Every day, we work to make our platform the best it can be, which includes regularly revisiting our terms and policies (also known as our House Rules) to make sure they meet the needs of our growing community and allow us to continue to support you. Today, we’re sharing a few updates that go into effect on September 15, 2024.

We’ve made some changes to our dispute resolution clause (section 11) for users in North and South America, with updates to our arbitration procedures for smaller matters and for coordinated or “mass” arbitrations (with 25 or more claimants). We have also updated the choice of law that’s applicable to the Terms. As before, the arbitration agreement includes a class action and jury waiver, which means we’ll be resolving most disputes in private, individual arbitration, and not in court. Please read this section carefully. We’ve added which entity acts as the merchant of record, depending on a buyer’s currency and location of your payment instrument.

So, if you’re upset at all you can’t sue, you can’t go to the courts, you have to sit in a an arbitration with someone we choose who (trust us) won’t be biased.

To add in, an annoyance for sure:

Effective July 29, our Adult Nudity and Sexual Content Policy introduces more rigorous guidelines regarding our prohibitions of nude or sexual content, as well as how to appropriately list certain mature content.

  • 9point6@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    121
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    How is it remotely legal for a company to opt out of the standard legal process?

    America are you actually capable of not being cartoonishly malicious towards your people?

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.techOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Would it hold up in court? Probably not. But in America the court system is pay to win, and does any person have the funds to go up against a literal team of lawyers paid top dollar by their backing corporation?

      So yeah, you could sue them and say the license agreement doesn’t matter that it’s not legal, but you’re going to bankrupt yourself doing so.

      America, land of the “free”

    • RangerJosie@sffa.community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      No. Being cartoonishly malicious towards our wage slaves is our guiding principle.

      That poetic sounding “Shining city on a hill” is a gated community surrounded by slums that don’t have electricity.

    • doctortofu@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s baffling, isn’t it? How can a company just unilaterally decide to not be subject to this or that law, and the courts just… go with it? It’s the same level of idiocy exhibited by sovereign citizens, but somehow, when you’re a corporation they actually let you do it…

    • jecxjo
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      The idea is that if you wanted to fight a big company with lawyers you’ll either lose because they will delay till you’re broke, or you’ll win but the lawyers will get most of the money. If you have a legit issue they would honor resolving the issue without anyone having to spend time, money, and publicity in court. It means you might actually win one of these times. The joke part is we already have an unbiased arbitration system…our courts.

      This is legal, currently, because this is basically a non-disclosure. We will deal with our problems outside the legal system and no one will talk about it. We do this in other cases but its usually human to human, not human to massive corporate entity.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        The real reason all the companies are coming up with forced arbitration clauses is that it kills class-action lawsuits.

    • artemisRiverborne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      It is because the company can claim u opted to use their service so they can make whatever rules they want, and the company has nothing to lose by pushing the legal limits bc the company is a person so none of the ceos or board members will ever be held responsible. Welcome to capitalism unchecked