29 comments

[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 23.7 ms ] thread
> You need to enable JavaScript to play.

I didn't enable JavaScript. Does that mean I win?

Yes. You won the whole internet.
The Sequel: Decline e-Delivery.
Their heroku setup is having a moment. But if this is about the game I've been playing with my rude ass car that started nagging me about Kia's t&c update, weeks after i first got it, every time i start the engine...

I'm not sure if I'm winning and I'm not sure if the game is fun anymore. at least the car and I have been playing a single game of me declining the t&c and please ask me again later for some three years and a few months now. So the replay value is high.

Also sometimes my wife pretends to go for the "accept" button and it makes me all hot and bothered

My Toyota also got that game in a DLC about a year after I bought it
Broken for me, but going off of the headline, I have been playing the same game with Apple Health. Refuse to accept what probably gives them some wiggle room to monetize my health information. Which also means that I cannot setup a wake up alarm, only generic alarms.
Shameless Plug

I created this web application to review the terms and conditions of website and show an LLM surface the ugly parts of the TOS.

tosreview.org/

Shoutout: this was inspired by the amazing humans at tosdr.org

Just wanted to say thank you. It prompted a review of our own T&Cs.
It hallucinates on sites that have simple terms that say we don't collect anything or has minimal collections like IP navigation history to check bad actors which are auto removed.

I would assume that if it can't handle understanding two paragraphs, it's worthless to be run on a 30+ page TOS.

For mandatory T&Cs I'll put in the signature box "Decline", including updating the HTML page to say "decline" instead of "OK" and screenshotting it or modifying the HTTP response sent back to include riders.

I know it probably won't matter, but it's kind of fun for me.

No chance that would hold up in court. Clickwraps have been tested in courts and are fully enforceable.
(comment deleted)
Inb4 a dozen non-lawyers give confident proclamations as to the law.
> An error occurred in the application and your page could not be served. If you are the application owner, check your logs for details. You can do this from the Heroku CLI with the command heroku logs --tail
Site's borked, but for those that were able to access it, is it like Ente's https://consent.gg/ ?
Note to everyone: disable your adblocker when visiting that website, or you'll see only an empty page with a countdown.
The app is erroring out for me, but I have a suspicion it's a "Neal-like"?
i don't understand people believe it whether you accept or deny, does it matter if i had to log i will its not my site will have to pass all test about malpractice before being publish, or on everyday basis

Those prompt are not real prompts from browser permission system itself that if you deny will prevent site from accesing any data

those are dummy

It's not working. Shows an error.
Someone went to sleep after a long day of work and the heroku servers crashed, this is why you need monitoring and alerts people
The world should just follow the Dutch and stop pretending like explicit consent occurs or matters for standard terms and conditions:

http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/civilcodebook066.htm

As long as you had the opportunity to read them, you and the company are bound by them even if it is clear you never read them. Surprising terms and conditions are always voidable. There is a whole large list of voidable stipulations. I prefer Canadian law (this differs by province) where voidable stipulations invalidate the contract to a standard contract on the other hand.

Why not go further?

There should be a master book of civil contracts that can be filled out in a "Mad Libs" sort of way, but nothing else is legally enforcable. Every sales contract or employment term is the same with only narrow, permitted variations.

This could streamline the legal system because it turns potentially infinite contract designs into a much more constrained problem space. You'd quickly build enough precedent that even lay people could understand the mechanism.

Trying to add a new term would require revising the master book, which would be a very public and political process that would likely shame the instigator (just why are you so desperate to force arbitration?)

The whole "contracts are a voluntary, negotiated, meeting of the minds" perspective feels quaint and 1700s, from an era before billion-dollar companies, and even before formal law schools. Negotiations are rarely between equal parties on a level footing these days.

(comment deleted)