Poor reporting, as ever. As people have pointed out, you cannot disclaim away the Law. No one can.
If you did a bungee jump, and you sign any kind of waiver, it might protect the company if your glasses fall off and smash. It will not protect them if the rope snaps and break your head.
My understanding is that when signing a liability waiver, first the acknowledgement of risk happens, and then the release of liability. State by state it can be a little bit different for releasing liability, depending on the interpretation. I looked up where I live, and that liability waiver isn’t upheld if one can prove damages (possibly death, in which case someone has to sue upon my lifeless corpse) caused by intentional recklessness, not simply neglect.
Lawyer here: this isn’t necessarily correct and in America it’s state dependent. There are absolutely parts of the law you can waive, including negligence of a party which is likely your bungee jumping scenario with the rope snapping.
Are T&Cs retroactive? I would think any new T&Cs could only apply from that point forward, not that they could retroactively absolve themselves of liability or how you could pursue it.
Like all good lawyer answers: maybe. I don’t know enough about the specific amended terms or their data breach. Courts sometimes enforce adhesion contacts and sometimes don’t. But retroactive in and of itself isn’t illegal; for example, if you could edit NOT retroactively settle a dispute, you’d have no settlement agreements.
But settling a dispute requires compensation for the party that was damaged. That’s what a settlement is.
You can’t say “If you don’t do A, B, and C you can’t sue me! Nah nah nah!” Without compensation courts are not going to believe that anyone knowingly agreed to the settlement.
Now if they gave everyone like $5 and said “Sign here where it says you can’t sue,” that would be different.
You’re referring to the contract concept of “consideration” which sometimes is the same as compensation but can also do doing/ not doing an action. Sometimes consideration isn’t required either, particularly if the original contract had adequate consideration and says future amendments don’t have to have it. (Depends a lot on which state). That may or may not matter here. It really depends on the specific terms at dispute and you can’t just assume it fixes this issue.
IANAL and I don’t claim to fully understand the case, but it looks to me like the reason they might be able to get away with it is that they’re not trying to change anyone’s rights or obligations; they are “merely” changing the mechanism by which disputes are to be resolved. It is of course a pure coincidence that the new mechanism makes it a lot harder to find 23andMe liable for any infractions.
I think it would be a pretty solid case to argue that the change to the TOS, considering the timing and combined with the breach, would be outrageously unreasonable enough to invalidate the “meeting of the minds” requirement.
For people out of the loop what is this about? Is a new whatsapp clone being released? I read something about apple blocking something but don’t understand what’s going on.
I agree with the other commenter in general but I’ll give you the bullet points.
Old news:
iMessage is a proprietary chat protocol that only works on Apple devices. Apple has indicated multiple times they have zero intention of porting this to other platforms
Apple users texting each other default to iMessage
iMessage has a lot of useful features over SMS texting that are highly desirable and convenient
On iPhones, when iMessages are being successfully sent in a text, the chat bubbles are blue. If they are SMS, they are green
The US additionally has a weird culture of some iPhone users shaming Android users because of the inability to communicate via iMessage, often referred to by the green/blue bubble appearance
There have been a few attempts to circumvent this, mostly by having a Mac somewhere with software installed to it that forwards iMessages to your Android device, though this is extremely cumbersome as it requires having an entire computer on 24/7 to make sure you receive these messages
New news:
Beeper Mini was released earlier this week, which actually runs a reverse-engineered iMessage client that tricks Apple servers into treating it like an Apple device
It was fully functional for about one day with almost all iMessage features working
Apple made some variety of change on their end that broke Beeper Mini functionality
And that’s about it. For those of us that would like to have easy communication with our iPhone-using friends and family, yet don’t want to change phone ecosystems to do so, this is a problem that would be awesome to see solved.
There are folks that, either because of ignorance or pigheadedness, like to chime in on these threads that they don’t care about having blue bubbles. That is the least important aspect of this to most people following this, for the reasons I mentioned above.
Thanks. That helps a lot. I never knew that iMessages was integrated with sms, just thought it existed as a internet protocol like many other proprietary ones.
Basically it’s all the same usual problem of using a closed proprietary chat protocol that a single stake holder has the power to change however and whenever they want.
Like whatsap, facebook and others which any alternative has to keep catching up to the changes that the companies do and which is very hard to maintain the reverse engineered protocols.
It never crossed my mind that I don’t usually see alternative clients for imessage, but makes sense, didn’t think it would be so hard to do.
So these guys came up with a implementation that works and apple just wants to crush them to destroy any alternatives. Business as usual.
It’s hard to understand these news when all the lingo used implies you already know the thing being talked about. An article talking about “Blue bubbles” makes no sense whatsoever to anyone not used to apple ecosystem.
There’s zero sense in charging anyone anything until apple decides to not find ways to block it. If there’s going to be a cat and mouse game going on, the product isn’t going to be stable enough to be worth using, so only die-hards are going to be willing to pay anything to begin with.
Them getting shut down so fast is not making them look reliable at all
The only way Beeper can make this work is to make it literally indistinguishable from a real Apple device, one that’s recent enough that Apple can’t simply drop it out of support. Seems unlikely but I’ve got popcorn so I hope they keep at it.
If you believe Elron didn’t just make up whatever results he wanted. I watched it and the ratio didn’t change at all in the last 800,000 votes, which seems a little weird.
Musk’s posts go to everyone I’m pretty sure. Many people unfollowed him and he didn’t like that, so now you get his excretes whether you want to or not.
Yeah it makes total sense. It’s a fantastic way to make sure you only get the most gullible, hardcore idiots that are easy to make money off.
It’s like those longer running scams. They have built in mechanisms to find the best marks, by disqualifying anyone who might not be easy to convince early.
Same here. If you cultivate a crowd of conspiracy theorists, that have a proven track record of being easily swayed not by evidence but by lack of evidence, then you got the full-day morons eating from your hand.
It is the only social media I can still view only those I follow and in chronological order. I don’t like the algorithms. I re-followed Elon for about 12 hours the other day. Then I remembered why I unfollowed.
My account has been silent since Musk bought Twitter. I’ve to muster the courage to ask my mutuals to follow me on another platform or exchange Telegram handles.
Elon saw how much Alex is making from his “rare earth mineral supplements” and said shit I want in. Alex lost everything in his divorce and got banned from every major platform and all it did was increase his store sales. Hell Elon is most likely asking for advice.
Honestly it’s more a how-to on digital piracy if anything. Nearly every submission will fixate on hating this or that company and stacking on comments about how we’re sticking it to the man through one illegal method or another.
Sure, and don’t get me wrong, I’m by no means discouraging people from weighing in with insights about those shitty things. Does every post that even tangentially mentions a company name need to be full comments endorsing piracy, though?
I come to Lemmy for discourse on the content of the submissions. If I wanted to hear about wicked Plex setups and best torrent what-have-you’s, surely there are relevant communities filled to the brim. The level of conversation in this community is in my opinion extremely poor and I hope to see it improve with more contributors and broader demographics.
Technology is inherently related to social issues. Pretending otherwise is how you get the “libertarian tech bro” company that usurps the autonomy of national elections.
This will also (assuming republicans don’t further consolidate power…) likely lead to a further examination (and series of lawsuits) on how responsible a platform is for what it is platforming. Because alex jones famously got sued to hell and back for his many many many hateful and evil conspiracy theories on The Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting
Yeah it fucking sucks. It’s mostly business news. And now it seems anything tangentially related to social networks is now fair game too. This is like having a community on pens and having a bunch of articles about books written flooding the community. “But they wrote the book initially in pen so it fits in this community”.
Did anyone really expect this part of the policy to stay? My understanding is that they only reinstated the nudity ban, the rest of the new allowances are still allowed.
I wasn’t even sure if that was the case from the statement, seemed like they revoked the option of cartoon imagery. I expected that may be due to the complications of unrealistic body image associated with suggested age, to be vague enough to avoid an argument in my replies
engadget.com
Oldest