• tabular@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Let’s not call disabling the right to sue a “business risk”. That’s like calling the right to stop paying for the service a “risk” - it’s riskdiculous.

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Let’s not call disabling the right to sue a “business risk”.

      …and why not?

      That’s like calling the right to stop paying for the service a “risk”

      But…that’s what it is? I promise if they could remove that risk with a few words in the TOS, and it was legal, they’d all be doing that too.

      • tabular@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        The right to take legal action for harm done is imperative. It’s importance is diminished if conflated with a legitimate business risk (like research and development). It should be illegal to deny it.

        • Ulrich@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          18 hours ago

          I agree. But we weren’t discussing hypotheticals, we were discussing reality.

    • Elgenzay@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      18 hours ago

      By “business risk”, they just mean bad for the business, ethics aside

      • tabular@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Yes that’s what they mean. I tried to persuade against meaning that.