• TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    The TOS shouldn’t hold up in court. A contract must be an exchange of two things, eg money for a product or service. You can’t say “Our service is free of charge!!!” And then in the fine print “(((But also you agree to give us everything we can take free of charge)))”.

    The issue is how everyone does it. Facebook and Google started when data had no value, now they’re amongst the wealthiest businesses in the world. Now, Microsoft have joined in, *even though you already pay for their products and services anyway!"

    However, the other aspect is that everyone is a victim. Lawmakers are the victim. They still haven’t quite yet realised how much is being taken from them (at least $50 per year, probably more like $1,000 per year if not more for prominent figures) but they are still being abused.

    It’s like that form of bank fraud, where the criminal takes pennies from accounts, hoping the user won’t notice and the bank will write it off. Do it to enough people and enough times and you can make millions. They do this to everyone and they make billions.

    Either the data is public domain and they don’t have to pay for it, but also cannot charge others for it, or the data is private and they must pay the author a fair share.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        No, it isn’t. The website is offered free of charge, regardless of whether you provide them data or content. The exchange for data/content is a second transaction tucked away in the terms and conditions, and the website offers nothing in return for that.

        The reason the 2nd exchange is hidden in the terms and conditions is to intentionally hide what the user is giving away, such that the user cannot make a fair value assessment. It is fraudulent and deceptive.