0
2

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The judge ruled that Twitter’s belief that it had a right to ban users “at any time, for any reason, or no reason” could be a legally unconscionable policy on the company’s part.

What does that even mean? Why should a court be able to rule that a private agreement is "unconscoinable"? It's their servers, they should be able to do what they like with them.

"The judge also ruled that Twitter could be sued on the basis of misleading its users, due to the platform’s promise – frequently expressed, frequently violated – not to ban accounts on the basis of viewpoint or political affiliation."

That's a bit more reasonable, but what actual damages occurred? It's not like he paid twitter for that account, it was free.

I wish these guys would stop being faggots expecting daddy government to make the marketplace fair and just vote with their feet.

0
1

[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I haven’t read the decision, so I am not really sure of the judge’s conscionability argument. I am not sure I would have used that particular term. It generally has a very limited meaning in contracts law, so perhaps the judge is being stupid?

That said, I can think of a couple different arguments for why such a position by Twitter would potentially be a probelm under contracts law. I mean if they reserve the right to simply not provide their service to you at any time for any reason, they are proposing an entirely one sided contract in which you allow them access to your personal information and to their advertisements, but in return they are obligated to do nothing.

0
3

[–] NoisyCricket 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This is correct. Technically tort law (contract law) requires equitable negotiation between two parties, in good faith. This is why license agreements are frequently borderline unlawful and/or unenforceable.

Services like Twitter are using your labor in exchange to generate revenue via ads and information profile brokering. So in fact, even though it's a "free" account, there is still an exchange taking place of monetary value. Huge monetary value. That value can be averaged as total ad income, plus back end income, divided by total number of active accounts; though I'm sure that's not necessarily reflective of their model. Regardless, the point remains. Every real account is money and the exchange is for the "free" account holder's labor (participation).

As such, we are left with a one sided contract which was not fairly negotiated and was not honored in good faith. This also means they are in violation of truth in advertising law and guilty of perpetuating a fraud (example, bait and switch - as they offer a product they never intend to provide) upon the public. This places Twitter in violation of tort and criminal law.

Additionally, companies like Twitter, Google, and Facebook have become defacto communication infrastructure. Hell, POTUS depends on the public's ability to freely access his information. Combined with monopoly laws, it's touching upon iffy grounds on which Twitter stands. As such, they have a choice. They can honor their contract or remain in violation of tort and contract law. This ruling opens the door for massive legal action against them. By any and all who have had their speech suppressed or account blocked/shadow banned.

0
0

[–] Broc_Lia ago 

I mean if they reserve the right to simply not provide their service to you at any time for any reason, they are proposing an entirely one sided contract in which you allow them access to your personal information and to their advertisements, but in return they are obligated to do nothing.

Well sure, but there's nothing forcing you to enter into a one sided contract with twitter. If you think their TOS are unreasonable just don't use them.

0
0

[–] senpaithatignoresyou ago 

What does that even mean? Why should a court be able to rule that a private agreement is "unconscoinable"? It's their servers, they should be able to do what they like with them.

Great question. I suspect because it is a "bad faith" contract. They do their best to hide the fact that they will ban you for whatever reason. If they said "you may use our service, but only if you are a nigger faggot liberal degenerate", this would not be an issue. But they have not. They have made it out that everyone gets the same treatment, when this is not the case, and they have not established a payment system to differentiate. This is not allowed.

Twitter makes money off of user content, as such, they HAVE to have a legitimate reason to ban you. sure it is their servers, but those servers would be worthless if you did not use them. They are selling a free speech platform, in exchange for your content. You have PAID for that content. While not financially, you did none the less create content for them to profit off of, in exchange for use of the platform. This is an established and understood form of trade and barter in US business law.

I am not surprised that twitter is now in trouble. The big weakness in the liberal degenerate mindset is economics and business practices. There is an entire discipline of accounting and business law that specializes in non-financial transactions, it is extremely well established, and when twitter gets pummeled in this law suit we will see the social media as a propaganda business model evaporate.

0
0

[–] Broc_Lia ago 

Great question. I suspect because it is a "bad faith" contract. They do their best to hide the fact that they will ban you for whatever reason. If they said "you may use our service, but only if you are a nigger faggot liberal degenerate", this would not be an issue. But they have not. They have made it out that everyone gets the same treatment, when this is not the case, and they have not established a payment system to differentiate. This is not allowed.

Their terms of service may be vague, but I still recognise their right to build their community as they see fit. I'm not terribly interested in the whole civil rights idea of forcing businesses to treat everyone equally, it doesn't actually produce equality, just a lot of silly lawsuits.

Twitter makes money off of user content, as such, they HAVE to have a legitimate reason to ban you. sure it is their servers, but those servers would be worthless if you did not use them. They are selling a free speech platform, in exchange for your content. You have PAID for that content. While not financially, you did none the less create content for them to profit off of, in exchange for use of the platform. This is an established and understood form of trade and barter in US business law.

Even taking that as a given, it still doesn't make sense. If you're buying use of their service with your content, then they should still be free to say "your content isn't the kind we want, so we're not going to continue buying it in future."

I am not surprised that twitter is now in trouble. The big weakness in the liberal degenerate mindset is economics and business practices. There is an entire discipline of accounting and business law that specializes in non-financial transactions, it is extremely well established, and when twitter gets pummeled in this law suit we will see the social media as a propaganda business model evaporate.

I don't particularly want to see social media become as regulated and controlled as legacy media thanks.

0
1

[–] MrPim 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Do they actually advertise that? That's patently ridiculous.

0
0

[–] senpaithatignoresyou ago 

NOPE. They advertised that you may use the platform, and that twitter just needs your content. So by posting on twitter, you have in essence paid to use twitter. They can not willy nilly ban people for no reason, and they fact that they said so was an extremely bad move.

0
0

[–] carlip ago 

what are the damages? show me how you suffered an actual loss by not being able to use Twitter.

4
-4