Serves you right, Tobold

| Tuesday, October 4, 2011
No Facebook refund?
Apparently I was real enough for Facebook to accept my money, until they decided I was not real enough to keep my account.


Sorry, Tobold, but this is actually 100% your fault. You should be glad if all you lost was a bit of money. Be glad you weren't real. You see, Facebook is not just a pointless platform for bad games. It is a world-wide attempt to sucker in everyone, get their personal information, not credit cards, but actual personal information, and then peddle it to the highest bidder. And the lowest bidder as well, because why not maximize profits?

When you deal with bad people, bad things happen to you. Too bad!

But while I'm attacking people I respect, Tesh, you're on notice again for lazy nihilism.
“Fairness” is a pernicious concept. Life’s not fair. Business isn’t fair. It just is, and as long as the parties to a transaction understand what is offered, nothing more can or should be expected.


There is a difference between settling and giving up. Of course life isn't fair, giving up is the wrong way to go. Well, okay fine, for those who are getting the upside of that unfairness, then of course it makes sense for them to want to keep things unfair. We have to settle for less than fair, but never accept it, never give up and throw our hands up sand say "oh well, it's unfair, too bad."

"as long as the parties to a transaction understand what is offered"
And that's just plain a ridiculous assumption. Of course it works quite well when we're dealing with apples and a hundred tons of steel, not so well with an intentionally confusing and misleading ToS. Efficient markets rely on equal information, which your average ToS is designed to prevent, both by information overload, poor writing*, and through those two, encouraging the consumer to just give up and click accept.

Oh of course the consumer doesn't have to click accept. We could refuse the terms if we think they are unreasonable or too long to be readily intelligible. Of course if I tried to follow that rule I'd be unable to write this, having no internet access, no browser, no operating system, no video card, no monitor, keyboard, or mouse. All I'd have is the desktop which was given to me by a friend, who herself probably accepted an unintelligible agreement years back. I'd not be in an apartment and would not have electricity. Not that I could pay for any of that, because I'd have no bank account or credit cards. I would at least have a job, but I don't think they pay in cash.

Our world is based on absurd amounts of legalese. And now I'm depressed to picture that. We're fucked. Totally and absolutely fucked.

Now Tesh doesn't seem quite so dumb. In the face of all that, giving up seems like the only bearable option. Either that or terrorism, and I'm not much of a fan of terrorists.

*Lawyers, admit it, you write like shit. Your entire legal writing method, while theoretically meant to be precise and unambiguous, instead just makes it impossible for a normal human to read, requiring more lawyers to act as translators. You should all be deported until you can learn to write in English.

6 comments:

flosch said...

I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater here. Consumer laws are your best friend. When I moved into my new apartment, I signed a standard contract that was created by the homeowners' association and the renters' association. You can be pretty sure there are no bad surprises in that one. And depending on where you live, a lot of the more dodgy clauses in contract are non-enforcable and void because they violate consumer protection laws.

Of course, that doesn't help much with companies like Facebook, because those laws were designed for a different market. My hope is still that we'll find ways to hedge in those companies that are over the top at some point.

Rick Falkvinge, who admittedly probably has better knowledge of the global scale of the problem, has a more bleak view on things: http://torrentfreak.com/return-of-the-high-court-and-low-court-111002/

Finally, your point about lawyers would be about right if you removed the "instead". It is still precise; just like any jargon, it is hard to understand for outsiders. I could send you the last paper I wrote, and you'd probably have similar complaints. ;)

Klepsacovic said...

I rarely run into physicists or programmers who insist that I read over their equations or code and sign off on whether it will kill me or not.

flosch said...

True, in a way. Though that's where my claim comes into play that the right type of legalese, consumer right laws, should come to your rescue.

And I'd really love to know what exactly my doctor's scribble means when he's taking notes, but I've never dared to ask. ;)

Kring said...

It, again, boils down to choice.

If you would like to play a game which requires Facebook your only option is to suck it up or not play that game.

That's no choice, that's a calculation. One is clearly superior to the other. It might not be the same for everyone but for your parameters one is clearly superior.

Ephemeron said...

Your entire legal writing method, while theoretically meant to be precise and unambiguous, instead just makes it impossible for a normal human to read, requiring more lawyers to act as translators.

You don't have to be a lawyer to read and understand legal documents. Just like you don't have to be an IT professional to know how to install a new RAM module, a professional chef to cook a healthy and delicious lunch, a PR spin doctor to know how to convince and charm people, or a professional accountant to keep your personal finances in order.

All of these are practical skills that are taught to the members of their respective professions, but are very useful to any modern person, regardless of their occupation.

Of course, you and Tobold also have another special option available to you. Want a document deciphered? Post a link to it and ask your readers for help. You've got enough lawyers in your audience, and quite a few of them get bored at work occasionally. :)

Edawan said...

"Our world is based on absurd amounts of legalese. And now I'm depressed to picture that. We're fucked. Totally and absolutely fucked."

What's that if not lazy nihilism ? ;-)


The thing is, lawyers have to write these awfully convoluted documents, because if they don't cover all their bases, they are going to get screwed by the other side of the contract : the customer.

Of course, they also sadly too often go overboard and cover themselves more than is legally allowed.

Post a Comment

Comments in posts older than 21 days will be moderated to prevent spam. Comments in posts younger than 21 days will be checked for ID.

Powered by Blogger.