Technology

59549 readers

3417 users here now

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

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

267

X adds Twitch to its advertising boycott lawsuit (www.engadget.com)

submitted 2 days ago by moe90@feddit.nl to c/technology@lemmy.world

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Good_morning@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

How likely is that chunk to be thrown out for being obviously ridiculous?

[–] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 days ago

In a past life, pretty plausible.

Now that Elmo is the First Lady, this is the best TOS that's ever been written by anyone ever. It's perfect. It probably trumps the constitution because of how perfect it is.

[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

According to the article, not that likely:

Terms requiring users to sue in specific courts are usually enforceable, Vanderbilt Law School Professor Brian Fitzpatrick told Ars today. "There might be an argument that there was no consent to the new terms, but if you have to click on something at some point acknowledging you read the new terms, consent will probably be found," he told us in an email.

A user attempting to sue X in a different state or district probably wouldn't get very far. "If a suit was filed in the wrong court, it would be dismissed (if filed in state court) or transferred (if filed in federal court)," Fitzpatrick said.

[–] Patch@feddit.uk 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It seems insane to me that the US system lets you literally specify the exact judge (that you've already bought and paid for) as the only judge that can hear cases against you. And that the system is basically OK with this.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It's also insane that a judge with a vested interest in one of the claimants, doesn't have to automatically recuse themselves.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 1 day ago

They do... It's just not expected that they won't

Pains of being a prototype democracy and all... If only the founding fathers had explicitly told us our system would need reform as issues came up