Seer of the tapes! Knower of the episodes!
The TOS doesn’t say anything about crimes like murder, and of course you can’t waive that anyway.
What it does say is that any disputes arising out of the use of their website are subject to arbitration. If the plaintiff is correct and Disney is liable because they posted the menu on their website, then that would be a dispute arising out of the use of their website.
The plaintiff doesn’t say that Disney owns it, though. They are basing their argument on the fact that Disney posted the restaurant’s menu on their website. The website is also under the Disney+ TOS. So, if the plaintiff is correct and Disney is liable then the TOS probably applies.
Lisa needs braces!
This timepiece is of your forefathers.
I’m not upgrading because I don’t trust Windows 11. Not that 10 has my confidence, of course, but 11 seems worse.
New York City?!
Of course not!
Mine was “banal”.
Sounds like “canal”.
Pizza and chocolate milk?
I mean I like them both, but together?
Not exactly the same problem. In the same way that gun control doesn’t address the problem of hostile foreign militaries. Yes, both involve guns, but the laws and policies that address one are inapplicable and inappropriate to the other.
The law in question addresses the problem of foreign adversaries having easy access to manipulate US public opinion. The law you suggest addresses the problem of advertisers having that access. Both are serious concerns, both need to be addressed, but they are not the same problem and the solutions are markedly different.
require every company operating within the US to show users exactly what data is collected and allow them to delete any or all of it as desired
That would be a very different kind of law from the one we’re talking about.
That’s a separate issue that could not be addressed with this kind of law anyway.
Can you explain why you feel that would even be necessary?
I’ve actually read the law, so no one has to tell me that it really, actually is about privacy. I know that it is.
deleted by creator
Chew responded to the latest moves in a video posted by the official TikTok account. “Make no mistake, this is a ban,” Chew said in the video. “A ban on TikTok and a ban on you and your voice.”
Narrator: it wasn’t.
If social media companies exist to collect massive troves of personal info from users–and they do–then there is a valid national security concern over social media controlled by an adversary. This is distinct from the individual privacy concerns towards domestically-controlled social media.