ADT would appreciate if you agree never to criticize it


Originally published at:



I’d appreciate it if ADT’s legal council used a dental dam when they kiss my ass.


We hope that you continue to be a part of the #ADTfamily

So that’s what smarmy means? I was never entirely sure.




Just because you aren’t as hip as ADT is no reason to disparage them in violation of their terms of service!


WHAT!! I’ll have you know I am the very definition of “more hip than a burglar alarm!”


I second that.


Why would anyone pay for ADT month after month for years, when for a one time you can hook The Clapper™ up to a stereo to play scary ghost music and buy a badass revolver in case that doesn’t scare the robbers off?


When the corporate bots someday control everything we’ll resort to Strangers-On-A-Train-esque means of exacting our vengefully critical online postings about ADT’s crappy personal defense systems.


Linking, even “internal linking” only tells the prospective user where to ASK for a page. The linkee is free to provide or not provide the requested information. Linking needs no permission from the linked. It violates no copyright* because the “copy” is provided by the linkee.

*of course if the person with the server providing the copy is NOT authorized by the copyright owner to do so, there may well be copyright infringement, but it is not the linkee providing the copy.


Streisand Effect in action.


Is anyone else left wondering(in a totally non-disparaging, purely inquisitive, sort of way, of course) exactly what would inspire a company to do this?

Newly hired certified jerkass in Legal? Trying to get ahead of some painfully sketchy subscription billing scam? Embarrassing report of vulnerability in poorly thought out hardware?

This just seems like the sort of decision where anyone who makes it purely of their own volition is a terrible person and anyone who allows him to is complicit; and anyone who feels pressed by circumstance to do so has something unpleasant to hide; absolutely no innocent explanations on the board, period. If it were any more direct, ADP would be disparaging themselves by adding such a clause.


There’s no reason to do this, and lots of reasons not too. For instance, take a look at every single time some company on Yelp has gotten all pissy over people giving negative reviews.

Crying over this shit can only lead to your own destruction. You have to be stupid or evil to ever think it might possibly work.


I dunno. You didn’t even use one hash tag.


ADT is a shitty company


Just gonna leave this here:

Just $24, and no binding arbitration clause. Likely, near as matters, as effective.




So, if I say that the website, including the non-disparaging clause, is “spot-on”, is that a form of disparaging in itself?

(is this some new type of paradox example?)


Well that’s a shame, because I feel pretty inclined to disparage them about the time one of their salesmen told me I could cancel my contract with no penalty if I ended up moving overseas and then ADT told me that wasn’t true after I actually did so.


To be fair, @LDoBe didn’t say “stupid XOR evil”.