"You maintain ownership of your data: This service does not claim ownership over user-generated content or materials, and the user * doesn't need to waive any moral rights* by posting owned content."
and
"You waive your moral rights"
Edit: I have no energy for figuring out which of these statements is more true.
I think in such a case (unless there was some context that clearly showed the difference between those two statements) then you as a user would benefit from contra proferentem. This legal principle (which is explicit law in some jurisdictions) says that the contract terms should be interpreted in favour of the party who did not write them.
Wikipedia has 4 thumbs down 1 thumbs up and is grade B. Tor has 0 thumbs down 3 thumbs up and is grade C.
DuckDuckGo has only 1 thumbs down: "Instead of asking directly, this Service will assume your consent merely from your usage." and is grade B, presumably because of this. Startpage is grade A, has no thumbs down, but going on startpage does not prompt me to agree to anything either.
The grades are explained at the bottom of the page.
Regarding Startpage, It's not mandatory to show the cookie banner if you don't track. Startpage doesn't track you at all, so it's grade A.
Wikipedia has that all the bad things happen to your account except for the tracking, but you can still use Wikipedia without using an account. I agree that it's a B.
I'm not familiar enough with Tor to answer that grade.
> The grades are explained at the bottom of the page.
Are they? The table at the bottom page doesn't explain anything - in particular doesn't give any indication why Tor might be ranked below Wikipedia (for instance). How can a service with no mentioned negative qualities have a grade C?
Yeah the grades seem pretty biased. Wikipedia has 4 thumbs down and is grade B, Whatsapp has 2 and is grade D. One of them is even the same as Wikipedia's. Apparently just having "Any liability on behalf of the service is only limited to the fees you paid as a user" (which seems fairly reasonable to me) is enough to go from B to D?
You only need to accept DuckDuckGo's ToS when you sign up for privacy pro.
What the point means is that they can change the ToS and assume consent to the changes when you continue using it, instead if prompting again.
In a negotiation, either side can walk away. If the website can’t refuse then it’s not really a negotiation. So how would that work? If you set certain headers, the website blocks you? It doesn’t seem like that would be a popular feature.
It would make more sense as filtering criteria for a search engine.
ToS are highly unfair, because the company has had a group skilled in legalese draft them over enough time as deemed needed, whereas a layman is supposed to understand and base their next decision on something written in a language hardly understood by almost anyone.
For that reason ToS should be illegal unless, at least, written in layman terms.
Some sites, like Facebook and YouTube are listed as being able to see your browser history. It doesn’t seem to be related to tracking scripts, so how exactly does that work?
Those two purposes are one and the same. The biggest reason for corporations to hire lawyers is to figure out the exact amount of consumer screwing they can legally get away with.
Whenever people come across any "terms" document, they are well served by simply ignoring it entirely and assuming it contains the following statements:
> you own nothing
> the company owns everything
> you have no rights
> you promise not to try and exercise any right you think you have
> if you ever convince yourself that you actually have rights, you agree to binding arbitration with the firm we pay
> you cannot do anything the company doesn't like
> the company can do literally anything it wants whether you like it or not
> the company is not responsible for anything, ever
> the company makes absolutely no guarantees about literally anything
> you agree to indemnify us in all possible circumstances
Ok this site lost me at Tor Browser. Why is Tor Browser listed on there as if it's a commercial product/service and rated as 'Grade C' without any supporting evidence? If they don't even know what Tor is then I don't know how qualified they are to weigh in on privacy issues.
I'll save everyone some time. In the year 2025, just assume any for profit corporation is stealing your data and you've waived all your rights as a consumer when you agreed to that ToS unless presented with compelling evidence to the contrary.
Readit News
https://tosdr.org/en/service/1448 says both:
"You maintain ownership of your data: This service does not claim ownership over user-generated content or materials, and the user * doesn't need to waive any moral rights* by posting owned content."
and
"You waive your moral rights"
Edit: I have no energy for figuring out which of these statements is more true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem
It's just one in coming from EU TOS[1] and another comes from USA TOS[2]
And the website doesn't support that
[1] https://www.tiktok.com/legal/page/eea/terms-of-service/en
[2] https://www.tiktok.com/legal/page/us/terms-of-service/en
Wikipedia has 4 thumbs down 1 thumbs up and is grade B. Tor has 0 thumbs down 3 thumbs up and is grade C.
DuckDuckGo has only 1 thumbs down: "Instead of asking directly, this Service will assume your consent merely from your usage." and is grade B, presumably because of this. Startpage is grade A, has no thumbs down, but going on startpage does not prompt me to agree to anything either.
Regarding Startpage, It's not mandatory to show the cookie banner if you don't track. Startpage doesn't track you at all, so it's grade A.
Wikipedia has that all the bad things happen to your account except for the tracking, but you can still use Wikipedia without using an account. I agree that it's a B.
I'm not familiar enough with Tor to answer that grade.
Are they? The table at the bottom page doesn't explain anything - in particular doesn't give any indication why Tor might be ranked below Wikipedia (for instance). How can a service with no mentioned negative qualities have a grade C?
Startpage does not have or need a ToS
> You must provide your identifiable information
but that's reasonable for a company like PayPal?
Dead Comment
It would make more sense as filtering criteria for a search engine.
If the website wants to block something the EFF deems a good and reasonable protection for the user, then maybe they should indeed block the request.
For that reason ToS should be illegal unless, at least, written in layman terms.
Apparently this means that YT can acces the synced browser history if you're logged into Chrome.
If the ToS were understandable, neither of those would be accomplished.
Surprise, surprise ... The people get 1 change, Name.com getall the rest; including making parts of it more ambiguous.
But it was easy to understand using the LLM analysis and it took longer to read than generate.
Deleted Comment
Whenever people come across any "terms" document, they are well served by simply ignoring it entirely and assuming it contains the following statements:
> you own nothing
> the company owns everything
> you have no rights
> you promise not to try and exercise any right you think you have
> if you ever convince yourself that you actually have rights, you agree to binding arbitration with the firm we pay
> you cannot do anything the company doesn't like
> the company can do literally anything it wants whether you like it or not
> the company is not responsible for anything, ever
> the company makes absolutely no guarantees about literally anything
> you agree to indemnify us in all possible circumstances
I'll save everyone some time. In the year 2025, just assume any for profit corporation is stealing your data and you've waived all your rights as a consumer when you agreed to that ToS unless presented with compelling evidence to the contrary.