503
TikTok requires users to “forever waive” rights to sue over past harms
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
503 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
59205 readers
3210 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If it's not illegal to add, the only risk is bad press coverage, and it might prevent someone from suing in the first place because they don't know their rights.
Except in several states if any of the contract is invalid it all is.
In the United States where TikTok is based, contracts can include "severability clauses" that state that in the event any part of the contract is deemed unenforceable, the other parts are still good
Uhhh tiktok is based in China
it's owned by a Chinese company, but TikTok itself is based in the US
Wasn't there a big hoohar about that a couple of years ago which meant they had to move?
Corporate:'I'm sorry you were looking for an issue with tik tok. the problem is. tik tok is not the issue.'
due to dividends untold tik tok just money guns politicians in the cooter till they spazzin...
What
My Comment In gest " we investigated ourselves and found there to be nothing wrong, also we gave money to policy makers."
did you forget what you typed above? was my comment so far left field?
I have no idea what the "due to..." sentence means.
due to dividend untold...due to money with unlimited wallet depth.
that better?
That’s not a common thing in American contracts. Severability clauses take care of that.
Is that true? I can't find any source for it, except very specific cases where the language and contents of the contract matter.
IANAL; However Usually the contracts have a severability clause, meaning even if some parts of that contract are null and void the rest of it stands minus the parts that are illegal. Does that mean those clauses are also null and void depending on locality? Again IANAL, but I believe it's pretty settled contract law at least in the US.
It's a pretty common clause in most contracts, so I'm not sure why you're so confident that they aren't used in EULAs
Precisely for this reason?
I...misread the previous message. Makes sense.
So that the entire contract isn't void if one provision is struck down.
We need legislation to fix this. Something like "should a contract drafted by a lawyer include clauses that they knew or should have known to be unenforceable or void, the entire contract shall be unenforceable by the drafting party"