this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2024
251 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37757 readers
678 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
Los@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
remington@beehaw.org
251
New Discord TOS binds you to forced arbitration - Opt-Out Now (discord.com)
submitted 8 months ago by empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@beehaw.org
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/17618684

Forced arbitration means any legal disputes you may have with Discord must be resolved through a single third party mediator, who 99% of the time is chosen by, and will rule in favor of, the corporation/Discord. This effectively removes all your legal rights as a consumer, because arbitration decisions are legally binding and non-appealable.

The new ToS goes into effect April 15th, 2024.

YOU CAN OPT OUT OF ARBITRATION. You must email arbitration-opt-out@discord.com BEFORE MAY 15TH (30 days after ToS effective date) with your username stating that you wish to opt out of the arbitration clause. Once May 15th passes you are bound to arbitration with Discord forever.

Opt-out before it's too late.

all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] frog@beehaw.org 101 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, good luck enforcing that contract in any country that has a legal concept of "automatically unfair contract terms".

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 73 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

the arbitration terms are explicitly stated to be US only. unfortunately the US is not a country with a functioning legal system

[–] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 54 points 8 months ago (2 children)

What are you talking about, the US has the best legal system money can buy

[–] And009@lemmynsfw.com 7 points 8 months ago

'Money.exe' not found. It may be corrupted or you don't have administration right.

[–] kellenoffdagrid@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

You said it pal, not me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] PatMustard 5 points 8 months ago

Can you include that in the title and description please? It's a pretty important detail to leave out!

[–] FrostyPolicy@suppo.fi 26 points 8 months ago

Another company wants to skip liability. https://odysee.com/@rossmanngroup:a/pixel-phones-come-w-forced-arbitration-a:9

[–] noodlejetski@lemm.ee 19 points 8 months ago

I wonder how long until they inform us about a data breach.

[–] Banzai51@midwest.social 17 points 8 months ago (1 children)

A TOS isn't legally binding.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's false.

Any contract is legally binding... except for the parts that go against the law.

I'd suggest consulting a lawyer knowledgeable of your particular jurisdiction, before deciding which part may or may not be binding.

[–] veniasilente@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Any contract is legally binding

Exactly. And a TOS is not a contract.

If you go to law definitions, contracts have a number of requirements to be such, of which to my knowledge a TOS fails two (Negotiability and Certainty).

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

IANAL, check with your local lawyer, but AFAIK...

ToS are a "generic contract", where a single entity proposes the same contract to multiple parties.

Negotiability, or more precisely offer and acceptance, are achieved by the simple "take it or leave it". The requirement is that there needs to be an option, it doesn't need to be one to change parts of the document.

Certainty is usually achieved by adding a partial nullifying clause, so any ambiguous parts get automatically trimmed.

[–] veniasilente@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Negotiability, or more precisely offer and acceptance, are achieved by the simple “take it or leave it”.

Maybe in the US, where that kind of this would honestly be expected. Here in more decent countries, Negotiability requires that both parties can exercise offer an acceptance to the contract. I consulted to our local digital ethics group about it and they are in accordance, at least to what pertains to my country.

[–] crazyminner@lemmy.ml 15 points 8 months ago (5 children)

We need a Federated FOSS Discord alternative built to work with the activity pub protocol.

[–] BakedCatboy@lemmy.ml 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Has anybody made a matrix app that looks like a discord clone? That sounds easier since the federated rich text chat is already made, the current clients don't really appeal to the discord crowd.

[–] rnd@beehaw.org 11 points 8 months ago

Cinny is the closest to Discord in terms of UI, it even has a feature where you can show subspaces within a space as if they're categories of a Discord server.

[–] InFerNo@lemmy.ml 7 points 8 months ago

We welcome anyone back to IRC

[–] TheBaldness@beehaw.org 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

No we don't. We need small instances, each with their own specific topics and communities that DO NOT share your information far and wide, like the fediverse does. I don't think the fediverse model is the way forward.

[–] EtzBetz@feddit.de 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

But by not sharing anything, you'd loose users who don't want to sign up for each instance individually. I think it would be a good way to be able to sign up once on one instance and then being able to use all other instances available, but the chats etc of one instance being private to the instance itself.

[–] TheBaldness@beehaw.org 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

True, and then there's the other side of the coin. Federation exposes you to trolls, nazis, and doxxing.

[–] EtzBetz@feddit.de 1 points 8 months ago

Well I guess if you wanted you could just run it defederated? And you could also build in that the instance/guild owner needs to accept joins, I guess?

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 5 points 8 months ago

Or… how about we just treat the fediverse like it is a…. public forum…. and use different tools for having more private conversations?

[–] flashgnash@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Isn't there already one? Thought that was what Revolt was

[–] kib48@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

not federated

[–] flashgnash@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Is open source though, federation can always come later

That said I'm not sure why they didn't use matrix from the start

[–] anlumo@feddit.de 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Federation isn't something that can be added later. This has to be part of the protocol from the start.

[–] flashgnash@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I thought Lemmy started without federation?

[–] anlumo@feddit.de 3 points 8 months ago

It started as a Fediverse-based alternative to Reddit, so it was designed with federation in mind from the start.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Anything "can" be added later... as for the effort required, that's a separate matter.

I also wonder why they didn't use Matrix from the start. Right now, with group chats, spaces, threads, and audio/video streaming, bridges, bots, etc. while allowing E2EE, Matrix already seems to be better than Discord.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 1 points 8 months ago

So... Lemmy? Mastodon?

Although I think Matrix is better suited for chat, just need a client with voice/video support.

[–] flashgnash@lemm.ee 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Do I need to worry about this not being in the US? I'm wary of the way I word my opt out incase it causes me some issues down the line

[–] Donut@leminal.space 22 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

No, this is for US only. Where corporations are permitted to abuse the market and the law (or lack thereof).

[–] pezhore@lemmy.ml 11 points 8 months ago (2 children)

How are we supposed to opt out? By deleting our accounts?

[–] Kuro@lemm.ee 21 points 8 months ago

You must email arbitration-opt-out@discord.com BEFORE MAY 15TH (30 days after ToS effective date) with your username stating that you wish to opt out of the arbitration

[–] ashley@lemmy.ca 9 points 8 months ago

If you read the post, it says you can opt out by emailing your username to discord

[–] sleepybisexual@beehaw.org 11 points 8 months ago

Thx for the reminder to get to deleting my discord accs

[–] Truck_kun@beehaw.org 8 points 8 months ago

A few years ago, wasn't there a company (maybe it was uber?) that was being overwhelmed by arbitration fee's for a large number of arbitration cases? I forget the outcome, but it may be due to their agreement stipulating they would cover arbitration fees. Either way, forced arbitration needs to go.

[–] umami_wasbi@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 months ago

Does that applies to accounts registered in the US but now I'm not physically lived in?