Came back to compliment the pic as well and quote the line. One of the biggest laughs of my childhood was watching that scene, that setup, that delivery, that punchline
The results confirm my suspicions, but I can’t shake the thought that the students went into this thinking the purpose of the study was a response to the website they were viewing, and therefore may have trusted the authors of the study not to direct them to a dodgy website.
Still not a good reason to accept anything put in front of you blindly, but I think that would skew the results a little, no?
Considering many sites change their TOS after the fact, it doesn’t really matter what you’re agreeing to because it can change any time in the future without your consent.
Plus, things like requiring your firstborn are unenforceable, so that’s just a red herring. People can safely ignore it.
So all we’re left with is yet another study that shows people don’t read. Yawn.
3 Likes
Wait, 2% actually caught the first born clause? That’s the buried lede.
5 Likes
So according to these terms of service: “The party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part.”
How do you like that? That’s pretty neat, eh?
.
By that logic the TOS on Ashley Madison would be the “double biggest lie on the internet”?
I think that sure TOS, PP, EULA are all garbage, but BIGGEST LIE ON THE INTERNET is a pretty high title and not to be awarded lightly.
1 Like
Creative Commons has a pretty good approach. There’s the apparently necessary legalese, plus a plain-language translation of it. But that’s because CC didn’t write the licenses to serve and protect itself. I can envision CC or a similar nonprofit entity expanding into standardized EULAs, with the integrity of the CC brand being a consumer’s assurance that there aren’t any firstborn-child clauses.
3 Likes
1 Like
Is that the terms of service agreement in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?
If they’re really lucky they might get some identical twins to separate at birth!
Surprised the ethics committee let them away with it…
Yes, I really hate how they let you know “our terms of service have changed” and then give you the entire ToS text, instead of just the bits that have changed (with original and revision for comparison).
1 Like
I was going to link to the South Park episode Human Cent-iPad but this was the first thing on their website… I’m not chancing it!
2 Likes
No no, the point here is demonstrating what is considered reasonable for the average person.
The law can call for anything lawmakers want, anything at all.
But there are protections built in that require some level of reasonability.
Or whatever the term is.
Not that many lawmakers/LEO’s care, though.
As one of the few folks who actually read agreements I’m amazed at some of the things included which consumers agree to.
For a long time I declined to obtain an ATM card from my bank because the agreement included a clause to let them impose transaction fees without prior notice.
When my auto insurance company offered potential discounts based on a monitoring device I drilled down through the many agreements only to find that the monitoring service provider required that I hold them harmless from everything–even intentional fraud.
This municipal website has about the strictest terms I’ve seen. By prohibiting its contents to be “retransmitted in any form or by any means” it prohibits the contents from traversing the Internet. http://www.scotchplainsnj.gov/about/
2 Likes
Can I get some thoughts on why this article deserves to be named “Empirical proof…” instead of “Empirical evidence…”?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
