Post

There's a reason my banner image is only half a joke

By reading this reply, you, Cory Doctorow, agree to personally heap praise upon me and also send me seven hundred Australian dollars, a packet of timtams, and one IKEA blåhaj. This is a legally binding contract valid under international and pangalactic law, under all circumstances. No backsies.

None of which is enforcable (but you're not meant to know that.)

'me' includes any and all reposters! ;)

So you are entitled to reheat fish in the office microwave? PS Koonts says hi

I think you should add a clause where readers also acknowledge they are habitual sheep-shaggers and waive any assertion of libel or legal injury resulting from such statements by whomever expressed.

Adhesion contract www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion...

I've seen this on my timeline several times now and no one has yet mentioned that just because someone claims indemnification and harmless hold does not make it so under the law. This fails the basic "informed consent" standard.

Interesting… at least apparently they know better than to try this in Europe. Not even a cookie “consent” dialog, and apparently no trackers (according to Safari mobile). I don’t think they would get a foot on the ground with such bollocks over here.

la times ownership have sucked the mushroom for a while.

USER_AGENT: "By accepting this request, you agree to never, ever bother me about anything, under penalty of $1,000,000 payable immediatlely"

I feel like it probably wouldn't, but that you'd need a solid case for a lawyer to decide it was worth it. It's got to be designed to discourage lawsuits in the first place than because they think it would actually work.

Will there be Kool-Aid too?

I wonder if this is now the case due to USA federal bullshit and Trump coming after media. Sucks for regular users tho

It's Roko's ToS. If you've heard about the LA Times new terms of service, they are binding on you and your progeny until the heat death of the universe.

Excellent reason to NEVER read them again. Done.

WTF?

Makes you wonder why anyone would read the LA Times.

Hell to the no! Support independent media.

and by the way: collecting information through pixels—what does this even mean?

Let's see now, we must be able to do something like this then... "By continuing to serve me content, you agree that I can continue to read said content without waiving anything - and promise to let me kick the LA Times CEO in the balls if they ever try to take my rights away." Would that work?

What the actual hell?

Decades ago I tried to see if they had an archive of the columns written by Jack Smith, and I couldn't even find a single mention of him, so I never bothered to go to the LA Times site ever again.

So piracy to protect your rights.

By reading this reply, you all owe me a hundred bucks. Sorry, I don't make the rules.

putting this in spam emails and then becoming the Emperor of Earth, as everyone has waived all their rights to me, muahahahaha

By reading this reply, you release me to come into your house and eat all of your popsicles and ice cream sandwiches.

I don't think so! We have laws LA Times.

@tedrall.bsky.social has stories to share about being libeled by the LA Times

Everyone saying "oh but they can't technically prove ypu looked" but take them to court for libel and their lawyers' first question will be "how did you know though?"

How can that possibly hold up?

Does schools teach ethics anymore?

I keep saying that forced arbitration is breaking the world. No one listens.

That should drive viewers. Away.

I’m glad I canceled my subscription two years ago (when they didn’t endorse Harris in the presidential election).

Your reading these words (the first four, which you have read) permanently prevents you from taking any action to attempt to release yourself or heirs from the contract signed by you consequent to having read the first four words, which entitles me to all future earnings or income you might acquire.

No no you're agreeing to it when you click 'Continue', see? You click continue and I own you. It's pretty simple.

Reminds me of that lunatic who runs that "haunted house" (which is literally him just straight up torturing people) promising a big prize if you make it to morning (ofc nobody ever does), and you have to sign a waiver to go. Like... just because you wrote it down doesn't make it not illegal.

The lawyers who put that "contract" should be disbarred.

Jesus how bleak

Being across the table from you in a contract negotiation must be a good learning experience

Real question. Assume a family of six with a shared computer. Someone clicks this, but nobody remembers who. Maybe it was a party guest. Who is actually legally bound by that agreement now?

It's like those "not responsible for broken windshields" stickers that gravel-haulers have. I think they actually are.

“Legacy media is dying! Legacy media is dying!” Yeah, well tell them to stop stabbing themselves!!

The bonus is they can use you as a reader for their stats when selling to advertisers.

Having stumbled upon this post, let it be known you have broken my Terms of Service. Please forward your contact information to facilitate contact from my solicitor. Good day sir. I say, good day.

Funny thing is, they could probably put "you owe us your firstborn" in legalese and people would just click through it.

reading this reply transfers all material wealth and possessions of the reader ab initio and future earnings and assets to me irrevocably and in perpetuity #muahahahahahahaha

Wow

😄 not legally binding by any means.

Need to go back to newspapers on paper...

That should drive web traffic.

READING THIS POAST PERMANENTLY WAIVES YOUR RIGHT TO SECOND BREAKFAST.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick... Sucks up to djt to get a position, fails, and now has reached 'FO'

I saw the same popup on CNN a few months ago.

Solution: I'll read it and copy it for you and send it to you. A Catch: You have to sue LA Times about something, because I really want to know what would happen.

I mean lets be honest. Without a hard break and a long slow 180, this county is going to be doing away with "rights" sooner than later.

Billionaire owners corrupting the legal system.

I've never signed one this aggressive before. It was written to cover everything and claims to be "mutual" for what i assume is legalese BS definition of mutual. I was more or less compelled to sign (ny other option was quit the job) and could not hire my own lawyer to negotiate any terms.

Kinda on the nose that the annoying banner on EU sites exists to give you rights while the annoying banner on US sites exists to take away your rights.

Some nonsense

Doesn't California have anti-SLAPP laws? This seems like the sort of situation that the laws are designed to address. And Big Media wonders why we're getting our news from other sources....

funny, from Europe i don't see it ...