Topic: Ya seen the new ToS?

Everyone is getting quite riled up. It's quite sorrowful honestly. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if the bad dragon representative changes their name to Hal Grieves

snpthecat said:
Everyone is getting quite riled up. It's quite sorrowful honestly. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if the bad dragon representative becomes Hal Grieves

Hal IS the bad dragon representative.

bird-tm said:
Hal IS the bad dragon representative.

alright, should work on my wording

bird-tm said:
Hal IS the bad dragon representative.

"Hal Greaves" is, "Hal Grieves" is not

dba_afish said:
when are people thinking that they're even going to need to sue the furry art archive site anyway? like, in what situations would a normal user even find themself in where the forced arbitration would even apply?

Needing to sue the site isn't the point, having rights suddenly stripped away without any say in the matter is

And no, "just stop using the site" is not a valid argument

suihtilcod said:
...

• I'm aware that this will require a new method of addressing "first logins" — one that doesn't block access to the entire site (as was the case with the original "Are you an adult?" pop-up, and now with this one.) Still, this should be addressed sooner rather than later if there's an insistence on keeping this new "three-click" login process.

...

Here is an option: keep current access behavior but include all three in first-time pop-up window. Some websites do it like this. E621 can have 3 collapsible windows, privacy and code of conduct additionally "linked" from inside ToS window. To proceed need to open and read all three then tick off relevant boxes. Not sure how realistic but would work. Most people are not going to read all of that anyway.

Other point is how this ToS acceptance tracking just doesn't seem to work well enough. On mobile it sometiems "expires" when closing browser (no cookies actually cleared), haven't tested PC browsers yet.

"You must not reproduce, distribute, modify, create derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, republish, download, store, transmit, or otherwise use any of the material or content on our Website, except as follows:

● Your computer or device may temporarily store copies of such materials in RAM incidental to your accessing and viewing those materials.
● You may store files that are automatically cached by your Web browser for display enhancement purposes.
● If we provide desktop, mobile, or other applications for download, you may download a single copy to your computer or mobile device solely for your own personal, non-commercial use, provided you agree to be bound by our end user license agreement for such applications.
● If we provide any interactive features or functions with certain content, you may take such actions as are enabled by such interactive features or functions."

So are you guys straight up saying no one is allowed to download ANYTHING off of here, now?

hiad said:
"You must not reproduce, distribute, modify, create derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, republish, download, store, transmit, or otherwise use any of the material or content on our Website, except as follows:

● Your computer or device may temporarily store copies of such materials in RAM incidental to your accessing and viewing those materials.
● You may store files that are automatically cached by your Web browser for display enhancement purposes.
● If we provide desktop, mobile, or other applications for download, you may download a single copy to your computer or mobile device solely for your own personal, non-commercial use, provided you agree to be bound by our end user license agreement for such applications.
● If we provide any interactive features or functions with certain content, you may take such actions as are enabled by such interactive features or functions."

So are you guys straight up saying no one is allowed to download ANYTHING off of here, now?

Read the literal first three words of that section, "Excluding User Contributions"
It's just a few sentences up from what you quoted

memeplague7 said:
is anyone else having to agree to the ToS again everytime you open the site? it's not a big problem but it is getting a bit annoying

Same here. It won't be fixed because God knows these pricks can't be bothered.

Update Edit: And I was right. Fuck you dickheads.

donovan_dmc said:
Read the literal first three words of that section, "Excluding User Contributions"
It's just a few sentences up from what you quoted

Those tHrEe WoRdS appear nowhere in that text. Try again.

clockblock said:
Those tHrEe WoRdS appear nowhere in that text. Try again.

You should really try more reading and less hostility, it's even bolded and underlined now

clockblock said:
Those tHrEe WoRdS appear nowhere in that text. Try again.

it's-- it's literally fucking bold and underlined, what?

Terms of Use said:

4. Our Copyrights

Excluding User Contributions (defined below)[...]

can you not Ctrl+F?

Someone mentioned ID/age verification stuff... The irony of the whole thing gets me. One can agree and sign away rights in a legal, binding agreement with a click of a mouse, but when it comes to proving they're over 18 they have to show a government ID. For some reason attesting your date of birth using literally the same technology isn't good enough. Please explain how one is enforcable and one is not. (Or we don't actually know what is and isn't enforcable because nobody has ever come to trial over these things. Probably just bullying and settlements.)

It's actually about time a big corp stepped on to fix this problem. I think you see this kind of massive ToS dump because nobody really knows what's enforcable and what isn't and lawyers just copy each other and don't really know either. Like, we need the equivalent of Newegg in the 00s counter suing the company who used to sue over a patent on the internet shopping cart, about what can and can't be "agreed to" digitally.

All of these Tos i just click agree and move on. but i actually did read this one to an extent just to make sure there wasnt something i wasn't aware of.

I've already read through it and agreed, but I believe that those who haven't yet should at least be able to access their account and have the opportunity to disable/delete their account and request data removal if they do not agree to the new ToS. The forced arbitration clause is one thing ("industry standard" or not), but users should at least be able to manage their account & data, request takedowns, view tickets, etc. without agreeing to it.

Perhaps this has already been addressed and I'm simply unaware, but am I wrong? If so, why? /gen

kodaforshort said:
Someone mentioned ID/age verification stuff... The irony of the whole thing gets me. One can agree and sign away rights in a legal, binding agreement with a click of a mouse, but when it comes to proving they're over 18 they have to show a government ID. For some reason attesting your date of birth using literally the same technology isn't good enough. Please explain how one is enforcable and one is not. (Or we don't actually know what is and isn't enforcable because nobody has ever come to trial over these things. Probably just bullying and settlements.)

It's actually about time a big corp stepped on to fix this problem. I think you see this kind of massive ToS dump because nobody really knows what's enforcable and what isn't and lawyers just copy each other and don't really know either. Like, we need the equivalent of Newegg in the 00s counter suing the company who used to sue over a patent on the internet shopping cart, about what can and can't be "agreed to" digitally.

ToS are not enforceable on minors due to their lack of ability to enter a binding contract

I'm not saying sites can't remove minors or something crazy like that, but this is apples to oranges and with more laws coming in a little ok box won't hold up for why minors were allowed into an 18+ area

kinkykitty22 said:
I've already read through it and agreed, but I believe that those who haven't yet should at least be able to access their account and have the opportunity to disable/delete their account and request data removal if they do not agree to the new ToS. The forced arbitration clause is one thing ("industry standard" or not), but users should at least be able to manage their account & data, request takedowns, view tickets, etc. without agreeing to it.

Perhaps this has already been addressed and I'm simply unaware, but am I wrong? If so, why? /gen

thought the data removal was already on the´´ delete account package´´, how can said data removal be requested?

not saying that i plan on deleting my acount, but i like to be prepared if things get ugly

eranormus said:
thought the data removal was already on the´´ delete account package´´, how can said data removal be requested?

not saying that i plan on deleting my acount, but i like to be prepared if things get ugly

I think the question was asking about deleting/removing data without needing to agree to any newly modified versions of the ToS first.

I feel like we should also have a page that explains to artists and other rights holders who to contact about having their stuff removed without the individual neeing to agree to the ToS.

eranormus said:
thought the data removal was already on the´´ delete account package´´, how can said data removal be requested?

not saying that i plan on deleting my acount, but i like to be prepared if things get ugly

The only data removal option that exists happens when an account is deleted
favorites are cleared, username is anonymized, and few other things

donovan_dmc said:
favorites are cleared, username is anonymized, and few other things

Comments are not deleted as per moderator DM reply. Not preemptively at least.

justkhajiit said:
Comments are not deleted as per moderator DM reply. Not preemptively at least.

I am aware, I never claimed they were

Asking for them to all be hidden will also likely be denied in most cases, especially forum posts
And mass hiding forum posts is likely to just lead to being banned

In actuality all that's done is here

• rename
• clear settings
• clear favorites
• reset password

vulfie said:
I have seen it and I'm not impressed. The trend of adding arbitration clauses and "You forfeit your rights" to everything lately is quite alarming. I'd wonder why e6 would feel the need to do this, maybe they're trying to get ahead of any future data breaches that result in UK Government ID's being stolen, like what happened with Discord?

Yea they are kind of back into a corner here, data breechs will happen, no way around that, even the best security falls eventually, and since they are being forced to collect IDs by the British government their choices are either force users to sign a "I will not sue" clause or eventually get sued for something they are being forced to do

Although if that is the reason, it'd be nice to have it only be users in the UK who have to sign a forced arbitration

maythetransfem2 said:
Yea they are kind of back into a corner here, data breechs will happen, no way around that, even the best security falls eventually, and since they are being forced to collect IDs by the British government their choices are either force users to sign a "I will not sue" clause or eventually get sued for something they are being forced to do

Although if that is the reason, it'd be nice to have it only be users in the UK who have to sign a forced arbitration

They are also being forced to collect IDs by the US government in Arizona under threat of fines and lawsuits.

donovan_dmc said:
Read the literal first three words of that section, "Excluding User Contributions"
It's just a few sentences up from what you quoted

Fair, thanks for the clarification!

Now, these sections here:

"We grant you a limited, revocable, non-exclusive, non-transferable right and license to access and use the Website for personal, non-commercial purposes only, subject to these Terms."

"Without limiting the foregoing, User Contributions must not contain material that, outside of clearly marked fantasy, within art, or in-character contexts:

Involves unsolicited commercial activities or sales, including without limitation, any contests, sweepstakes, or other sales, advertising, or marketing activities or promotions not authorized by us."

Does this mean that artists are no longer allowed to link to their Patreon or advertise (via watermark in uploaded animations, for example)?

hiad said:
Fair, thanks for the clarification!

Now, these sections here:

"We grant you a limited, revocable, non-exclusive, non-transferable right and license to access and use the Website for personal, non-commercial purposes only, subject to these Terms."

"Without limiting the foregoing, User Contributions must not contain material that, outside of clearly marked fantasy, within art, or in-character contexts:

Involves unsolicited commercial activities or sales, including without limitation, any contests, sweepstakes, or other sales, advertising, or marketing activities or promotions not authorized by us."

Does this mean that artists are no longer allowed to link to their Patreon or advertise (via watermark in uploaded animations, for example)?

I think people are getting the wrong idea; most all of this is just presenting pre-existing rules in a format that both holds more weight in court & requires explicit agreement prior to use.

In that vein, as stated on our Uploading Guidelines:

Acceptable advertisements are those with artistic and entertainment value that far outweighs their nature to sell goods or services. Advertisements that only advertise goods and services are not acceptable and the uploader or artist will need to purchase advertisement space here instead.

Please see the linked section for further details.

justkhajiit said:
Are you using Opera by chance? It has troubles retaining memory of a cookie but not necessarily cookie itself. It'll log into websites on page refresh but before that tell you you've logged out.

I use Firefox, but it fixed itself when I checked just now.
Thanks anyways.

kinkykitty22 said:
I've already read through it and agreed, but I believe that those who haven't yet should at least be able to access their account and have the opportunity to disable/delete their account and request data removal if they do not agree to the new ToS. The forced arbitration clause is one thing ("industry standard" or not), but users should at least be able to manage their account & data, request takedowns, view tickets, etc. without agreeing to it.

Perhaps this has already been addressed and I'm simply unaware, but am I wrong? If so, why? /gen

That's a really good point, thank you for the suggestion.

There's a couple reasons why this, at least to the extent you've outlined, is unlikely to be possible; although a severely limited form might be feasible.

The main one is that, as already stated, this is a protective measure to prevent bad-faith litigation, & allowing access to almost every single page of the site exposes us to risk due to the content surfaced. You can't view your comments or profile page without seeing an avatar you might have set to something legally problematic, you can't view tickets without potentially being exposed to legally problematic content, so on and so forth.

That being said, it should be possible for us to create a specific page where users can submit their login credentials & delete their account without actually logging in, & then disable the prompt on that page. I don't want to make a promise I can't keep, & this isn't a choice that I have unilateral control over, but I'll see what I can do; there might already be a preferred alternative solution.

Disclaimer, I do not speak for BD, & I will not be speaking for the staff team, nor as a staff member, in this post.

donovan_dmc said:
Needing to sue the site isn't the point, having rights suddenly stripped away without any say in the matter is

And no, "just stop using the site" is not a valid argument

If I'm reading it correctly, the question wasn't posed out of surprise that people are dissatisfied at this situation, but out of surprise at the intensity of the reaction, because, like they said, I genuinely cannot come up with a single scenario where a user would actually need to file an earnest, good-faith, meritorious lawsuit against BD that would be impacted by this forced arbitration clause.

This is not to say no such case exists, and please share if you have one, as tying this concern to a concrete example would greatly help us both understand the concern & address it as best we can while still protecting ourselves. I'm just saying, personally, I really don't know why so many people are not just arguing against this from a moral standpoint (one which I 100% understand and empathize with), but seem to be genuinely concerned they might be directly hurt by this, to the point of taking actions not out of protest, but protection from the perceived threat of this clause.

If this rollout seemed insufficiently prepared for user dissatisfaction, I imagine (no, I don't know this, & I wouldn't be saying this if I did) that might be because protecting the site ASAP (& improving any deficiencies or errors over time) was the main focus, & it was assumed this wouldn't foster such an extreme level of anxiety in the community, as the service provided is one where - again, in my personal, potentially ill-informed opinion - it's indescribably difficult to find a scenario where a user would be harmed by actions of the service provider, or by the lack thereof, at least one that's legally recognized in a way where a lawsuit adjudicated in an impartial, public, judicial court would have even a remote chance to prevail (or in other words, a case where forced arbitration would actually matter).

As stated prior (& edits to the ToS prove), we are and will continue working to improve this for users, & for my part, this personal lack of understanding the practical foundation for this anxiety doesn't invalidate it. We will continue to work to assuage those fears where we reasonably can regardless.

There are many ways to argue you didn't correctly get the terms correctly.
It's also possible to browse the site without accepting them.

moon_flower said:
There are many ways to argue you didn't correctly get the terms correctly.
It's also possible to browse the site without accepting them.

I feel like this is something that should be fixed, because this could presumably cause issues.

moon_flower said:
There are many ways to argue you didn't correctly get the terms correctly.
It's also possible to browse the site without accepting them.

"This sign can't stop me because I can't read" is not a valid excuse.

Use of our site requires that you read and agree to our Terms of Use. If you bypass this, you are in violation of our terms and will be permanently removed.

If the Terms of Use were not properly served to you, then it would behoof you to remedy that as all users of the site are bound by its terms regardless. You cannot use our site and simultaneously shrug off our terms of that use.

catchoftheday said:
All of these Tos i just click agree and move on. but i actually did read this one to an extent just to make sure there wasnt something i wasn't aware of.

Same, I felt like I couldn't completely shrug it off after everything lately.

aacafah said:
This is not to say no such case exists, and please share if you have one, as tying this concern to a concrete example would greatly help us both understand the concern & address it as best we can while still protecting ourselves. I'm just saying, personally, I really don't know why so many people are not just arguing against this from a moral standpoint (one which I 100% understand and empathize with), but seem to be genuinely concerned they might be directly hurt by this, to the point of taking actions not out of protest, but protection from the perceived threat of this clause.

With the current administration of the site, I don't see it as much of a risk. The issue is that the arbitration clause is an ongoing waiving of rights. Though, at least only while it's still operated by Dragon Fruit Ventures LLC.
What if an admin goes insane and does something like doxing me? I'm not saying it's likely, or even particularly plausible - but just because I trust the current administration of the site, doesn't mean there isn't at least some chance of a current or future staff member doing something that could cause actual harm, that would be covered under the arbitration clause. I have to put at least some trust into every staff member on the site, due to the ability to view IPs and potentially combine that with other tracking data.

I don't see it as anywhere close to impossible that a bad actor could get into the staff here. I don't think it's particularly likely, nor that such a bad actor would target me - but hypothetically, what if one were to passively collect what data they can on users, and use it as a form of blackmail? While I believe BD would take action, part of the standard way to resolve such issues in the US would involve suing the site administration, who would then pass off as much blame as they can onto the bad actor.

Or, a scenario that doesn't involve a bad actor on the staff, just negligence - say there's a code issue that leaks some of that staff-only data to users, and a bad actor among the userbase does something with it.
(I don't think it's likely an IP address alone would be significant enough for anyone, but other tracking data could be).

rainbow_dash said:
"This sign can't stop me because I can't read" is not a valid excuse.

Use of our site requires that you read and agree to our Terms of Use. If you bypass this, you are in violation of our terms and will be permanently removed.

If the Terms of Use were not properly served to you, then it would behoof you to remedy that as all users of the site are bound by its terms regardless. You cannot use our site and simultaneously shrug off our terms of that use.

Methinks it was not about circumvention itself as much as potential failure of ToS pop-up to appear. On my end ToS pop-up loaded more reliably than posts or forum.
If terms aren't shown (no idea how) and user does not have an account, they can't submit bug report unless sending email and pretty much nobody is going to do that. And so you don't really have a way to remove (ban) them, unless there is internal tracker for each new connected "user" (this presents some issues for third-party tools though).

scth said:
With the current administration of the site, I don't see it as much of a risk. The issue is that the arbitration clause is an ongoing waiving of rights. Though, at least only while it's still operated by Dragon Fruit Ventures LLC.
What if an admin goes insane and does something like doxing me?

Forgoing arbitration agreements are only legal in matters of civil penalties and limited to specific things. In turn they are also not binding in some places, often voided (or in some extremes if attempted to be acted upon, illegal). If an admin was doxing you, it would likely be more a criminal matter, and that clause doesn't have the authority in any place to prevent you from lawyer-ing up or from criminal penalties for someone doing that. If anyone was willing to do such a thing, then it would be highly stupid of them thinking that a anti-arbitration clause would protect them. I would say it's more there to provide more an Anti-SLAP protection for frivolous suits.

aacafah said:
I really don't know why so many people are not just arguing against this from a moral standpoint (one which I 100% understand and empathize with), but seem to be genuinely concerned they might be directly hurt by this, to the point of taking actions not out of protest, but protection from the perceived threat of this clause.

Predisupte arbitration agreements are illegal in most of the industrialized world outside of the US and Canada, and for good reason- they are harmful by design, they're made to strip of you meaningful legal remedy for wrongdoing. Arbitration is genuinely useless as a remedy for any meaningful harm- it's expensive, it's complicated, and not held to the same standards of fairness and bias as an actual court, and what's worse is you can't appeal if an error is made as all decisions are final. Arbitration courts are meant for matters that are too small even for small claims as opposed to a catch-all for everything one doesn't feel like being responsible for.

There really isn't any legitimate reason to use a binding arbitration clause to begin with, they're purely for avoiding responsibility over harm done to people. So of course people are upset and trying to protect themselves! And rightfully so, as these clauses are designed to hurt people, straight up. So when such a clause is now being used, there's concern resulting from it.

mklxiv said:
it's expensive

compared to what? a full-on lawsuit?

dba_afish said:
compared to what? a full-on lawsuit?

Yeah, ironically enough as a common thing brought up by proponents of binding arbitration is that it's somehow cheaper, but that's not the case because of the types of processes involved all add up to cost more. Maybe the "cheaper" comes from not having to pay damages as often or at all.

Our whole world has gone to fucking shit because of Age Verification & Countries that that think mass surveillance is a good idea are abousolute idiots that have no goddamn fucking morales along with their heads so fucking far up thier asses that they can not tell the difference.

I don't think there is ill intent but the response so far is pretty poor.

You can't reasonably accuse user to be conspiracy theorists when all the responses seem to carefully avoid saying why this clause is there ("others are doing it to" and "our lobby told us to" are not actual reasons). You can't seriously defend from "corporatization" while objectively doing big crop things and admitting you're a big site in the next sentence. The entire point of contract law and things like ToS is to not have to rely on mutual trust alone. So of course when you put completely one-sided ToS and then justify it with "we're good guys tho trust us" some people will not be happy.

And as others have noted, yeah the form is problematic. It as a bunch of all caps which is known to hinder comprehension. There are unironically several 1000+ character sentences. etc. It doesn't make the text more enforceable or less ambiguous, but somehow this kind of thing that would get a text immediately rejected in any other profession is tolerated in the cargo-culted land of lawyers. (Ok I'm getting carried away, and this is not really specific to e6, so let's go back on topic- )

I can very much think of reasons I would want to sue e621. Say personal information is leaked and the leak is found to be the result of gross negligence. That's actual damage, tort etc.

On the other hand, maybe I just don't have the imagination, but I don't see how the arbitration clause could protect from or even relate to ID verification stuff. ToS cannot even bind minors as they don't have the capacity to consent legally.

Which kind of frivolous lawsuit is this mean to protect from? What's the scenario here?

rainbow_dash said:
"This sign can't stop me because I can't read" is not a valid excuse.

Use of our site requires that you read and agree to our Terms of Use. If you bypass this, you are in violation of our terms and will be permanently removed.

If the Terms of Use were not properly served to you, then it would behoof you to remedy that as all users of the site are bound by its terms regardless. You cannot use our site and simultaneously shrug off our terms of that use.

I could be wrong, but wasn't there a famous court case some time back where these popup checkboxes "I have read and agree to these Terms & Conditions." were considered non-binding due to it being established the average individual wouldn't read before hitting those boxes? I think it was against the Apple corporation. Wasn't that why we then had an influx of pop up boxes requiring you to scroll before accepting?

Even if that were the case I'm sure it was from something specific to that particular court case, just thought I would mention it though.

My Opinion

I've read the TOS and Privacy Policy and must say it's partly invalid for most if not all residents of EU countries.

TOS

1. Jurisdiction clauses are invalid in the EU. According to EU regulations (Rome I & Brussels Ia), EU consumers can enforce their rights under local law and in their local courts.
This means EU users are not bound to Arizona courts or law; they can make claims in their country.
2. Because EU law can be applicable, the broadly exclusion of liability is also not invalid for most EU users. (Germany has laws against it for sure. Other EU countries probably as well.)

Privacy

Here’s a very short summary of the main privacy problems under EU law:
- No reference to GDPR or EU user rights (access, erasure, etc.).
- No info on how data transfers to the US are protected.
- EU users’ rights and safeguards are not fully addressed.

TL;DR

Most of the e6 Terms of Service are only partially valid for users from the EU. EU law provides mandatory protections with respect to data privacy, liability, contract language, and consumer rights, which override the chosen US law in many cases.

Possible Solutions:

1. Change the TOS to include exceptions for EU users from the broad exclusion of liability and the jurisdiction clause. Include the rights of EU users in the Privacy Policy. (Of course there must be made more changes.)
2. Block access for all EU users.
3. Ban anyone who tries to sue you outside the US. (That would be illegal in most EU countries as well.)

Happy suing! joke

Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer but I do know a thing or two about EU and German consumer rights.

furviewingaccount said:
I do wonder how long e6 can continue operating out of the US. I have to imagine this is because all of the moral panic going around these days, cause there isn't some high profile case from an artist or something that would cause them to change this to my knowledge. And I don't think this wave of internet censorship is going away any time soon either. Then again, where would they move to?

We need to fund the e621 oil rig in international waters.

spikehidden said:
... some text...

All that still doesn't stop businesses and sites operating in EU from saying the same things included in e621 ToS and privacy policy.

Not a lawyer either.

The TOS language is deliberately obfuscatory. You can't possibly consent to it because even attorneys argue over what it means. Consent without understanding is not consent.

justkhajiit said:
All that still doesn't stop businesses and sites operating in EU from saying the same things included in e621 ToS and privacy policy.

Not a lawyer either.

That's true, mostly they try to scare people off with that. Depending on the size of the company, local consumer protection organizations might take action they send cease and desist declaration or even file an injunction if the company do not comply. And fines can be up to 4% of global sales. This includes sales of sub companies and parent companies. Not paying those fines might end up in IP/Domain bans to prevent EU users to visit e6 (unlikely) or if they have money on accounts of financial institutions that are located in the EU, those might be frozen or taken to pay the fine.

But even if under furries e6 is big, it might not be big enough for most authorities to take action on their own. Same goes for consumer protection organizations.

I wonder how they'd react if I send a data request (GDPR).

spikehidden said:
I wonder how they'd react if I send a data request (GDPR).

I'm going to be real here and ask what exactly you expect us to do with the request though? Like do you want us to give you some horrible response or something? This comes off as just rude when I've explained multiple times in this thread that we're not trying to be evil corporate here, but it almost always comes back to this "us vrs them" as if we are the ones trying to be malicious here. We're doing what we can as advised to us by people who are professionals and do this for a living, and as much as I don't want to go this route the problem lies squarely with politicians who make very silly laws - not us. I'd like for us to continue to exist so we can provide a service -for free- to our fans here.

hal_greaves said:
it almost always comes back to this "us vrs them" as if we are the ones trying to be malicious here.

I appreciate what you're saying and what the site claims it's trying to do. Unfortunately, experience has taught users that corporate maliciousness is exactly what happens when sites implement these terms of service.

Consider who else puts this language in big pop-ups you can't (easily) bypass before using the platform. Microsoft, Google, X, Facebook, Instagram, Apple, TikTok, Disney, Paramount, Hulu, Netflix. They all have essentially the same, intentionally confusing legal jargon. They all make it dozens of pages long, knowing 99% of readers haven't the time, attention span, or legal knowledge to read and understand it before they click through. And these companies do it so that if they break the law, users can't fight back.

And the problem is that by doing it here, e621 has now lumped itself with them.

I saw someone has brought up enshittification. This is always part of the process.

And there is literally a corporation involved here.

It's not your fault, but people have read this book before. They've already heard the reassurances. And it always ends the same way.

I'm going to be completely honest, here. the ToU really is not all that hard to read, people are acting like it's all in obscure legalese, but like-- I mean, it's pretty long winded, but it's more or less in plain english. at the very least it's certainly not the intention for it to be difficult to read.

in addition to that, just by the nature of text documents on this site, you will, not only, have the full history of every version of the terms, you'll also have easy access to a diff check, and as long as that remains true they literally cannot do the shady shit of changing the terms and not telling anyone what's changed or when.

spikehidden said:
I wonder how they'd react if I send a data request (GDPR).

what private data do you even think that they could possibly have? they have, like, your email address, your IP, and . it's not like you provide them with anything else and there's not any tracking cookies or anything on the site.

A few things.

aacafah said:
Disclaimer, I do not speak for BD, & I will not be speaking for the staff team, nor as a staff member, in this post.
If I'm reading it correctly, the question wasn't posed out of surprise that people are dissatisfied at this situation, but out of surprise at the intensity of the reaction, because, like they said, I genuinely cannot come up with a single scenario where a user would actually need to file an earnest, good-faith, meritorious lawsuit against BD that would be impacted by this forced arbitration clause.

This is not to say no such case exists, and please share if you have one, as tying this concern to a concrete example would greatly help us both understand the concern & address it as best we can while still protecting ourselves. I'm just saying, personally, I really don't know why so many people are not just arguing against this from a moral standpoint (one which I 100% understand and empathize with), but seem to be genuinely concerned they might be directly hurt by this, to the point of taking actions not out of protest, but protection from the perceived threat of this clause.

If this rollout seemed insufficiently prepared for user dissatisfaction, I imagine (no, I don't know this, & I wouldn't be saying this if I did) that might be because protecting the site ASAP (& improving any deficiencies or errors over time) was the main focus, & it was assumed this wouldn't foster such an extreme level of anxiety in the community, as the service provided is one where - again, in my personal, potentially ill-informed opinion - it's indescribably difficult to find a scenario where a user would be harmed by actions of the service provider, or by the lack thereof, at least one that's legally recognized in a way where a lawsuit adjudicated in an impartial, public, judicial court would have even a remote chance to prevail (or in other words, a case where forced arbitration would actually matter).

hal_greaves said:
I'm going to be real here and ask what exactly you expect us to do with the request though? Like do you want us to give you some horrible response or something? This comes off as just rude when I've explained multiple times in this thread that we're not trying to be evil corporate here, but it almost always comes back to this "us vrs them" as if we are the ones trying to be malicious here. We're doing what we can as advised to us by people who are professionals and do this for a living, and as much as I don't want to go this route the problem lies squarely with politicians who make very silly laws - not us. I'd like for us to continue to exist so we can provide a service -for free- to our fans here.

Forced arbitration is a sore spot for a lotta' people because a cool majority of corporate companies (ie. Apple, ActiBlizz, etc.) use it to game the system out of fair compensation to an end user. I imagine there wouldn't be as much pushback if the forced arbitration clause was restricted to e621 itself through some clever use of language, but Bad Dragon is still a company and subject to the same eroding incentives any company is. Say, what if Bad Dragon has some weaker leadership that fold like a cheap lawn chair when faced with scary new legislation, begin sharing user data with third parties, and accidentally leak some credit card info to public channels? Forced arbitration prevents you from taking 'em to civil court, which also happens to mean no discovery. We already see a variant of this with the Flock Safety system in the United States and the way it's caught some police districts by the balls.

rainbow_dash said:
"This sign can't stop me because I can't read" is not a valid excuse.

Use of our site requires that you read and agree to our Terms of Use. If you bypass this, you are in violation of our terms and will be permanently removed.

If the Terms of Use were not properly served to you, then it would behoof you to remedy that as all users of the site are bound by its terms regardless. You cannot use our site and simultaneously shrug off our terms of that use.

It's a pretty big deal. Forced arbitration is irrelevant if the ToS/EULA is unenforcible because you can click right past it without giving informed consent. Forcing people to scroll the agreement and then click accept is the only way it'd be at least reasonably airtight where it'd matter against a bad faith actor.

grizzly_yote said:
Consider who else puts this language in big pop-ups you can't (easily) bypass before using the platform. Microsoft, Google, X, Facebook, Instagram, Apple, TikTok, Disney, Paramount, Hulu, Netflix.

A bit off-topic but I for one have no faintest clue how any of these limit platform usage. Sure, you need an account to post an view some locked content (arguably more than necessary) and creating account requires reading their ToS/ToC/EULA but apart from that? Free browsing as much as it's allowed.

Many of them lump in one document ToS for literally every service they have and people might use some time later. Doesn't help readability one bit but explains length. Compared to them, e621 ToS are Simple English.

For now better to give e621 staff some time. Download your favorite art if you want, but give them time.

P.S. @HalGreaves you've got to fix the pop-up thingy though. Its behavior is about as consistent as drunk Argonian on Skooma.

I live in a state where forced arbitration clauses are not legally binding and get thrown out on the grounds of it being unconstitutional and unconscionable. However, E621 servers are most likely in another state where forced arbitration could get enforced. I have no legal expertise, so I am not sure how this would go down either way. But I have heard of "some" cases where my state did manage to drag cases here into my state and that did involve data breaches or other legal shenanigans happening on servers else where. Maybe it just depends on the kind of breach or case it is. But only the lawyers really know. It's such a confusing web of legalese and bullshittery now a days. The only people who really win are the lawyers in the end.

Either way, I'm not particularly worried. I don't conduct business on or through this site, and I certainly don't have any kind of personal identifiable information in my profile or comments. I don't use this username and password combination any where else except this site. If the whole digital ID thing ever became a thing here and I was forced to use it to view this site, I would simply stop using this site. Nothing personal, there are just other image archival or booru sites out there where I won't need to give out that kind of information.

justkhajiit said:
A bit off-topic but ...

Not the point I was making. I was explaining that users may be upset because they associate e621's behavior with the same behavior from big corporations acting in bad faith.

grizzly_yote said:
Not the point I was making. I was explaining that users may be upset because they associate e621's behavior with the same behavior from big corporations acting in bad faith.

Yes, other big corporations do that.
E621 is not a big corporation.

dba_afish said:
what private data do you even think that they could possibly have? they have, like, your email address, your IP, and . it's not like you provide them with anything else and there's not any tracking cookies or anything on the site.

Upvotes, Downvotes, Favorites, forum posts and comments, uploaded media, ect.
It doesn't have to be private to count as personal data. It is enough if it is linked to your account.

dba_afish said:
I'm going to be completely honest, here. the ToU really is not all that hard to read, people are acting like it's all in obscure legalese, but like-- I mean, it's pretty long winded, but it's more or less in plain english. at the very least it's certainly not the intention for it to be difficult to read.

in addition to that, just by the nature of text documents on this site, you will, not only, have the full history of every version of the terms, you'll also have easy access to a diff check, and as long as that remains true they literally cannot do the shady shit of changing the terms and not telling anyone what's changed or when.

That's not the point. For example they are required to list any company that processes your data. Even if they do it as a contractor. Like Cloudflare, which I do not see listed even though they clearly use it.

Don't get me wrong, I love this site, but imagine a small group reports them? Or even a single person. It would have consequences, like fines (I doubt they will actually use the 40M€ limit for them.) and claims for compensation. (Lost of control of data does already count as damage.)

Better to be safe than sorry.

spikehidden said:
That's not the point. For example they are required to list any company that processes your data. Even if they do it as a contractor. Like Cloudflare

Please tell me this doesn't go to the insane level of listing various ISPs and the like...

bird-tm said:
Yes, other big corporations do that.
E621 is not a big corporation.

How big is Bad Dragon? And what happens down the road?

grizzly_yote said:
How big is Bad Dragon? And what happens down the road?

BD has like 100 employees, if the company's LinkedIn is to be believed. the web hosting/advertising branch that's in charge of e6 (Dragon Fruit Ventures LLC), from what I understand, probably has around a half-dozen full-time employees.

and I'd be kinda surprised if the fantasy sex toy design/manufacturing company expanded to become some ubiquitous megacorp. we'd be living in a much cooler world if that was possible.

dba_afish said:
BD has like 100 employees, if the company's LinkedIn is to be believed. the web hosting/advertising branch that's in charge of e6 (Dragon Fruit Ventures LLC), from what I understand, probably has around a half-dozen full-time employees.

and I'd be kinda surprised if the fantasy sex toy design/manufacturing company expanded to become some ubiquitous megacorp. we'd be living in a much cooler world if that was possible.

I feel like people either deliberately miss or ignore my point. The behavior equals that of people who've shown us they can't be trusted.

grizzly_yote said:
The behavior equals that of people who've shown us they can't be trusted.

Hitler liked drawing (supposedly). Art here is made by people who like drawing.

While it's fair to be cautious of something that could maybe be an issue sometime in the future, don't get caught up in hypotheticals where many other things also need to change for there to be a problem with it.

grizzly_yote said:
I feel like people either deliberately miss or ignore my point. The behavior equals that of people who've shown us they can't be trusted.

As Watsit said, correlation does not equal causation. Big corporations use it for the same reason we do; to cover their ass. However, they do it because they're going to screw you over. If you have an unshakable conviction is that we're going to do the same, then that's your perspective, but it's been pretty clearly established we have reason to fear legal action that's unwarranted, illegitimate, & not from actual users.

spikehidden said:
Upvotes, Downvotes, Favorites, forum posts and comments, uploaded media, ect.
It doesn't have to be private to count as personal data. It is enough if it is linked to your account.

So? Fill out the form & I see no reason we wouldn't delete all relevant data, publicly accessible or not. Like Hal said:

hal_greaves said:
I'm going to be real here and ask what exactly you expect us to do with the request though? Like do you want us to give you some horrible response or something?

mklxiv said:
There really isn't any legitimate reason to use a binding arbitration clause to begin with, they're purely for avoiding responsibility over harm done to people.

Have you never heard of insurance fraud? Have you never seen videos of people faking injuries in a bid to sue for damages? When the Costa Concordia sank, there was a family that tried to sue the ship owners at court because their relative died... Until the lawyer they contacted to file it showed up with the police; then she materialized from the next room.

People file spurious, frivolous lawsuits all the time. That's why many (but not enough imo) states have passed anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation; basically a lawsuit to stifle free speech) legislation. If you don't consider protecting against that valuable enough to offset the damage you argue arbitration clauses cause, that's fine; but not wanting some lying bad actor to sue you off the face of the Earth is 100% a legitimate reason to include one.

I asked you for a concrete example of how we could possibly harm a user with this agreement, & you just reiterated that it's harmful. I'm trying to understand your concern, but repeating the point & not even attempting to give an example (so I can either see the flaws in my viewpoint or explain how I don't find it applicable) is not helping me do so. You gotta work with me here.

Here's an example:

scth said:
What if an admin goes insane and does something like doxing me? I'm not saying it's likely, or even particularly plausible - but just because I trust the current administration of the site, doesn't mean there isn't at least some chance of a current or future staff member doing something that could cause actual harm, that would be covered under the arbitration clause. I have to put at least some trust into every staff member on the site, due to the ability to view IPs and potentially combine that with other tracking data.

I think NeoDhaos addressed this very well, but I'd also remind you that, unless I'm missing something, this only insulates the company from liability, not site staff. If an admin doxxed you, you can (& should) sue them; this contract doesn't cover them.

scth said:
...but hypothetically, what if one were to passively collect what data they can on users, and use it as a form of blackmail? While I believe BD would take action, part of the standard way to resolve such issues in the US would involve suing the site administration, who would then pass off as much blame as they can onto the bad actor.

Or, a scenario that doesn't involve a bad actor on the staff, just negligence - say there's a code issue that leaks some of that staff-only data to users, and a bad actor among the userbase does something with it.
(I don't think it's likely an IP address alone would be significant enough for anyone, but other tracking data could be).

Firstly, there's very few staff that are on payroll, so most aren't under the legal umbrella of the corporate entity; consequently, there's nothing stopping you from suing them in their personal capacity. Secondly, if you'd be willing and able to sue BD, you'd be willing & able to sue the malicious actors directly; you can sue John/Jane Doe defendants in cases where you know a bad thing happened but who the responsible individuals are must be found in discovery. Just because the standard course of action is to rope in a third party doesn't mean you have to; that'd actually be a case where BD would be protected from legitimate, well-intentioned, genuine prospective plaintiffs who are still needlessly filing suit against them. If BD has legal liability, they can just be added as a defendant over the course of the primary litigation; a far more sensible progression than the other way around. BD would still be subpoenaed for relevant information, they'd still be legally required to cooperate... there's no real need for them to suffer the added legal cost of being a defendant.

As for negligence? First, again, if it's not a BD employee, you can sue them. ...I feel like I should be more concerned about that than a user... Second, I'm not sure if I said so before, but liability waivers can be voided in cases of gross negligence, so again, it wouldn't change anything.

See what I mean? It might be me, but I really don't know what circumstances need to arise for us to actually harm users in a legally-cognizable way that would be thwarted by this agreement.

watsit said:
Hitler liked drawing (supposedly). Art here is made by people who like drawing.

Seriously? A Hitler analogy?

Aacafah said:
As Watsit said, correlation does not equal causation.

Yeah, I'm just trying to help y'all understand why some of your users are complaining. Take it or leave it. Whatev.

grizzly_yote said:
Seriously? A Hitler analogy?

Using a ludicrously extreme example can be an effective way of illustrating the flaws of taking a perspective as an absolute.

grizzly_yote said:
Yeah, I'm just trying to help y'all understand why some of your users are complaining. Take it or leave it. Whatev.

I reiterate:

I really don't know why so many people are not just arguing against this from a moral standpoint (one which I 100% understand and empathize with), but seem to be genuinely concerned they might be directly hurt by this, to the point of taking actions not out of protest, but protection from the perceived threat of this clause.

We've stated multiple times that we are aware of & empathize with the distaste for the arbitration clause; the question I posed is why are some people acting like they have reason to believe they will - or even could - be feasibly affected by it? We're discussing different subsets of respondents.

Well, not to bump a seemingly dead topic, but the Code of Conduct and Privacy Policy links on the intercept page work as intended now. Users can read those pages without having to log in.

This is definitely a step in the right direction, but there's a few other things that could be done to reassure curious users and other parties of interest, in my opinion.

suihtilcod said:
Well, not to bump a seemingly dead topic, but the Code of Conduct and Privacy Policy links on the intercept page work as intended now. Users can read those pages without having to log in.

This is definitely a step in the right direction, but there's a few other things that could be done to reassure curious users and other parties of interest, in my opinion.

I don't speak for the owners of this website, but I'm going to put the odds on you getting an opt-out clause on the arbitration agreement at 0%. If they let users opt out, the clause would not offer protection from bad actors looking to exploit the Arizona law [§ 18-701] or any other US statute, so it would have no purpose. They might as well delete the whole thing.

Just want to point out that the FSC released a "toolkit" last month which intended to guide adult websites with navigating around age verification mandates of the various states in the US.

https://www.freespeechcoalition.com/blog/free-speech-coalition-launches-comprehensive-av-toolkit
https://www.freespeechcoalition.com/toolkit

I feel that this might be the driving force towards what is currently written on the TOS, but I cannot verify if that is the case since I don't have access to the full toolkit (reserved for FSC members only) and have not been able to get the free preview since (don't seem to get any emails or updates from them).

It might be insightful if someone with access to this can verify.

clickclicker2 said:
To add onto this, forcing users to agree to their new terms in order to use the site means the agreement isn't voluntary. This means the agreement to forced arbitration specifically can't be enforced due to there being no other way to use the platform without being coerced into accepting the new terms

It's voluntary in the sense that you can press accept or close the tab. Most people wouldn't consider "Do you accept or not?" to be coercion, you aren't being forced you use the website, you're being told accepting their ToS is the requirement to use the site. e621 is far from the first platform to do this.

clockblock said:
Same here. It won't be fixed because God knows these pricks can't be bothered.

Update Edit: And I was right. Fuck you dickheads.

clockblock said:
Dickheads, fix your bullshit.

How about fixing your attitude instead?

clockblock said:
Dickheads, fix your bullshit.

it works fine what are you even talking about?

are you using private browsing sessions and complaining about cookies not working or something?

clockblock said:
Yeah guys, they know damn well what's happening. They just don't give a shit how it affects you or anyone but themselves.

aacafah said:
This is not to say no such case exists, and please share if you have one, as tying this concern to a concrete example would greatly help us both understand the concern & address it as best we can while still protecting ourselves.

If you read what I said not as me not understanding (& trying my best to do so), but instead as me not caring, then there's nothing I can do for you.

suihtilcod said:
As a casual user (and first-time poster I lied), the biggest change I've noticed has nothing to do with the site itself.

I tend to come here in my browser's private mode. I usually don't log in, either, unless I'm looking for something I can't find otherwise. That said, every time I come here now, that big, ugly pop-up displays and forces me to tap the screen three whole times ("agree to TOS", "are you 18?", "accept") instead of once. How horrible.

Really though, while I'm annoyed, I also recognize that if I just browsed "normally", this wouldn't be happening.
^{Still, who actually wants a porn site in their browser's long-term storage? Waka-waka.}

I thought I was the only one that keeps getting the "Agreeing ToS 3 times" glitch!