this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2026
409 points (97.4% liked)

Technology

84199 readers
3436 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The biometric ID project has been halted and investigated in multiple countries, but it recently partnered with Tinder, Zoom, and Docusign to verify users.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Insekticus@aussie.zone 159 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, I'm not doing that. Go fuck yourselves.

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 72 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

The problem is companies like docusign you might not have a choice not to use it, for a job for instance. This is pernicious, and will force us to hand over even more of our information, accepting a thousand page terms of service to do necessary tasks, with no government protection (none enforced even when there,) to any significant degree.

[–] Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works 38 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

In sane places, large terms of service are unenforceable due to the lack of reasonable expectation that they were read and understood. The USA is just a dystopic cesspool of anti-consumerism.

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 19 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Most of such terms were unenforceable in the US too, until around 2001 or so, and it just got worse from there. The supreme court made it official in the 10's sometime if I recall, endorsing even making consumers or employees sign away their rights to sue to either buy something or get hired.

All that wage theft from minimum wage workers, which exploded in the bush years, happened with employees unable to sue, instead only being able to bring a binding arbitration suit of the employer's choosing. And knowing them they would make the claimant pay a big filing fee to start the process.

It also used to be that if one part of such a contract was found to be illegal, the entire thing would be thrown out, not any more.

[–] unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 hours ago

It also used to be that if one part of such a contract was found to be illegal, the entire thing would be thrown out, not any more.

Not necessarily.

A contract is supposed to be a mutually-beneficial arrangement. I sell you a car for its market value. I work for you for a market price on my time for the position and my expertise.

If there's a small mistake both sides are willing to amend - there probably won't even be a suit.

Even if there is a suit, most places' laws prefer nudging toe contract to the side "less off" in such cases.

Only when there are unreasonable demands by one side, or the contract is so one-sided it can't be amended is when it gets thrown out completely.

Which is supposed to be almost never.

Therefore, I don't think the rules themselves changed as much as the goalposts and the reasonableness window have. Quality of life and purchase power is decreasing steadily basically since Reagan.

Contemporary EULAs are taken as acceptable and a fact of life when even 10 years ago T&Cs were laughed at which were much less unreasonable in comparison.

Other types of contracts follow the same general direction, with employment ones being among the absolute worst.