• xxce2AAb@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    Hmm. That’s a good point and sounds like a fairly firm basis for a class action lawsuit.

    • HorreC@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      its hard to prove if they do just the lightest bit of scrubbing for all comments and author marks.

      • xxce2AAb@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        I was thinking more of the presumption of ownership of customer IP being acquired as part of purchasing a company by way of a ToS change. That just seems like attempted retroactive theft to me.

        • HorreC@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          its hard to say, I need to read the last one (and maybe even more) and see what the terms of acceptance on them was. Most times by acknowlaging the terms change and in writing saying you dont agree to them and agree to stop using the things that give said terms after the change date, and even then they could try and argue ‘well xyz inside your home uses this chip/IP so you didnt follow the agreed cancellation of the terms you said you would do so we own all that code’ and xyz is some fucking low function thing in an auto speed fan. They are just as bad as disney with the you agreed to disney+ streaming service so dying from food allergy that you mentioned and the staff knew about and said was taken care of, means you cant sue us and must let us give you 500$ and send you on your way.

          • xxce2AAb@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            I wouldn’t be surprised if they did, given what they evidently already feel entitled to.