[craftyguy]

> but if I can do it voluntarily

The catch here is that no customers of theirs were given a chance to do so voluntarily. They purposefully misled customers so even though it's nice you don't care, others who do fell into the trap. That's fucked up.

[EggsOnToast]

Do you have a link on that or are you talking about the current article? I believe you but I wasn't one of the early adopters of MoviePass so by the time I joined I skimmed the contract, nodded, and thought "Got it, you spy on me and I get cheap stuff."

[throwaway2048]

some vaugely worded crap that would take a lawyer to figure out buried in a 40 page TOS isn't informed consent, sorry.

[EggsOnToast]

I'm not sure why your tone is so hostile when I was just asking a clarifying question. More to your point, I don't see what part of the ToS you found especially convoluted, but since your estimate about the length is so exaggerated I doubt you actually read it. The wording was boring but clear and its formatting wasn't particularly mysterious either.

If your point is more generally that we shouldn't be able to just skim a ToS and give consent, what's your alternative that doesn't destroy the ability of online businesses to engage in these kinds of agreements?

Edit: I'm adding this here because I can't reply to the comment below me by s73v3r_ 26.

You in particular might not care, but there are a lot of people who feel like these businesses provide valuable services and don't mind being expected to actually be accountable for the things they agree to. If you don't like ToS businesses online, come up with an alternative. Otherwise, unless your plan is just to go on a tirade, you need to at least try to consider an alternative to outright destruction or your argument is going to lose all of its persuasive power when talking to people who do value these services.

[throwaway2048]

https://i.imgur.com/uPnlHlq.png

Ok, its 11 pages, which according to http://niram.org/read/ should take 32 minutes to read, can be updated at any time, and contains such language as

   You agree to indemnify and hold MoviePass, its officers, 
   directors, shareholders, predecessors, successors in interest, 
   employees, agents, subsidiaries and affiliates, harmless from 
   any demands, loss, liability, claims or expenses (including 
   attorneys' fees), made against MoviePass by any third party 
   due to or arising out of or in connection with your use of the 
   MoviePass Service or Site.

and

   MoviePass's obligations, if any, with regard to its products 
   and services are governed solely by the agreements pursuant 
   to which they are provided, and nothing on this Site should be 
   construed to alter such agreements.

These kind of terms could have very unexpected consequences, and you need real legal expertise to decipher exactly what that means.

[EggsOnToast]

The only two words that are beyond what's taught in highschool in those quoted passages are "indemnify" and "pursuant" neither of which is actually too complex to understand from a cursory google search. The sentence structure is straightforward and it's grammatically clear that the parties listed are all part of the clause pertaining to who you agree to indemnify. The bulk of your argument is that it's unfair to expect people to have a basic level of reading comprehension for a transaction that's entirely voluntary on their part. I don't see the great crime against humanity you're trying to establish here.

[oxymoran]

While I legitimately enjoyed your pedantry, we both know that the point they were failing to make was that language seems overly broad in scope. Reading that first block, one could make a case that Moviepass could hold it’s users responsible for any and all claims made against it. Like if an upset movies studio sued them? Unlikely but plausible. I would expect this sort of language in an insurance policy, not a glorified coupon book.

[cyphar]

The thing that makes legalese prone to misinterpretation is not the complexity of the words or grammar used. It's that the interpretation of a paragraph is different for a lawyer (or court) than it is for a lay-person. Just because you understood all of the words doesn't mean you actually understood the text (this is of course ignoring how insanely over-the-top the quoted paragraphs are, and the length of the text itself).

When you go through a law degree you have several subjects dedicated to "learning how to read a legal document". If it just required high school literacy, why would you ask very intelligent people to go through a literacy course in university? Because there is more to reading a legal document (such as knowing precedents in contract law, how courts interpret certain conditions, what the agreement means in the context of any related laws, and so on) than just knowing what the words mean.

[s73v3r_]

"what's your alternative that doesn't destroy the ability of online businesses to engage in these kinds of agreements?"

Why should we care about preserving one of the worst business practices of recent times?

[salvar]

Maybe not everyone shares your view that this is "one of the worst business practices of recent times"?

[cyphar]

You can reply to comments even after they're a certain depth. Click the "4 hours ago" link and then you'll be able to reply.