Sue Slack on breach of contract, on the grounds that LoTT did not actually violate the policy, with said policy representing a promise by Slack to LoTT that LoTT could not be terminated so long as LoTT did not violate, and LoTT relied on that promise in investing time and resources into developing content under Slack, and therefore Slack breached its promise/contract by terminating without a clear violation of the policy.
Then let a jury decide whether LoTT actually broke the rules or not. Try to sue in the "reddest" county possible.
Tech companies tend to treat their EULAs as "we get to do whatever the fuck we want for any reason" but that's not actually how things work in the real, legal world in business to business transactions. Companies sue and counter sue over terminations and alleged violations of EULAs and shit like that all the time. Consumers are too poor to actually fight back, but companies whose business relies on these services do.
LoTT should have no problem fundraising for a lawsuit. John Stossel is suing facebook for its censorship of him.
As long as they have the "we can ban you for whatever reason at whatever time" clause, and people agree to it, it's always going to be stacked against the user.
If "RWers" weren't such cucks who refused to support Alt-Tech and refused to boycott Big Tech, we probably would have legitimate alternatives that could compete.
I'm rooting for guys like Andrew Torba to create the parallel economy but, at the same time, he's not the right leader and he's too busy building dumb shit like his new AI Image Generator bot.
Exactly. EULAs and Terms of Use are a contract between you and the service. Contracts bind both parties, and in order to be valid, both parties must derive benefit.
Given that public figures have a reputational interest in their access to these services and others have business models that rely on them, there's real money at stake which gives rise to a cause of action when the website software provider breaks the terms.
Sue Slack on breach of contract, on the grounds that LoTT did not actually violate the policy, with said policy representing a promise by Slack to LoTT that LoTT could not be terminated so long as LoTT did not violate, and LoTT relied on that promise in investing time and resources into developing content under Slack, and therefore Slack breached its promise/contract by terminating without a clear violation of the policy.
Then let a jury decide whether LoTT actually broke the rules or not. Try to sue in the "reddest" county possible.
Tech companies tend to treat their EULAs as "we get to do whatever the fuck we want for any reason" but that's not actually how things work in the real, legal world in business to business transactions. Companies sue and counter sue over terminations and alleged violations of EULAs and shit like that all the time. Consumers are too poor to actually fight back, but companies whose business relies on these services do.
LoTT should have no problem fundraising for a lawsuit. John Stossel is suing facebook for its censorship of him.
As long as they have the "we can ban you for whatever reason at whatever time" clause, and people agree to it, it's always going to be stacked against the user.
If "RWers" weren't such cucks who refused to support Alt-Tech and refused to boycott Big Tech, we probably would have legitimate alternatives that could compete.
I'm rooting for guys like Andrew Torba to create the parallel economy but, at the same time, he's not the right leader and he's too busy building dumb shit like his new AI Image Generator bot.
Exactly. EULAs and Terms of Use are a contract between you and the service. Contracts bind both parties, and in order to be valid, both parties must derive benefit.
Given that public figures have a reputational interest in their access to these services and others have business models that rely on them, there's real money at stake which gives rise to a cause of action when the website software provider breaks the terms.