JavaScript is not available.

Yeah, folks, I know we're looking for a new place, but c*host is Not It with that ToS twitter.com/momijizukamori…

5:26 AM · Nov 5, 2022

Replying to

(But even then, the judgement of a business that goes live with this flaming dumpster fire of a ToS is incompatible with the nice marketing things they're saying and the legally binding one is the abusive and coercive one)

278

This is not an exhaustive list of the ways this TOS is abusive and sets a fucking terrible precedent for how they can legally treat users, but it's the ones that jump out at me on first read. I haven't done much putting clauses next to each other for horrid implications.

223

Step 1: so we're all on the same page, the document we're discussing is cohost.org/rc/content/tos Right up front, 🚩in paragraph 2: THESE TERMS INCLUDE A CLASS ACTION WAIVER AND AN ARBITRATION PROVISION THAT GOVERNS ANY DISPUTES BETWEEN YOU AND ASSC.

272

A class action waiver for a social product is not as abusive as it is for physical products, but it is a flat no-go for me and it should be for you too. A binding arbitration clause for a social service with subsequent terms in this TOS is fucknuts.

258

SECTION 4. 🚩 You may not use the Services for any commercial purpose (except when transacting business with ASSC or with another User via the Services)

233

Are you an author? Do you sell the physical proceeds of a hobby, such as cross-stitch or knitting? Do you link to your Etsy, or hell, an eBay auction, from time to time? Perfume decant circles? Mention that book you just published? This clause prevents all of those.

342

🚩 "You further agree not to copy, reverse engineer, translate, port, modify or make derivative works of any portion of the Services." This is literally impossible to comply with. Visiting the website "copies" the Services to your browser cache.

284

🚩 "By using the Services or features thereof, you represent and warrant that (i) any information you submit to us is truthful and accurate--" Have you ever made a post about something that turned out to be wrong, because your source was wrong or you misunderstood it?

242

That's grounds for suspension under this TOS. 🚩 "(ii) you will maintain the accuracy of that information--" It's also grounds for suspension if you discover that a post you made 8 years ago was mistaken and you don't immediately update it.

220

🚩 "and (iii) your use of the Services and its features does not violate any applicable law, rule or regulation." It is literally impossible for anyone to know this conclusively at any given time. Your post could violate some obscure federal regulations you've never heard of!

190

All three of these clauses are completely unnecessary to protect the business -- §230 covers literally any possible liability that could accrue to them for your use of their service -- and imposes obligations on you that are fucknuts for any social media company to try to impose.

204

5. 🚩 "(ii) register only once using a single username" Probably the least egregious red flag from all this, but it prevents people from having, say, a main blog and a fandom blog.

257

"(iv) to notify us immediately of any unauthorized access to or use of your credentials or any other breach of security" A strict reading of this clause means they can suspend you if your credentials are compromised on another site and you reused your password--

166

--or if you remove malware from your computer that technically could have intercepted your credentials. I get why they'd want to include these, but they impose a significant burden on people for no benefit.

158

🚩 "(b) register under the name of another person;" Sloppy drafting: this is written so vaguely it implies any Jane Smith past the first is technically in violation, because that's "the name of another person". It needs a "that is not also your own", and then--

192

--we get into the tough question of "what is a name and what counts as *your* name, which is. Well. We had a whole fight in 2009 about it, look up the nymwars.

216

🚩 "(c) choose a username that constitutes or suggests an impersonation of any other person (real or fictitious) or entity or that you are a representative of an entity when you are not" Again: a strict reading of this prevents the second Jane Smith to register --

162

--from calling herself "janesmith02". Or a fan club for Roy Jones calling itself "royjonesfans". Or literally any parody, satire, or role playing account. Or fans of a brand or product from making a community to discuss it that uses the name in any way: no "iphoneusers".

162

🚩🚩🚩 "(d) choose a username for the purposes of deceiving or misleading our users and/or us as to your true identity" This clause literally prevents pseudonyms. I cannot, by this TOS, register as "rahaeli" as that is not my "true identity" (see also: nymwars).

226

6. 🚩🚩🚩 "You may not post User Content that infringes others' intellectual property or proprietary rights." I will die on the bill that fanworks are not *automatically* an IP violation, but as written, this clause prevents almost every form of fanwork that is not parody.

220

Now we get into the really bizarre clauses people went "wtf" about, and I'm almost out of tweets in the thread as I compose it, so I'm hitting post but oh boy am I gonna still be going for a while, hold your questions to the end

161

🚩 "You agree to provide support for your User Content." I get that they want to make a product where you can charge people to access your stuff, but this is imposing a permanent obligation on you to provide user support for any of that content.

165

Make video game mods (not with that IP violation clause you don't!) or textures or sell Photoshop brushes or whatever? Browser extensions? This clause says you will be required to update them to new OSes and browsers in perpetuity, because there is no reasonable limit.

161

🚩🚩🚩 "The User Content must not be stored in a data repository that would enable any third-party access. You must store all User Content in a manner which enables you to identify, segregate and selectively delete such User Content."

151

This is the Terms of Service of a hosting provider and/or SaaS platform that they copied and dropped in here and it makes LITERALLY NO SENSE. Like. I can squint at this and see that maybe they mean, if you sell content to people on their platform, you can't also keep--

175

--that content in any kind of other repository or use any other platform other than theirs to distribute it? But that second sentence has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on literally any of the way anyone could use their site and its presence there means they have NO FUCKING CLUE.

169

🚩 "You must own all rights, title, and interest, including all intellectual property rights, in and to, the User Content you make available on the Services." Again, that's the second ban on most fanworks. Start a count, I think my first read had more instances later.

169

🚩🚩🚩 "By posting User Content on the Services, you grant ASSC a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide license to use, reproduce, distribute, perform, publicly display or prepare derivative works of your User Content."

161

Okay. We've talked about the rights grant clause in ToSes before l, and by now everyone knows to point me at people who have read a ToS for the first time and are freaking out about "perpetual, irrevocable license to use--", right?

153