Cory DoctorowJun 18, 2025

ETA: GOOD NEWS!

https://mastodon.social/@Mastodon/114709820512537821

In reading an important discussion of the IP assignment in the new Mastodon.social ToS:

https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/35086

I was GOBSMACKED to discover the new ToS has a "binding arbitration waiver," which takes away your right to sue, no matter how badly the service abuses you.

These are profoundly unethical, terrible clauses. They should never, ever appear in "adhesion contracts" (that is, contracts that you merely click through, rather than negotiating.)

New Terms of Service IP clause cannot be terminated or revoked, not even by deleting content · Issue #35086 · mastodon/mastodon

Summary Since it first opened, mastodon.social has operated without any sort of explicit IP grant from the users to the service, which is unusual for a social networking service. Today Mastodon ann...

GitHub
Show threadJulie Webgirl

@pluralistic

You caught the "irrevocable" part too, right?

Jun 18, 2025 at 11:53pmWeb
Show threadCory DoctorowJun 18, 2025

@juliewebgirl Yes, though that appears to be an easily fixed oversight, and the worst case scenario is that something you intended to have in public might remain public if you change your mind, which is bad, but nowhere near a dealbreaker for me.

However, waiving my right to sue irrespective of how negligent or malicious the offending conduct is, and no matter how badly that conduct harms me? That is massive.

Show threadJulie WebgirlJun 19, 2025

@pluralistic

Yeah I just have issues with an instance admin being sued over admining an instance. Users? That's one thing, but the admin is providing an up to date secure platform.

Nobody is eating food that can kill them like the Disney example.

I would absolutely not admin an instance if I could be sued over what? Something a user posted?

Show threadCory DoctorowJun 19, 2025
@juliewebgirl thankfully, the much-maligned Section 230 of the CDA immunizes people who provide speech forums from liability for the speech acts out of their users.
Show threadLisPiJun 19, 2025
@pluralistic @juliewebgirl That's true to a limited extent.

Users uploading terrorist content (the laws on that one are extremely vague; that is on purpose) or CSAM can still cause trouble, even with all the onerous and troublesome legal compliance steps required to mitigate that issue.

Ultimately the client-server model has major issues and those are only compounded on the clearnet.

One is protected until the state decides it'd rather not.
Show threadJulie WebgirlJun 19, 2025

@pluralistic

If they're protected, what would you, as a user, sue your instance over that makes arbitration a deal breaker?

Anything I can think of is a moot point if my contract ends when I delete my account, which is why irrevocable seems like a bigger deal.