this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2026
167 points (96.6% liked)

Technology

84171 readers
4119 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The biometric ID project has been halted and investigated in multiple countries, but it recently partnered with Tinder, Zoom, and Docusign to verify users.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

In sane places, large terms of service are unenforceable due to the lack of reasonable expectation that they were read and understood. The USA is just a dystopic cesspool of anti-consumerism.

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Most of such terms were unenforceable in the US too, until around 2001 or so, and it just got worse from there. The supreme court made it official in the 10's sometime if I recall, endorsing even making consumers or employees sign away their rights to sue to either buy something or get hired.

All that wage theft from minimum wage workers, which exploded in the bush years, happened with employees unable to sue, instead only being able to bring a binding arbitration suit of the employer's choosing. And knowing them they would make the claimant pay a big filing fee to start the process.

It also used to be that if one part of such a contract was found to be illegal, the entire thing would be thrown out, not any more.

[–] Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

That last part isn't necessarily bad. There could be an honest mistake in a contract both parties are otherwise fine with. As for the rest... I'm so glad I emigrated.

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

The last part is always bad, even if theoretically it may not be. When you have a hundred to a thousand terms and conditions being pushed on you for a near immediate signature, that's because they can add that one part being illegal doesn't make the rest unenforceable, and now instead of a single page of terms we have a hundred.

There is a reason the Courts made that rule of disqualifying the entire contract of such contracts if one part was illegal, and they have rules and tests for when that applies too in such cases to prevent any legitimate mistakes from cancelling an entire contract.