> Whether or not Samsung’s updated terms affect you, you’ll have to accept them in order to get the reassurance that no-one has logged into your Samsung account, and is currently monitoring your whereabouts using the “find my device” feature, checking out your frequent locations in “Places”, or using your profile pic to create fake accounts elsewhere. If you don’t want to accept terms and conditions foisted on you with the barest nod towards consent, well, that’s tough really.
Android users might unknowingly be victims of location monitoring by a hacker, and users are forced to accept new ToS just to verify whether this is or isn't happening.
Yuck, what a user-hostile privacy+security mess. A total failure on the "Keep-Users-Safe" front.
> One new aspect which may scare Samsung customers is:
> “We respect the intellectual property rights of others. We may suspend or delete an account or stop providing all or part of our Services to an account if we reasonably believe that such an account has repeatedly infringed intellectual property rights.”
> The terms don’t say what constitutes reasonable belief.
You have no digital rights. And yes, it's a private company, blah blah blah. But you still have no digital rights. And most everything happens on the Internet now. Think.
The terms also don't define "intellectual property". Or "respect". Or "that".
Reasonable belief is a well understood concept. It doesn't need a definition in the terms of service. A judge reviewing a complaint by a party against Samsung will understand what "reasonable belief" means.
> But you still have no digital rights.
I think you're confused. It seems like you want Samsung to not have digital rights. You have digital rights, but not to use someone else's system in a manner which they don't want. If they operate a system, they have a right to specify how users can and can't utilize the system. You have the same rights.
The problem here is that due process is extremely expensive to obtain. Let's say you have reverse engineered something, but the IP holder claims you stole it, so the provider shuts you down, and now you're losing money and you have to file a lawsuit in a possibly-hostile, far flung jurisdiction, and it may take weeks to get injunctive relief (if you get it), and months or years to settle the case, and all of this while having lost your income and having to foot hefty legal bills. Few will bother. The effect is chilling.
Thus, "reasonable belief", while a legal term of art, is pretty meaningless to users.
> It seems like you want Samsung to not have digital rights.
I wrote nothing of the sort. But now that you put me on the spot, I'll tell you what I want: either that users get better access to due process, or that common carriers to have less power over what they carry (not zero power, just less), or both. While it's true that there are expensive, abusive users out there, we need to strike a better balance for all the users who aren't.
First, I'd like users to get a reasonable amount of time to challenge any suspensions or bans before they take effect, using an internal appeals process. Second, I'd like users to get a reasonable amount of time to further appeal lost appeals, again, internally. Thirdly, I'd like there to be some civil and criminal liability for making false reports, and some civil liability for common carriers acting on false reports. I.e., the costs to common carriers of acting rashly should be a great deal greater than they are currently.
The appeals process is what determines that it's child porn.
Also, not all of the things described even count as "forced to keep serving child porn". For instance, civil liability for acting on false reports doesn't force Facebook to keep serving child porn.
So a moderator sees a video of 5 year old being raped. Your system needs this content to stay up for a reasonable amount of time for someone to challenge it, and for it to go through an appeals process before the moderator can say that this really is child porn and they can remove the content?
I'm responding to this part:
> First, I'd like users to get a reasonable amount of time to challenge any suspensions or bans before they take effect, using an internal appeals process
I would like to point out that at some point in this debate the goalposts were moved from a civil case to a criminal one, and the liabilities (and harm) are entirely different.
Not really. We were talking about terms of service, and I imagine posting child porn is against the ToS. The system proposed lets the content stay up until an appeal period is over.
Regardless of whether or not cp is against the tos, or there is a legal process in place for takedowns, the law against cp existing will kick in faster as sharing it is a criminal act regardless of why, who, or what posted/hosted it, so it won't stay up. It's a moot point.
The terms of service under discussion are about copyright infringement. The content itself is not illegal, and the dispute is about the rights to post it. Two very different things.
It's not a moot point. Let's say I post child porn on facebook. A cop sees it and I get arrested immediately. Is the post going to magically get taken down? Can cops force me to log into facebook and delete a post? Whatever communication process there is between a cop and facebook, perhaps mediated by a judge, will take some time. In that time, a moderator may have also seen the content, but they aren't allowed to take it down in the proposed system, at least without the appeals going through. The moderator has no idea the person who posted it was arrested - how would they?
And, maybe the child porn isn't actually child porn. Maybe it is totally legal, consenting adults having sex on video, but the adult just looks like a child. Yes, this has actually happened (article in Spanish): https://archive.ph/20140811233956/http://www.eldia.com.ar/ed...
The porn star had to travel to the court to testify that she was 19 during the filming of the scene, otherwise the person may have received 20 years in jail for possessing "child porn". Posting that video on facebook wouldn't be illegal, it would just be against the ToS.
It will be taken down because it's illegal for that content to be posted /at all/.
The proposed system is about who has the rights to post something, and a delay while that's figured out. However /nobody/ has the right to post cp, as it is /always/ illegal.
It is possible for something to mistakenly be identified as CP, so you're right there. I'm arguing based on your original supposition that it /is/ CP.
Also regarding
> I'm responding to this part:
>> First, I'd like users to get a reasonable amount of time to challenge any suspensions or bans before they take effect, using an internal appeals process
Nobody says it has to stay up during the appeals process, just that account suspensions and punishment have to wait. It's possible to have different takedown policies based on the level of accusation.
Just recently, there was a story of man who lost access to his google account (email, etc) because Google accused him of sending child pornography. The images in question? They were pictures his doctor requested he take and send to him. The police looked into it and were very clear that it was _not_ child pornography. It's bad enough the man lost access to his account without warning or the ability to question the charges before it happened. It's even worse the Google did not re-instate the account, because they decided their automated system acted correctly; even though it's been factually shown they they were wrong.
So YES, Facebook should need to give the person the right to defend themselves before acting taking action because of _alleged_ child porn.
I would classify various types of ToS offenses. ToS offenses that are also criminal offenses would have a different appeals path since, among other things, the user would get reported to police. As well, the civil liability on FB/whoever would be that if the claimed offense was false and sustained throughout the appeals internal process, then the user would have basis for a civil suit. A false claim that you put of CSAM would be devastating to your reputation, would it not? Surely you'd want to get made whole following such a devastating false claim!
Let's turn your boogie man around. What should happen if your small business page that you were using to drive revenue out of which you're paying a small payroll were taken down due to false or otherwise incorrect claims that you're violating the hosting company's ToS? You'd take that lying down and say "well, I must have done something!"? Obviously not, not if you knew you hadn't "done something".
I don't like your approach to debating these things. It feels like it's not in good faith. I put effort into my replies and you come back with boogie man retorts.
> "It seems like you want Samsung to not have digital rights."
Never thought I'd see the day people would be arguing vehemently for the rights of multi-billion dollar international conglomerates with an army of highly paid legal staff so that they can arbitrarily mistreat consumers. Has the world gone mad?
But they can't arbitrarily mistreat customers. Which is what the ToS is about.
And I'm merely reminding OP that companies, as just a group of people with a common goal, have rights too, because OP seemed to have forgotten that. I'm not out here shouting it in the drive thru line at a Wendy's.
> But they can't arbitrarily mistreat customers. Which is what the ToS is about.
Users have almost no way to enforce what little the ToSes grant them, and no injunctive relief w/o a great deal of effort beyond the reach of most users.
> And I'm merely reminding OP that companies, as just a group of people with a common goal, have rights too, because OP seemed to have forgotten that.
Stop ascribing to me things I did not write and about which I've already corrected you. Keep things civil please.
It's a real problem that corporations can afford to spend much more time writing these agreements than customers can spend comparing them.
I'd certainly prefer to choose a competitor that didn't have abusive terms, but I don't think the market would really reward a company that offers such. Most customers just wouldn't even realize they care about it, until it bites them.
There's only one way to avoid (most of) the abuse. Get a device without a locked bootloader and don't use any cloud services other than fungible raw compute/data. Use open software to interface with said services.
>They also remove the prohibition against class action lawsuits, and allow disputes to be settled in court instead of through arbitration. This is actually good news for litigation-minded Samsung customers - especially in light of certain recent data breaches and unnecessary delays in reporting them.
Fun fact: much of this is because lawyers started telling people how to launch arbitration en-masse, and it turns out you cannot legally compel arbitration without also offering to pay for it. And since there's no class-action provision with most arbitration companies, it was actually more expensive to compel arbitration than to just take the class-actions.
Companies have started prohibiting mass arbitration in their ToS in response.
Edit 1: Since people requested an example, here's Adobe's:
> The Notice of Claim must provide Adobe with fair notice of your identity, a description of the nature and basis of your Claim, and the relief you are seeking, including the specific amount of any monetary relief you are seeking, and cannot be combined with a Notice of Claim for other individuals.
> You and PayPal agree that each of us may bring claims against the other only on an individual basis and not as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class or representative action or proceeding. Unless both you and PayPal agree otherwise, the arbitrator may not consolidate or join more than one person's or party's claims and may not otherwise preside over any form of a consolidated, representative or class proceeding. Also, the arbitrator may award relief (including monetary, injunctive and declaratory relief) only in favor of the individual party seeking relief and only to the extent necessary to provide relief necessitated by that party's individual claim(s). Any relief awarded cannot affect other PayPal or Venmo customers.
Legally they are sometimes responsible anyway, but by warning they can get out of some because you shouldn't have been where there damage happened and were warned. If a truck passes you and something from it hits you they are liable, but.if you are following too close that is your own fault and the warning can help make that clear.
ToS contain all sorts of things not actually enforceable, the issue is whether or not you want to spend the money on a lawyer to get through those speed bumps too.
If he's willing to go through 1000 individual proceedings, probably not? I'm not sure how long proceedings take, but I imagine that would take a good chunk of the lawyer's life (1000 one-week proceedings = 20 years).
Send 1000 copies of the same letter to the arbitration firm. When BigCo tries to get you to agree to combine the claims, agree to do so if and only if they pay out $1M to cover the legal expenses they are avoiding.
The point is making arbitration expensive. In order to set up the process by which Venmo will have to pay an arbitrator to manage 1000 claims, it costs the lawyer 1000 sheets of paper and 1000 stamps.
Time to hire 100 interns for a couple weeks. Presumably the proceedings are all more or less the same, so you only need a good lawyer to work it out once and an army of low-paid helpers to repeat the recipe book 990 times.
Don't these both benefit mass arbitration? The point, as I understand it, is to have a lot of people submit claims about an issue so the company is forced to pay for them all.
If, instead, claims could be combined then Adobe/PayPal/whoever could combine them all and presumably avoid paying to arbitrate each individually.
Well, I think it's safe to assume they don't, given companies started adding these terms after mass arbitration became popular.
As to how/why they don't, I'm not sure. But if I had to take a guess, I imagine motivations could include: (a) clogging the arbitration system to slow claims down to a crawl (since they can't be handled en masse), (b) making it difficult for every individual to demonstrate damages (since many people will not be able to prove actual harm), (c) forcing every individual to contribute significant time and effort into the process (which will not be worth it for many people, and practically impossible for many others).
The painful part is, if you're doing this for privacy reasons, you frequently have to give them more personal information (and accurate ones too! not bogus ones you might've used to sign up for an account) just to opt out. And you often don't get any acknowledgment of the opt-out either, which I imagine means you'll have to do this with e.g. certified mail and keep around evidence that you opted out. And if you gave them bogus info and now want to opt out... I imagine that might be a ToS violation which I expect would give them an excuse to toss your claim away. Not sure how any of these would fly in court, but as a layman it sure looks like a purposefully self-defeating uphill battle.
> I don't understand how it would improve privacy in the first place?
Same reason why you'd probably pay less attention to no-parking signs if you knew you'd likely face a $50 fine for violating them, vs. if you had to show up to court and testify in front of a judge. Milder consequences hold you less accountable and incentivize you to be more careless with everything, including people's privacy.
> 7.2. Formal Complaint Process. ... first contact Coinbase through our support team to attempt to resolve any such dispute amicably. If we cannot resolve the dispute through Coinbase Support, you agree to use the Formal Complaint Process set forth below before filing any arbitration claim or small claims action as described further in Appendix 5 below.
I think hinge, discord, draftkings also did it, guessing many others
And if you created your account before September 2021, Samsung is under no obligation to notify you when those terms change - unless you attempt to log into your online account, that is.
Wouldn't that depend on which legislation you live in?
I live in the Netherlands, created my account before September 2021, and Samsung keeps sending notifications to my phone urging me to accept their new terms.
Yeah, those are really annoying (and they change their terms every 3-4 months). I latsed 6 months, then deleted the Samsung account out of frustration.
If anyone from Samsung is reading this: please don't let the legal department have control over these kind of user-facing things.
> the new terms are instead, “governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction where you are a resident.” This could be good or bad, depending on where you live.
I'd like to see what happens when someone in Afghanistan with a late-model Samsung android phone files a lawsuit against them in the Taliban's local sharia law court.
Absolutely nothing because obviously they won't show up, Samsung doesn't have any presence in Afganistan, and Taliban do not have any ability to enforce their rulings outside of Afganistan.
You may laugh, but the local sharia judges generally have a reputation of being impartial and of not taking bribes. Apparently it's not uncommon to agree to have a dispute arbitrated by a kadi both parties agree on. Regular court is just hopelessly corrupt.
I know this is tongue-in-cheek, but one of the reasons why the Taliban was tolerated in many areas is because they had very comprehensive courts that took cases quickly and gave justice swiftly (but probably not very fairly).
There is a story of a taliban fighter who had stolen from a local. The local opened a case at the local taliban court. Judge agreed with the local and whacked off the fighters hand right there.
Anyways, Samsung v Owner in a taliban court would be entertaining for sure.
I talked to a refugee from Afghanistan sometime back in 2005. He said that Taliban were extremist fanatics, but also claimed that they were the only faction under whom stable living was possible at the time, because, harsh as their laws were, they at least had laws and enforced them more or less consistently. OTOH, he claimed that Northern Alliance was little more than looters and rapists in practice, regardless of declared goals. I found that an interesting take, and perhaps it explains why Taliban could take over so quickly once US moved out (given that the US-backed Afghan govt was effectively the continuation of the Northern Alliance).
This isn't uncommon. I recall reading an article from the point of a woman in Afghanistan, where she said as much. The Taliban has issues, but the US army that empowered unjust warlords were much worse.
> Nearly every person Shakira knew had a story about Dado. Once, his fighters demanded that two young men either pay a tax or join his private militia, which he maintained despite holding his official post. When they refused, his fighters beat them to death, stringing their bodies up from a tree. A villager recalled, “We went to cut them down, and they had been sliced open, their stomachs coming out.” In another village, Dado’s forces went from house to house, executing people suspected of being Taliban; an elderly scholar who’d never belonged to the movement was shot dead
>When I asked Shakira and other women from the valley to reflect on Taliban rule, they were unwilling to judge the movement against some universal standard—only against what had come before. “They were softer,” Pazaro, the woman who lived in a neighboring village, said. “They were dealing with us respectfully.” The women described their lives under the Taliban as identical to their lives under Dado and the mujahideen—minus the strangers barging through the doors at night, the deadly checkpoints.
>“My daughter wakes up screaming that the Americans are coming,” Pazaro said. “We have to keep talking to her softly, and tell her, ‘No, no, they won’t come back.’
So as a result you have people who don't agree with the Taliban ideologically, joining them just to keep American empowered war lords from killing civilians;
>But in countryside enclaves like Sangin the ceaseless killings of civilians led many Afghans to gravitate toward the Taliban. By 2010, many households in Ishaqzai villages had sons in the Taliban, most of whom had joined simply to protect themselves or to take revenge; the movement was more thoroughly integrated into Sangin life than it had been in the nineties. Now, when Shakira and her friends discussed the Taliban, they were discussing their own friends, neighbors, and loved ones.
Unfortunately these real stories aren't told. I consider myself a liberal, but the amount of liberals bemoaning America leaving Afghanistan was scary. People completely convinced they know the best thing for these people they never met, while American journalism made it clear that the death and rape of American rule in the Afghanistan countryside was not the feminist human rights- filled utopia some still think it was. When you see this, it makes sense why they so easily took over.
Rural Pashtuns that live in the heartland of Helmand province (Sangin, etc) already lived in a lifestyle, culture and religious ideology that is a 90% overlap with the Taliban.
Ask somebody with an education from Kabul or Mazar-e-Sharif or Herat and you'll get a very different answer.
But yes, the justice system under the Karzai and then Ghani governments did become hopelessly corrupt and untrustworthy.
Probably pretty well, as the content seems to be static HTML, any sensible apache2 or nginx configuration (And linux kernel storage-to-ram caching) will keep the frequently-accessed HTTP GET requests in RAM. And a raspberry pi with 4 or 8GB of RAM has enough resources for quite a lot of simultaneous threads.
Past experience with articles making it to HN FP show it can handle up to around 3K visits /hour without too much trouble. Maybe more, but my Matomo analytics instance tends to give up around then. Right now it's pulling maybe 700 visits/ hour.
If it starts looking bad, I'll move the site onto a VPS
A pi 4b is more power than the basic 1 vcpu, 1gb or 2gb VPSes a lot of personal blogs on this site use. If it's a static site (and it appears to be, meta generator=Jekyll) then a pi 4b should be plenty for HN.
The hack shows, that users data is at risk regardless of whether users accept the T&Cs.....how moronic to think that accepting new T&C will somehow negate another hack or data breach.
74 comments
[ 0.27 ms ] story [ 136 ms ] thread> Whether or not Samsung’s updated terms affect you, you’ll have to accept them in order to get the reassurance that no-one has logged into your Samsung account, and is currently monitoring your whereabouts using the “find my device” feature, checking out your frequent locations in “Places”, or using your profile pic to create fake accounts elsewhere. If you don’t want to accept terms and conditions foisted on you with the barest nod towards consent, well, that’s tough really.
Android users might unknowingly be victims of location monitoring by a hacker, and users are forced to accept new ToS just to verify whether this is or isn't happening.
Yuck, what a user-hostile privacy+security mess. A total failure on the "Keep-Users-Safe" front.
Anyway, I deleted my Samsung account mostly because of the annoying ToS updates I received frequently.
Kind a shame really, I very much liked Samsungs voice assistent. That was actually the main reason I created the Samsung account...
> “We respect the intellectual property rights of others. We may suspend or delete an account or stop providing all or part of our Services to an account if we reasonably believe that such an account has repeatedly infringed intellectual property rights.”
> The terms don’t say what constitutes reasonable belief.
You have no digital rights. And yes, it's a private company, blah blah blah. But you still have no digital rights. And most everything happens on the Internet now. Think.
Reasonable belief is a well understood concept. It doesn't need a definition in the terms of service. A judge reviewing a complaint by a party against Samsung will understand what "reasonable belief" means.
> But you still have no digital rights.
I think you're confused. It seems like you want Samsung to not have digital rights. You have digital rights, but not to use someone else's system in a manner which they don't want. If they operate a system, they have a right to specify how users can and can't utilize the system. You have the same rights.
Thus, "reasonable belief", while a legal term of art, is pretty meaningless to users.
> It seems like you want Samsung to not have digital rights.
I wrote nothing of the sort. But now that you put me on the spot, I'll tell you what I want: either that users get better access to due process, or that common carriers to have less power over what they carry (not zero power, just less), or both. While it's true that there are expensive, abusive users out there, we need to strike a better balance for all the users who aren't.
First, I'd like users to get a reasonable amount of time to challenge any suspensions or bans before they take effect, using an internal appeals process. Second, I'd like users to get a reasonable amount of time to further appeal lost appeals, again, internally. Thirdly, I'd like there to be some civil and criminal liability for making false reports, and some civil liability for common carriers acting on false reports. I.e., the costs to common carriers of acting rashly should be a great deal greater than they are currently.
Also, not all of the things described even count as "forced to keep serving child porn". For instance, civil liability for acting on false reports doesn't force Facebook to keep serving child porn.
I'm responding to this part:
> First, I'd like users to get a reasonable amount of time to challenge any suspensions or bans before they take effect, using an internal appeals process
The terms of service under discussion are about copyright infringement. The content itself is not illegal, and the dispute is about the rights to post it. Two very different things.
And, maybe the child porn isn't actually child porn. Maybe it is totally legal, consenting adults having sex on video, but the adult just looks like a child. Yes, this has actually happened (article in Spanish): https://archive.ph/20140811233956/http://www.eldia.com.ar/ed...
The porn star had to travel to the court to testify that she was 19 during the filming of the scene, otherwise the person may have received 20 years in jail for possessing "child porn". Posting that video on facebook wouldn't be illegal, it would just be against the ToS.
The proposed system is about who has the rights to post something, and a delay while that's figured out. However /nobody/ has the right to post cp, as it is /always/ illegal.
It is possible for something to mistakenly be identified as CP, so you're right there. I'm arguing based on your original supposition that it /is/ CP.
Also regarding
> I'm responding to this part:
>> First, I'd like users to get a reasonable amount of time to challenge any suspensions or bans before they take effect, using an internal appeals process
Nobody says it has to stay up during the appeals process, just that account suspensions and punishment have to wait. It's possible to have different takedown policies based on the level of accusation.
So YES, Facebook should need to give the person the right to defend themselves before acting taking action because of _alleged_ child porn.
Let's turn your boogie man around. What should happen if your small business page that you were using to drive revenue out of which you're paying a small payroll were taken down due to false or otherwise incorrect claims that you're violating the hosting company's ToS? You'd take that lying down and say "well, I must have done something!"? Obviously not, not if you knew you hadn't "done something".
I don't like your approach to debating these things. It feels like it's not in good faith. I put effort into my replies and you come back with boogie man retorts.
Never thought I'd see the day people would be arguing vehemently for the rights of multi-billion dollar international conglomerates with an army of highly paid legal staff so that they can arbitrarily mistreat consumers. Has the world gone mad?
And I'm merely reminding OP that companies, as just a group of people with a common goal, have rights too, because OP seemed to have forgotten that. I'm not out here shouting it in the drive thru line at a Wendy's.
Users have almost no way to enforce what little the ToSes grant them, and no injunctive relief w/o a great deal of effort beyond the reach of most users.
> And I'm merely reminding OP that companies, as just a group of people with a common goal, have rights too, because OP seemed to have forgotten that.
Stop ascribing to me things I did not write and about which I've already corrected you. Keep things civil please.
I'd certainly prefer to choose a competitor that didn't have abusive terms, but I don't think the market would really reward a company that offers such. Most customers just wouldn't even realize they care about it, until it bites them.
Fun fact: much of this is because lawyers started telling people how to launch arbitration en-masse, and it turns out you cannot legally compel arbitration without also offering to pay for it. And since there's no class-action provision with most arbitration companies, it was actually more expensive to compel arbitration than to just take the class-actions.
Edit 1: Since people requested an example, here's Adobe's:
> The Notice of Claim must provide Adobe with fair notice of your identity, a description of the nature and basis of your Claim, and the relief you are seeking, including the specific amount of any monetary relief you are seeking, and cannot be combined with a Notice of Claim for other individuals.
Edit 2: Here's Venmo's, which is more comprehensive (https://venmo.com/legal/us-user-agreement/):
> You and PayPal agree that each of us may bring claims against the other only on an individual basis and not as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class or representative action or proceeding. Unless both you and PayPal agree otherwise, the arbitrator may not consolidate or join more than one person's or party's claims and may not otherwise preside over any form of a consolidated, representative or class proceeding. Also, the arbitrator may award relief (including monetary, injunctive and declaratory relief) only in favor of the individual party seeking relief and only to the extent necessary to provide relief necessitated by that party's individual claim(s). Any relief awarded cannot affect other PayPal or Venmo customers.
Thank you for the examples by the way.
I do wonder if the Arbitration Society will find these terms acceptable. They have some ability to throw out unfair terms (in respect to arbitration).
If, instead, claims could be combined then Adobe/PayPal/whoever could combine them all and presumably avoid paying to arbitrate each individually.
Well, I think it's safe to assume they don't, given companies started adding these terms after mass arbitration became popular.
As to how/why they don't, I'm not sure. But if I had to take a guess, I imagine motivations could include: (a) clogging the arbitration system to slow claims down to a crawl (since they can't be handled en masse), (b) making it difficult for every individual to demonstrate damages (since many people will not be able to prove actual harm), (c) forcing every individual to contribute significant time and effort into the process (which will not be worth it for many people, and practically impossible for many others).
It looks to me like they never considered "opting out of arbitration for privacy reasons".
I don't understand how it would improve privacy in the first place?
Same reason why you'd probably pay less attention to no-parking signs if you knew you'd likely face a $50 fine for violating them, vs. if you had to show up to court and testify in front of a judge. Milder consequences hold you less accountable and incentivize you to be more careless with everything, including people's privacy.
this is coinbase:
https://www.coinbase.com/legal/user_agreement/united_states#...
> 7.2. Formal Complaint Process. ... first contact Coinbase through our support team to attempt to resolve any such dispute amicably. If we cannot resolve the dispute through Coinbase Support, you agree to use the Formal Complaint Process set forth below before filing any arbitration claim or small claims action as described further in Appendix 5 below.
I think hinge, discord, draftkings also did it, guessing many others
I guess I’ll just unplug the network table, assuming it can’t tunnel back up the HDMI cable to my Apple TV.
Wouldn't that depend on which legislation you live in?
If anyone from Samsung is reading this: please don't let the legal department have control over these kind of user-facing things.
I created it when I set up my current phone, but I'm not sure if it even adds anything over a Google account.
I'd like to see what happens when someone in Afghanistan with a late-model Samsung android phone files a lawsuit against them in the Taliban's local sharia law court.
There is a story of a taliban fighter who had stolen from a local. The local opened a case at the local taliban court. Judge agreed with the local and whacked off the fighters hand right there.
Anyways, Samsung v Owner in a taliban court would be entertaining for sure.
> Nearly every person Shakira knew had a story about Dado. Once, his fighters demanded that two young men either pay a tax or join his private militia, which he maintained despite holding his official post. When they refused, his fighters beat them to death, stringing their bodies up from a tree. A villager recalled, “We went to cut them down, and they had been sliced open, their stomachs coming out.” In another village, Dado’s forces went from house to house, executing people suspected of being Taliban; an elderly scholar who’d never belonged to the movement was shot dead
>When I asked Shakira and other women from the valley to reflect on Taliban rule, they were unwilling to judge the movement against some universal standard—only against what had come before. “They were softer,” Pazaro, the woman who lived in a neighboring village, said. “They were dealing with us respectfully.” The women described their lives under the Taliban as identical to their lives under Dado and the mujahideen—minus the strangers barging through the doors at night, the deadly checkpoints.
>“My daughter wakes up screaming that the Americans are coming,” Pazaro said. “We have to keep talking to her softly, and tell her, ‘No, no, they won’t come back.’
So as a result you have people who don't agree with the Taliban ideologically, joining them just to keep American empowered war lords from killing civilians;
>But in countryside enclaves like Sangin the ceaseless killings of civilians led many Afghans to gravitate toward the Taliban. By 2010, many households in Ishaqzai villages had sons in the Taliban, most of whom had joined simply to protect themselves or to take revenge; the movement was more thoroughly integrated into Sangin life than it had been in the nineties. Now, when Shakira and her friends discussed the Taliban, they were discussing their own friends, neighbors, and loved ones.
Unfortunately these real stories aren't told. I consider myself a liberal, but the amount of liberals bemoaning America leaving Afghanistan was scary. People completely convinced they know the best thing for these people they never met, while American journalism made it clear that the death and rape of American rule in the Afghanistan countryside was not the feminist human rights- filled utopia some still think it was. When you see this, it makes sense why they so easily took over.
https://www.newyorker.com./magazine/2021/09/13/the-other-afg...
Ask somebody with an education from Kabul or Mazar-e-Sharif or Herat and you'll get a very different answer.
But yes, the justice system under the Karzai and then Ghani governments did become hopelessly corrupt and untrustworthy.
If it starts looking bad, I'll move the site onto a VPS
I guess normies will believe it ... :(