this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
851 points (99.4% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9900 readers
369 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article

--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This case is quite similar with Disney+ case.

You press 'Agree', you lost the right to sue the company.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 183 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (7 children)

Forced arbitration is unjust and should be outlawed. It's only legal in 7 other countries: UK, Canada, Australia, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, China and India.

That's right: 4 countries that are essentially US lapdogs, two dictatorships and one that's on the fast track towards becoming one.

Also, you can totally see how America is so much better and totally different than China. The more I look at both, the less I can tell the difference.

But at least in the United States, there is hope.

[–] OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml 64 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It's not really legal in the UK. It's unenforceable on claims under 5k and for claims over 5k the courts will make a case by case decision if arbitration is appropriate.

https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/insights/reports/inside-arbitration/click-to-agree-technology-and-consumer-arbitration

However, lots of companies still add these bullshit clauses as a way to bully people out of seeing a lawyer.

[–] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

For sure and, even then, in uk law, you can't sign away your freedom to take regular legal action against someone who caused you damage, due to their illegal actions. Something like the one in the article would be, rightly, dismissed as a repugnant clause.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] anonymous111@lemmy.world 32 points 2 months ago

FYI it is the other way around. The British Empire spread Common Law around the world. Here is a Wikipedia's Page (Common Law section) which explains the spread:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems

This is why we occasionally get courts referring to Ancient precedents from England.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

lapdogs

The Whitehouse is 12 years overdue for its 200-year reno. Are you angling to get it done for free?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Taiatari@lemmynsfw.com 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The US has twice as many parties as China. If that ain't a major difference then I don't what is /s

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 20 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Caught yer /s and adding to it a variation of the quote that usually goes here:

The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats.

-Noam Chomsky

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Juice@midwest.social 106 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I used to wonder what happened to kids who would always change the rules in the middle of a game like, "nuh uh nuh uh I have a shield around my whole body that blocks lasers," so that they never ever lose. I thought they just grew out of it but now I realize they all became corporate lawyers for tech companies

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 26 points 2 months ago

Or became tech bros themselves and now want the world to cater to them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dubious@lemmy.world 97 points 2 months ago (1 children)

the problem here is obviously corporations running the world. the solution is obviously terrorizing them into submission. the government ain't gonna save you.

[–] Zementid@feddit.nl 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

AntiCorpoTerrorism... Cyberpunk much...

[–] wanderingmagus@lemm.ee 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You best start believing in ~~ghost stories~~ cyberpunk dystopias. You're in one! - cyborg Captain Barbossa

[–] Zementid@feddit.nl 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes. This is what I always tell people: "We don't get StarTrek, we get Blade Runner"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 86 points 2 months ago (20 children)

Disney may have abandoned this strategy with their wrongful death suit, but they pioneered it for other shitty companies. Great. This is reality now.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 83 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And they'll keep getting away with it as long as corporations are treated better than actual people. And you know they put shit like this in the agreements because they know nobody reads them. And every time we get complacent or blame someone else, it only gets worse.

[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 62 points 2 months ago (1 children)

you know they put shit like this in the agreements because they know nobody reads them

That's only half of the problem: even if you carefully read what you agree to, if you refuse agreements that include a forced arbitration clause, you have no other choice because all companies foist it on you.

In other words, if you refuse forced arbitration, you essentially have to opt out of normal life, because there are no alternatives.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

In this specific case, society could have built a more fair transportation system, such as safe public transit, effectively providing an alternative to uber and a way to avoid agreeing to the terms.

[–] BadlyTimedLuck@lemmy.world 75 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

Ok I think this should finally bring to light how TOS should not be enforceable contracts. As

1- its common knowledge that the average person does not read TOS. Therefore, it should be unreasonable to expect the average consumer to have completely understood what they have agreed to, without any legal representation to clarify the contract

2 - TOS are written like legal jargin straight from the legal department. Unfortunately, the client base is either 10 year olds lying about their age, 80 year olds who barely understand what a TOS is, and the average consumer who was never presented with a contract, just a simple "Accept or Decline"

3 - If TOS is meant to be as enforceable as it is, then we need a new set of data laws / seperate justice system to actually regulate those TOS. From what I understand, real life laws still apply to contracts where both parties consented. Aka, even if you agreed to kill someone who wanted to die, murder is illegal.

I hope we can bring some real change instead of letting this go to the side too. I was hoping the Disney thing would be bigger than it was, but then again who's taking Disney to court and surviving? It's sad to think they can get away with this, and its sadder to know we're less valuable than the data we produce.

[–] blubfisch@discuss.tchncs.de 32 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Fun fact: in Germany, anything "unexpected" they write in TOS is not legally binding, because everyone knows noone reads it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DillyDaily@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Heck half the time my screen reading software glitches out on ToS pages, so I just have to assume I'm selling my soul but hopefully not much else and click accept because it's not like I'm going to find someone to sit and read it out to me, that would take hours!

And yet for every other contract I have ever signed in my entire life, I have a legal right to ask for it in an accessible form before I sign it. As a visually impaired person, uber is present in my life.

I hated it, it was the most inaccessible app for such a purpose, and the drivers really did not understand I can't see what they see. I like just calling the depot, talking to a human, and booking a cab.... But you can't do that now either because when you call you wait on hold for 20 minutes while the automated message tells you about the taxi app.

So now unfortunately, uber is easier to book than a taxi, I don't know if the ToS in the taxi app has any harmful stuff about arbitration because again, I've never been able to get a screen reader to read out the ToS properly on any app!

I feel like such a boomer, but I am really feeling more and more isolated as every service Abdi connection I've built my life around is moving online into a digital visual space faster than the affordable assustive technology can keep up with.

I'm expected to read something on a screen when I physically can not, uber and similar apps, including the app my local state government brought in during covid that now holds much only transit ID to show transit staff I'm blind (to get l transport assistance at train stations) all do this.

Once you open the wallet section of the app, for fraud prevention they disabled third party screen readers from reading anything on the app.

I have to open my app, then ask the other person to look through my wallet for me to find the card because I can't, it's such a privacy violation.

[–] ADTJ@feddit.uk 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Companies really don't put much effort into making these readable or accessible.

Many websites I've used it's even a broken link, there's nothing to read but I'm expected to agree anyway.

The terms are usually extremely long and repetitive, they're not designed to be actually read by people.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] crank0271@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

"This comment is way too long."

presses Agree

[–] bokster@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 2 months ago

Well, that's common law for you.

Most of the world has continental law where most of these things would be written in a law somewhere and unenforceable through TOS as those provisions would be deemed in conflict with the law and therefore void.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 62 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is fucked. But I have a question. Why does Uber need to bother relying on the daughter’s agreement with Uber Eats? Surely the parents as Uber ride share users already agreed to similar terms no? Is this their way of testing this in court to see how far they can push it and set a precedent?

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 39 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

their daughter clicked “agree” when presented with updated terms and conditions while ordering food via her mom’s Uber Eats account.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Yes but wouldn’t the parents already have agreed to such terms when they first signed up for Uber, long before their daughter clicked to accept the updated terms on Uber Eats (which presumably is a different app.)

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Soup@lemmy.cafe 56 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (7 children)

Well, I won’t be using Uber any more. Right alongside anything produced by Disney.

Fuck both of them.

[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 36 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (16 children)

Woman died because an employee at a Disney resort served her food with peanuts in it. Her widower tried to sue, because the woman had confirmed with the server that there would be no nuts, and the server assured them there wouldn’t be. So someone on the restaurant’s side fucked up. Pretty open and shut case of negligence.

Disney’s lawyers tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, by saying that the husband had agreed to binding arbitration in the Terms of Service when he signed up for a free two week Disney+ trial on his Xbox several years prior. He never actually paid for a subscription, and cancelled after the free trial. But Disney was saying that the binding arbitration clause was still in effect in perpetuity, even after the trial ended and he cancelled the service.

Disney quickly reversed course (and “allowed” the man to sue them) once they realized it was making headlines, because they didn’t want to deal with the bad PR. But if it hadn’t made headlines, Disney’s lawyers likely would have continued pushing for dismissal.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 51 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Cyberpunk 2077 was on to something about Corpos. This is just evil.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 47 points 2 months ago (1 children)

what the fuck... Really? Again?

[–] phorq@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago

"How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, old man!?"

[–] outrageousmatter@lemmy.world 45 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I hope the state supreme court allows them to keep their right to a jury trial. It clearly states in our 7th amendment it is preserved for any case above $20 and that it will always be upheld. There is no alternative in the wording, it is so clearly written and if it is ignored I want to see all the judges bank account and donations because the constitution for jury trials are clearly written and cannot be told in any other way.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 43 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Human lives have been deemed valueless it seems. Only worth as much as they have already produced and nothing more.

Not by the average person mind you but by every person above that has reduced humanity to numbers and economic performance. Why care when the person can be replaced or the product they make reproduced through automation or cheaper labor elsewhere. People are just the cogs that are worth as much as they are currently valued at and it must be reduced to make those that feel worth more than the rest of us feel even more powerful and necessary.

We have forgotten the worth of human effort and lives not yet lived while some get distracted with hypotheticals of specific people or ones that don't yet exist.

Fuck this reality. Fuck the reduction of humanity because of the will of those that hate others. We need to deal with now and our idea of what matters.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 41 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why does the law allow this? Where in from you can write whatever the fuck you want on a contract but it doesn't make it legal. If the shit in the contract is insane , a court would just refuse to enforce it

[–] Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Well, that is exactly what happens in the vast majority of cases, and almost certainly what's going to happen here.

That's not to undercut how shitty a practice it is, it mostly serves to discourage and dissuade people from trying to sue in the first place.

[–] phx@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 months ago

There absolutely needs to be a penalty for even trying bullshit like this. Maybe disbarring whatever lawyer thought it was a remotely good idea will send a message

[–] Sylvartas@lemmy.world 35 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Inb4 a few decades down the line "Father blocked from suing Amazon after their death squads gunned down his entire family for sharing his prime video account, say they agreed to Amazon terms"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 32 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Anarchists used to blow up corporate buildings for this shit when government failed to keep these sociopaths in line'

Corporations these days need more fear of behaving like this: Courts need to stop allowing this shit. Legislators need to ban these practices. Prosecutors need to sue these companies to force courts to rule on this bullshit.

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago
[–] Mobiledecay@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

Uber was taking notes from Disney.

[–] slurpeesoforion@startrek.website 14 points 2 months ago

Another reason to avoid uber of any sort.

[–] Spaceinv8er@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 months ago (2 children)

So they were in an Uber, and ordered food on Uber eats, then the Uber driver crashed? Did I read that right?

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 53 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Months previously the daughter, who was a minor, had set up Uber Eats and just clicked through the terms of service because it’s not like you have a choice, plus she was a kid.

The parents were seriously injured in an Uber crash, but the court sided with Uber that they could NOT sue because those terms of service were legally binding for all Uber interactions

[–] Cargon@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago

I'm surprised we don't hear more about judges getting shanked for their shit reasoning.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 43 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Uber are pulling the same shit as Disney.

Apparently if you have ever ever ever accepted a Disney + account, and you have a family member die in a restaurant that is owned by Disney or dies in the theme park, you can’t sue Disney

And this is Uber doing the same thing. Uber driver crashed into a vehicle and because the woman in the car they crashed into had ordered something on Uber eats once upon a time when she was on her moms account she cannot sue an Uber driver ever.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Mwa@lemm.ee 8 points 2 months ago

I don't think we are ordering Uber taxis anymore

load more comments
view more: next ›