kids aren't using Facebook these days. They left in droves once they figured out that old people use it. But I do see your point.

They enforce it by asking you for your date of birth when you register.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
The problem would be if the app could only be downloaded from Google's Play Store.
Yeah, that or Apple's equivalent... And guess what?

Last edited by rkelsen; 10-04-2021 at 10:29 PM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Text to Speech - Speech to Text in Linux & C/C++ aarsh Linux - Newbie 2 05-15-2012 11:46 AM
Text to speech to speech package in OpenSUSE 11.2 aarsh Linux - Newbie 2 05-25-2011 08:13 PM
Question regarding this line "Free taken as in free speech, not free beer" SHENGTON Linux - Newbie 11 01-12-2009 07:40 AM
LXer: When Free Speech is not Free Speech LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 03-29-2007 11:33 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:49 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration