Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/8/13 09:08 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 6/8/13 08:36 PM, Poniiboi wrote: That war is hardly religious. It is set up so that governments can have an excuse to spread war around the Middle East and keep the money flowing.

even though its put us in trillions of dollars in debt? I love the logic.

That's because it's not the countries benefiting from the war, genius. It's huge companies that have no affiliation to a flag. Countries go into debt, but the private company stocks go up. By the way, this is what's actually happening, so deny it at your own peril.

At 6/8/13 01:42 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Again most people cant afford a lawyer and the time to read and interpret the "Fine Print" in any meaningful way so again you just reinforced how corrupt the system is. To an educated Lawyer the fine print is understandable but to an everyday person the fine print is just psychobabble corporate jargon with so much hidden meaning that it's not even comprehendable in the language it was written in.

okay that might be true of your average legal document, but i read facebook's ToS, i didn't see any of this corporate jargon. also, it's not that difficult to learn how to speak corporate in this day and age- i mean we have the internet- there's bound to be something out there that's free.

At 6/11/13 10:59 AM, Freaki-boy92 wrote:

At 6/8/13 01:42 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Again most people cant afford a lawyer and the time to read and interpret the "Fine Print" in any meaningful way so again you just reinforced how corrupt the system is. To an educated Lawyer the fine print is understandable but to an everyday person the fine print is just psychobabble corporate jargon with so much hidden meaning that it's not even comprehendable in the language it was written in.

okay that might be true of your average legal document, but i read facebook's ToS, i didn't see any of this corporate jargon. also, it's not that difficult to learn how to speak corporate in this day and age- i mean we have the internet- there's bound to be something out there that's free.

I wouldn't get caught up in dotting the i's if the overall message is tainted. If Facebook is giving info to the government, that's just wrong, and just because you can lawyer up some way to justify it to distract people just means that those people are way more interested in appearing smart than they are in real world freedoms that will some day be taken from most of them, by the way.

At 6/11/13 11:12 AM, Poniiboi wrote: I wouldn't get caught up in dotting the i's if the overall message is tainted. If Facebook is giving info to the government, that's just wrong, and just because you can lawyer up some way to justify it to distract people just means that those people are way more interested in appearing smart than they are in real world freedoms that will some day be taken from most of them, by the way.

Sorry, but the freedom to keep others from disseminating information you have given them generally has never existed (except for a the very narrow tort of "disclosure"). Any such power that has been created (not including court privilages which have a very limited scope) is created by CONTRACT. So, in fact, the details do matter.

Also, adhesion contracts, while borderingup on unconsciounability ar NOT predatory. Much of what is contained in such contracts is little more than a memorialization of impliead warranties and "duh" provisions (such as "an act of god will render this contract null and void" type stuff). There are certain povisions that can stand out, but there are not that many a such contracts. If you dislike the terms you are free to sue. Finally, there is a reason these contracts exist. And it is to benefit the consumer. It would cost a serious amount of mone to dicker and enforce a separate contract for every facebook user. So much so that the cost of facebook would ump from free to well over $100 an account if not higher. This isn't selling a car or a house where the price is high enough to cover any trouble caused by the remaking of a contract every time. These adhesion contract exist on products that are either free or very cheap. In order to get access to the product at a very cheap rate, the consumer voluntarily acquiesces to the whole contrct or gets nothing at all.

You complain about how such contracts hurt you whilst soaking in the benefit those contracts have bestowed upon you.

At 6/11/13 12:32 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/11/13 11:12 AM, Poniiboi wrote: I wouldn't get caught up in dotting the i's if the overall message is tainted. If Facebook is giving info to the government, that's just wrong, and just because you can lawyer up some way to justify it to distract people just means that those people are way more interested in appearing smart than they are in real world freedoms that will some day be taken from most of them, by the way.

Sorry, but the freedom to keep others from disseminating information you have given them generally has never existed (except for a the very narrow tort of "disclosure"). Any such power that has been created (not including court privilages which have a very limited scope) is created by CONTRACT. So, in fact, the details do matter.

Sorry, but your legalese doesn't hold water here. Dissemination is far from freely sharing with shadow third parties, especially when the company is so public as to imply a tort on the part of the disseminator. Not to mention that there are plenty of examples of companies being limited in their power to move information especially when that information is highly personal and able to be used for purposes of slander or libel.

Not to mention there is no precedent for a social media network as ubiquitous as Facebook in the recorded history of mankind. So any cases you bring up as precedent simply aren't.

Not to mention that you are still completely outside of your bounds with this Year One Analysis of information dissemination. You have yet to add the higher concept of the purpose of law with your base, rather trite interpretation of its letter.

No water!