▲ 515 ▼ TikTok requires users to “forever waive” rights to sue over past harms (arstechnica.com) submitted 2 years ago by misk@sopuli.xyz to c/technology@lemmy.world 57 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] ripcord@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's a pretty common clause in most contracts, so I'm not sure why you're so confident that they aren't used in EULAs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ripcord@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] squiblet@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) Precisely for this reason? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago I...misread the previous message. Makes sense. permalink fedilink source parent [–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago So that the entire contract isn't void if one provision is struck down. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's a pretty common clause in most contracts, so I'm not sure why you're so confident that they aren't used in EULAs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ripcord@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] squiblet@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) Precisely for this reason? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago I...misread the previous message. Makes sense. permalink fedilink source parent [–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago So that the entire contract isn't void if one provision is struck down. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] ripcord@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] squiblet@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) Precisely for this reason? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago I...misread the previous message. Makes sense. permalink fedilink source parent [–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago So that the entire contract isn't void if one provision is struck down. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] squiblet@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) Precisely for this reason? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago I...misread the previous message. Makes sense. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago I...misread the previous message. Makes sense. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago So that the entire contract isn't void if one provision is struck down. permalink fedilink source parent