[salimmadjd]

Different (maybe controversial)take.

You should be given the choice to be grandfathered into the version of TOS upon first using that service.

I think with social media where value is derived by ongoing time investment of users, the TOS changes should only be applied after mutual agreement.

When I invest hours into helping to flourish a community, I need to be assured the company holds their side of the contract and not change the terms at any arbitrary time.

I disagree with the notion that you can stop using it, if you don’t agree with the new TOS.

social media is different than let’s say visiting Politico, where I’m just a consumer and not a contributor. Politico doesn’t owe me anything.

When you start contributing and building value under an initial sets of policy and agreements that initial agreement should remain in place until mutually agreed to change it.

I understand that causes some operational headaches, but it’s just cost of running a social media company.

[gpm]

By the same logic, are social media companies somehow obligated to never shutdown as long as they have users?

If not, can they shut down and then only come back for users using non-grandfathered terms?

If so, can they shut down for only users using grandfathered terms?

Aren't we now back to where we started?

---

I disagree pretty fundamentally that you have any right to have a company continue to host content for you (which is equivalent to having a right to having a company repeat what you said to anyone who asks - which is clearly a free speech violation) short of them signing a contract with you guaranteeing that.

I agree that as a user it's very frustrating when something you use changes what it is, but I don't see how a social media platform is any different from a bar in that regards. They both derive a lot of their value from their users, it's frustrating for the users of both if they fundamentally change who they are, but it's their right do that anyways.

[saurik]

I just don't think it should be legal for a company to offer to store something for you and then randomly stop storing it for you. As far as I know, if you buy a storage location, even if you stop paying for it the people at the storage facility can't just immediately toss your stuff into the street: there is a legally mandated process by which they have to store things, contact you, and later work with the state to rid themselves of your stuff. The problem for me then becomes one of making sure that the relationship involved feels like the relationship that these people put in their giant pile of click-through legalese. (And if the result of this is that free social networks supported by the potential future promise of ad revenue become impossible to legally build as the insurance required becomes too high, all I can say is "good riddance": the world will be all for the better if these companies have to figure out customer-focused sustainable business models before launching.)

[mike00632]

I have recently been getting emails from Photobucket saying that I need to pay for their service now or they will delete my photos. There is no option to download my photos without paying. If I want to access them at all then I must pay.

I don't know what to think about whether this is right or wrong but it sure feels scummy. It also makes my worry about what might happen when bigger internet companies are down on their luck.

[gpm]

> There is no option to download my photos without paying

If I was going to target something here to fix, it would be this. Holding your data hostage feels much more legally suspect than just deciding to no longer run photobucket and deleting your data outright (before, for instance, selling the hard-drives to recoup costs).

In fact, I think the GDPR may already have fixed this for people protected by it? If you have photos you care about you might try sending a GDPR data request and see what happens (even if you're not covered by it, there's no harm in trying).

[KeepFlying]

I'm not sure a bar is the best analogy here though. Yes a bar also derives value from it's users in a way, but a customers value there only really exists for as long as they are in the building. The customer doesn't invest their time and effort in long term value that exists after they leave. There's a moderate community aspect (referrals, recommendations, etc) but not as strongly as social media (or any contribution based site). Feeling a bar owes you something here seems like a stretch unless they solicit donations/volunteers to do a renovation or something.

With social media sites a user is adding content that continues to provide value over time. The user is investing their time, expertise and energy (and often IP as well since some sites claim ownership of contributions), into the site. When they leave, that content often sticks around. It's reasonable for the user to feel that that site owes them something in return.

Legally and realistically I'm not sure how that can be implemented, but the desire there is reasonable and different than a bar.

[gpm]

Sure, a bar isn't a perfect analogy, I used it because it was the first thing that came to mind that got the point across about community building (which seemed to be the main thing the person I was responding to considered to be of value).

Maybe a stronger analogy would be a maker space, since the community building bit is at least as strong as with a bar (maybe stronger), and there's some sort of "content" that you create as well (though unlike on twitter, much of the content is physical property instead of information).

You might reach a conclusion that you should have GDPR like data-rights as a result of that analogy, but I don't think it materially affects any of the conclusions I'm arguing in the post about investment of time and energy not giving you the right to continued service.

[dustingetz]

it is simply balance of power between parties like all human affairs

if you want to improve it - work to increase accountability (so more liars and cheaters get caught) & accessibility (so young and fresh minds have opportunity) and these two things together benefit new competitors over abusive incumbents, and society as a whole

[blueberrychpstx]

Or how about another different (maybe controversial take) -

Archetypal TOS

If you run a bank, unless you're doing something incredibly sketchy, your TOS will very closely resemble Bank B.

If you run a social media company, unless you're doing something incredibly sketchy, your TOS will very closely resemble social media company B.

ETC

How about we all agree that the archetypal TOS for any given archetype should be readable by someone with a 9th grade education or below and if you deviate from those terms, you must clearly explain why you are so different and special.

Idk, I just think we should start coming up with more clever solutions.

This doesn't even visit the idea of completely inverting the social media / banking / blah blah whatever industry onto its head by allowing any general user complete control over data / finances, but obviously that would have huge benefits if we can tackle the usability problem for average Joe.

[mqus]

Hmm. I would also very much like to have something like this. But on the other hand, we already have something like that, it's just called law and contracts(and more specifically TOS) already specify what is different than in the law (like e.g. which court to use etc.

So if there were archetypal contracts and they would be balanced or even slightly favor users, there would just be longer TOS to counter them and every company will have the same boilerplate again.

So in that case this archetype will have to come from the industry or politics will have to force them to do something like this. This will then also have (at least) the following side-effects:

1. Lawyers of companies teaming up and tightening their TOS even more 2. Unclarified effects on the participating companies if parts of the common TOS get invalidated/overturned by a court decision 3. Since companies (are maybe forced to) work together, there is the risk of a cartel, since <agreeing on contract conditions to be the same across an industry> is pretty much the definition of a cartel.

To take care of all of that, legislation needs to be first-class and I can't see that happening.

[pc86]

This is probably not super controversial, especially here. But, I need to point out TOS changes are currently only applied after mutual agreement. You agree by continuing to use the service (that may be a controversial statement here, but not really elsewhere). I would disagree with the implicit statement that Twitter owes any of its users anything, or at least that if Twitter does, so does Politico.

[shortstuffsushi]

This is an interesting idea, but it feels like it would be just about impossible to enforce. It would would also mean violations of terms that were added to take care of bad actors later wouldn't apply to earlier offenders, which would leave the "reason for the rule" still able to engage with the platform in the same manner. It seems like a bit more than a headache, from what I can tell.

[3qz]

> When I invest hours into helping to flourish a community

Stop working for free.

[gabrielhidasy]

It's not for free, we build communities to participate in them.

[dredmorbius]

That is in fact a significant component to their proposal.

[montroser]

> You should be given the choice...

Sure, that would be nice, but the system is not set up in a way such that ethics and generosity are driving factors in the decision making process of corporate executives. Whatever _should_ be is just a fantasy.

> I disagree with the notion that you can stop using it, if you don’t agree with the new TOS.

What is there to disagree with? You have the choice to use your small bit of leverage and withhold your data and content contributions if you don't like the trade-offs of the deal being proffered.

> I understand that causes some operational headaches, but it’s just cost of running a social media company.

The operation cost is nothing compared to the legal liability. From the point of view of the social media company the risk and lack of flexibility downsides far, far outweigh any possible good-will upside to be gained from users.

[SOLAR_FIELDS]

> What is there to disagree with? You have the choice to use your small bit of leverage and withhold your data and content contributions if you don't like the trade-offs of the deal being proffered.

I think this would be fair if the company were forced to delete your data and never be able to use it again if you no longer agreed to the ToS.

[sershe]

There are two pretty fundamental problems with this:

1) The services are free, one is not paying for a given, well-defined, services, like in the case where contracts are actually binding.

2) Even in the above case (payment+contract), a contract may have provisions specified on how it can be changed; and most do.

[closedloop129]

You have that choice by using the Fediverse.

The advantage of a company and its TOS is that new standards can be establish quickly and innovation can happen. The social networks of old and the Fediverse faded into the background because maintaining old standards becomes an obstacle to innovation.

[freeplay]

I love the idea as a user, but I can't imagine how a site would handle millions of users agreeing to various TOS versions.

Sounds horrifying from a UX and design standpoint.

[codingdave]

Keep a copy of each version in a database. Store the version number in user account. Allow a link to see the version you agreed to, and a link to see the latest. Click OK to update to the latest and set that version number in your account.

I don't think implementing a version control on TOS is particularly problematic - I think the business side of it is a way bigger problem - every user has agreed to different rules. Sounds like a nightmare for moderation, litigation, and decision making.

[leothecool]

IANAL but I think you are probably subject to both versions of the TOS. You granted them a license to the content you posted under the old TOS, and those terms are still valid. Future content grants them a license under the new terms.

[bee_rider]

I'm assuming the TOS you originally agreed to had a clause that is something like "we can unilaterally change this." So, you could I guess check the TOS when you are making an account, and only use sites that don't have a clause like this. Likely this will significantly reduce you selection of social media sites... this just seems to me to indicate that investing too much effort into improving social media communities is not a worthwhile endeavor (or, maybe you find it to be a fun hobby, so just do it for fun and don't expect any payback).

Realistically most sites want to exploit people like you.

[jtwebman]

This is why it is in your best interest to pull people from social media to your own stuff like a blog and email news letter. In the current world they can do what they want.

[mrtksn]

I understand the users perspective but this will definitely add a lot of cost because it will require maintaining different data processing pipelines.

Suddenly, Twitter will have backward compatibility issues at hand. I think, "if you don't like our new ToS we will delete your account, here is your data have a nice day" is a fair approach because at no point Twitter signed SLA with their users.

[randomfool]

What if the ToS change is to curb abuse? Can users just opt-out and continue their abuse?

What if the abuse is costing Twitter significant money? I see language about decompiling. Do they have to continue providing service to companies who may be exploiting loopholes in the ToS?

[taubek]

Love the idea, but I don't see how this would work in real-life scenario. I think it would be to much trouble.