Bluesky now has 30 million users.

[iopq@lemmy.world]

I've gotten settlement money from it before

[serinus@lemmy.world]

Oh no, there's no money or profit motive here. I guess that's terrible.

[sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works]

I don't think forced arbitration has really been tried in court. I remember Disney kind of trying, but it was completely unrelated (e.g. argued that arbitration agreement from Disney+ applied to issues on physical Disney properties).

In order to hold up in court, the contract needs to reasonably benefit both parties instead of only the contract issuer. So there's a very good chance a court will dismiss the forced arbitration clause, especially if it's just in a EULA and not a bidirectional contract negotiation.

That said, I tend to avoid services with binding arbitration statements in their EULA, and if I can't, I avoid companies that force acceptance of EULA changes to continue use of the service.

[finitebanjo@lemmy.world]

Would you say it is a one in a 30 million occurrence, roughly?

It was an asspull example but there are similar cases in the past. Forced arbitration of any lawsuit you present for any reason is bad, be it as simple as their software accidentally bricking your phone or as major as an attempt on your life being ignored by the platform.

[finitebanjo@lemmy.world]

I feel like we're going to have a similar issue a couple of years or decades down the line with Bluesky. People would be better off on the Fediverse instead.

[llii@discuss.tchncs.de]

No, this time will be different, I swear!

[blindfrog@lemmy.world]

Funny, someone shared an article in another post about all corporate money going to Delaware, https://www.icij.org/inside-icij/2022/06/delaware-is-everywhere-how-a-little-known-tax-haven-made-the-rules-for-corporate-america/

[prex@aussie.zone]

It is less than ideal.
I only hope that it gets people used to the idea that you can leave a platform and the sky wont fall down. Sooner or later these guys will try a federated service and learn that protocols > platforms (in this case activitypub).

[eldritchfeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone]

I might be wrong (obligatory I am not a lawyer), but I think the laws either make it so that they can't be considered as an accomplice to a crime like that, or they're a corporation, which means that fines are really the only way they can be punished.

Either way, the arbitration clause, I believe, means that you can't take them to court like that in any situation. An out of court settlement is your only option, except in the case of a class action lawsuit, which let's them get a bulk deal on how much they have to pay out.

[noctivius@lemm.ee]

another trash platform its just matter of a time, use mastodon and fediverse to don't migrate again in few years

[stephen01king@lemmy.zip]

And how many users does Mastodon have?

[stephen01king@lemmy.zip]

And that's fine. What the exodus to Bluesky is doing is making it easier for people to stomach switching to similar platforms, so if Bluesky also went to shit, the inertia is much lower for people to abandon it.

[jetsetdorito@lemm.ee]

Federation is too confusing for the average bear. the success of bsky is the best thing for getting people off twitter

[unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de]

If a company breaks my rights and causes issues for me due to leaking data, then obviously i can sue them for damages.

[mac@mander.xyz]

Try hosting your own instance and sorting through the content of 30m people for the one post you want. lol

[blindbunny@lemmy.ml]

Always reminds me that George Carlin was right

[merc@sh.itjust.works]

He's already gone. But, regardless, why sign up for yet another corporate social media site when every single one of them becomes enshittified after a few years. Are they just planning to abandon Bluesky eventually too? Or just hoping that this time it's different?

[internetexplorer@lemmy.world]

Does it have anything to do with crypto and decentralisation? I heard it did but it doesn't seem like it does at all. Disappointing

[leate_wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

This is the saddest, most insular cope I've read all day.

[merc@sh.itjust.works]

What annoys me is that people are buying the idea that BlueSky is federated.

Not only is it not federated, the very architecture they designed means that it's probably not federateable, at least not by normal users.

The way they designed it, a relay is required to collect and forward every single BlueSky post. That means, as the service grows, it becomes more and more impossible for anybody but a company to run a relay. Someone did some calculations back in November when it was a significantly smaller network, and they calculated that at a minimum it costs a few hundred dollars, possibly as much as 1000 bucks a month just to handle the disk storage needs for a relay on a leased server. The more the network grows, the more those costs skyrocket.

What good does it do to have a network that theoretically can be federated, but practically costs so much to run a single node that nobody except a for-profit company can manage it?