The ToS and other conditions attached to various services and relationships are literally far too long and complex for anyone to read, understand, and recall in full detail.
This point has been the subject of numerour articles and documentaries.
Hoback states that if one was to read everything in these user/service agreements, it would take one full month, that’s 180 hours every year” and that according to The Wall Street Journal “consumers lose over $250 million dollars due to what’s hidden in these agreements.”
But first of all, the prompt shown in the article's screenshot was not hidden in a long ToS.
Second of all, I agree that we should work towards solving the problem that overly-long ToSs represent. What I do not agree with is the assertion that, in the presence of an overlong-ToS, we allow people to click-through, then get outraged at the company for doing something they were allowed to do by the ToS. If it really is far too long and complex for you to read, don't use the product.
Tools which become ubiquitous or prerequisites for other services are not discretionary.
Facebook is the Internet for many people, is required for authenticating by numerous services, and is how numerous groups and communities organise.
As such, its terms and services as those of numerous other services, should be defined in a standard set of obligations, rights, and responsibilities, by law.
> Tools which become ubiquitous or prerequisites for other services are not discretionary...As such, its terms and services as those of numerous other services, should be defined in a standard set of obligations, rights, and responsibilities, by law.
I see this sentiment in some form a lot. Is there a name for this principle? Where does it come from? I don't in general agree with it - speaking generally, I think enforcing this principle is a way to solve some problems, but not the best way - and would be interested in discussions about the principle itself.
Pardon the delay, but I've been trying to think of a good brief description. I'm not sure I've got one that's particularly clear.
"Common weal", that is, the common wealth or common good, a/k/a social benefit, is probably the best general description. The notion being that there are positive externalities not addressed by the market (or there are offsetting negative externalities not imposed on the producer).
In either case, a useful functioning requires some entity with the interest, capacity, and power, to act in the public interest. The notion is an old one. It comprises Book V of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations ("The Expenses of the Sovereign"), or in contemporary economics, the area of public sector economics (or welfare economics).
And is the domain of government, as my initial response indicated.
What services require Facebook for authentication? The only one I can think of is Tinder (not sure if that's actually the case, I've never used it) but I don't think a few non-essential services requiring a Facebook account makes it not discretionary.
If you needed a Facebook account to file a tax return or something, then I would agree that it's not discretionary.
This point has been the subject of numerour articles and documentaries.
Hoback states that if one was to read everything in these user/service agreements, it would take one full month, that’s 180 hours every year” and that according to The Wall Street Journal “consumers lose over $250 million dollars due to what’s hidden in these agreements.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terms_and_Conditions_May_App...