Quora Doesn’t Know What a Contract Is(sneak.berlin)
sneak.berlin
Quora Doesn’t Know What a Contract Is
https://sneak.berlin/20200210/quora/
45 comments
If X, can Y happen?
Normal human: Yes, usually because X leads to these conditions which make Y more likely. This lead to these interesting effects like Y1, Y2. These have to be dealt with with rules like A, B, C.
Quoran: Let me tell you a story. I grew up in Jakarta, where, each day, I waited for a mango truck to hit a rut in the road with a puddle. I got cancer. [5,000 words later] X is the cancer, Y is the mango. Therefore I always learned to respect puddles.
Normal human: Yes, usually because X leads to these conditions which make Y more likely. This lead to these interesting effects like Y1, Y2. These have to be dealt with with rules like A, B, C.
Quoran: Let me tell you a story. I grew up in Jakarta, where, each day, I waited for a mango truck to hit a rut in the road with a puddle. I got cancer. [5,000 words later] X is the cancer, Y is the mango. Therefore I always learned to respect puddles.
I'm amazed at how many people speak nonsense with seeming authority, with bad or unread or irrelevant sources and credentials that are either fake or maybe just don't mean much. Yahoo Answers was clearly just random people answering your questions. Quora is full of people pretending to be experts giving perniciously wrong answers that sound authoritative. That's far more dangerous, in my opinion. When your girlfriend's friend recommends you a crank cure, or your cousin who was in jail once tells you that you can't sue for damages, you're more skeptical of the claims. When that person calls themselves a doctor, or suggests they're a legal expert, but really they're a poorly trained nutritionist or LEO at best and not true experts, then people get seriously fucked over.
Makes me wonder if there's a market for a Quora like site where credentials are manually verified by staff.
There are subreddits that are more specific that operate in that market, such as r/askscience and r/askhistorians. In these subreddits, anyone can ask questions, but answers are given by people whose credentials is added as flair.
They did a bit of a bait-and-switch. They started with paying high-profile people to be there, and moderating hard, then the floodgates got opened, and what happens everywhere that loses exclusivity happened; everybody decent got bored or fed up and left, and it turns into idiots arguing back and forth.
Almost every single answer there now is some sort of /r/thathappened story of someone telling about how they were either:
A) Smarter than someone else B) More Generous than others
It really just feels like people awkwardly trying to humblebrag but without the humble.
A) Smarter than someone else B) More Generous than others
It really just feels like people awkwardly trying to humblebrag but without the humble.
Many great writers left but they still have lots of valuable content. It's just hidden inside the crap that grows when opening a user-content site to the entire world.
As usual in these environments, the quality of the content you see is directly related to who you follow.
As usual in these environments, the quality of the content you see is directly related to who you follow.
I'm also disappointed with the sharp decline in quality of the answers. Another thing I've noticed is an increase in clickbaity pictures in answers, specially of scantily clad women.
> The point of this post is not some legal analysis, simply the common sense observation that in our society, simply putting some copy up on my webpage that basically says “if you use my website, you are agreeing to not sue me” is Not How Any Of This Works.
> A contract is a meeting of the minds. This is decidedly not.
> Saying that anything I do “constitutes acceptance” short of explicitly and unambiguously agreeing to your contract and terms is foolish and disrespectful. At the very least, it’s shady. I sure hope it’s unenforceable, as well.
I couldn't agree with this more. It applies equally well to shrink wrap software licenses and "social contract" arguments.
> A contract is a meeting of the minds. This is decidedly not.
> Saying that anything I do “constitutes acceptance” short of explicitly and unambiguously agreeing to your contract and terms is foolish and disrespectful. At the very least, it’s shady. I sure hope it’s unenforceable, as well.
I couldn't agree with this more. It applies equally well to shrink wrap software licenses and "social contract" arguments.
This is a good place to note that a lot of current cookie disclosure popups state that "by using our site, you agree to our use of cookies".
It is up to the browser whether or not to store the cookies sent by the server, and up to the browser to send those same cookies with subsequent requests or not. By choosing a tool that does that, the user has explicitly opted in to that. The dialog is superfluous.
My browser, for example, is configured to ignore all cookie headers sent from the server. Those dialogs appear just the same!
My browser, for example, is configured to ignore all cookie headers sent from the server. Those dialogs appear just the same!
They’re trying to cover their ass regarding the GDPR but actually these kinds of forced consent prompts aren’t compliant with the law and are thus utterly useless as they’d be exactly in the same position (regarding the law) if they didn’t have any prompt to begin with.
It must also expose value to both parties, even if voluntarily entered. How does agreeing to waive your rights for absolutely nothing as in this case deliver any value to the user?
See also: contract of adhesion.
> "Hello, friend. (I'm quite sorry for the interruption—the non-modal popups didn't fit enough text.)"
I was reading your post when suddenly that bullshit popped right into my face, in the middle of a sentence. How on earth can you think it´s a good idea to interrupt my thoughts process in this actively-aggressive way? You pissed me off, I am out and I won't come back.
I was reading your post when suddenly that bullshit popped right into my face, in the middle of a sentence. How on earth can you think it´s a good idea to interrupt my thoughts process in this actively-aggressive way? You pissed me off, I am out and I won't come back.
I agree. Visit my site and get popups!
I’m sorry if the popup offended you. It’s possible to block such things by using a browser extension such as uBlock Origin, which will allow you to black or greylist 3p requests to services such as Mailchimp that provide that modal.
I urge you to consider the alternatives though. Publishing today happens via a very small number of heavily censored services that decide not only what you can say, but who gets to see it, how often, and when.
Millions seem unfazed that a tiny handful of people decide what they are allowed to read.
Aggressively requesting direct contact information from my audience is one of the few remaining censorship-free ways of communicating with people. I don’t like popups either, but sometimes it is necessary to yell a bit to get people’s attention.
I vastly prefer slightly annoying people (exactly once, see below) to having the only push-based method of communication being censored and surveilled systems like most modern centralized social media. I’m sorry it upset you. There just aren’t any other great options that I know of to ensure that people who want to receive push-based communications from me always can in the future. RSS usage died some years ago and the only remaining feeds people look at are their email inbox and censored algorithmic “timelines” (which are anything but).
In any case, it attempts to set a cookie on your device, so you should never receive it again in that browser for any page on my site. If you are anything like me, you might wish to browse with uBlock greylisting all third party resources on all sites. It works a charm for de-annoying the web when all you want to do is read.
I urge you to consider the alternatives though. Publishing today happens via a very small number of heavily censored services that decide not only what you can say, but who gets to see it, how often, and when.
Millions seem unfazed that a tiny handful of people decide what they are allowed to read.
Aggressively requesting direct contact information from my audience is one of the few remaining censorship-free ways of communicating with people. I don’t like popups either, but sometimes it is necessary to yell a bit to get people’s attention.
I vastly prefer slightly annoying people (exactly once, see below) to having the only push-based method of communication being censored and surveilled systems like most modern centralized social media. I’m sorry it upset you. There just aren’t any other great options that I know of to ensure that people who want to receive push-based communications from me always can in the future. RSS usage died some years ago and the only remaining feeds people look at are their email inbox and censored algorithmic “timelines” (which are anything but).
In any case, it attempts to set a cookie on your device, so you should never receive it again in that browser for any page on my site. If you are anything like me, you might wish to browse with uBlock greylisting all third party resources on all sites. It works a charm for de-annoying the web when all you want to do is read.
I don’t think the problem here is centralisation or censorship. The problem is simply that people don’t like shit-letter popups and not all content has to be push-based.
Without push, you won’t reach very much of your audience unless you are hyper-mega-famous. I am not and have no wish to be.
I don’t like popups either, but you don’t get emails very well otherwise.
Ugly high-contrast pancake buttons convert better than slick, elegant ones too. :/
I don’t like popups either, but you don’t get emails very well otherwise.
Ugly high-contrast pancake buttons convert better than slick, elegant ones too. :/
Quora was a very good site when the userbase was small. All the content was very high quality, and I learnt a lot of stuff reading it back then.
Now that quora has a very large number of users, it resembles the real world more closely, as in the average quality of content is very low. I am wondering whether there are websites which manage to retain high quality discussions even with a huge user base (HN certainly is one, but I think HN has way less users than quora, and HN is geared specifically towards certain people looking for intellectual excitement).
> HN certainly is one, but I think HN has way less users than quora, and HN is geared specifically towards certain people looking for intellectual excitement
For sure. Smaller userbase, no obvious or easy-to-monitize ads, heavy (and specific) technical focuses. Doesn't represent the internet -- or even really the US/International tech scene -- but it's a fun place as long as you don't lose sight of that.
For sure. Smaller userbase, no obvious or easy-to-monitize ads, heavy (and specific) technical focuses. Doesn't represent the internet -- or even really the US/International tech scene -- but it's a fun place as long as you don't lose sight of that.
This has nothing to do with Quora and is standard practice for terms of service for all major websites.
While it's on shaky foundations right now, the slowly building wave of website consent management platforms due to data/privacy regulations will make these agreements much more solid since you will be actively consenting to them.
While it's on shaky foundations right now, the slowly building wave of website consent management platforms due to data/privacy regulations will make these agreements much more solid since you will be actively consenting to them.
The majority of consent management solutions are absolutely not compliant with the law they’re supposed to help you comply with.
Sure, we published a study about all the complications but regardless there's more upfront agreements now than the use-it-therefore-you-agree terms before.
Looks like the author doesn't know what a contract is either - it's something that requires consideration, which is clearly lacking when using a website.
Contracts, licenses, and terms of service are all completely different things.
Contracts, licenses, and terms of service are all completely different things.
Using a website would certainly constitute consideration in a legal sense. Assuming there’s some value to the content of the website then that’s consideration.
I still agree with the author that posting something in public and then saying you’ve agreed to a contract by looking at it is not good policy.
I still agree with the author that posting something in public and then saying you’ve agreed to a contract by looking at it is not good policy.
Also contracts of adhesion are a thing.
Why push the website usage as a middleman? Why not just say "If you are able to read this email, you can't ever sue us." /s
This all started in the US with Judge Easterbrook in ProCD. https://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/procd.html
The basic gist of Easterbrook's argument is that in everyday life it is common to buy now and find out the terms later, and under the law and the UCC the sequence of money and accepting terms don't matter.
While the case has been stretched to the limit, and lots of research shows that users aren't reading the terms of service, the practice and the law in the US has only strengthened.
The basic gist of Easterbrook's argument is that in everyday life it is common to buy now and find out the terms later, and under the law and the UCC the sequence of money and accepting terms don't matter.
While the case has been stretched to the limit, and lots of research shows that users aren't reading the terms of service, the practice and the law in the US has only strengthened.
IANAL, but that arbitration clause doesn't sound remotely enforceable to me. Regardless, that they put it in there is more than good enough reason to not use the site.
Why are you using HN then, when its terms include a similar arbitration agreement?
> You agree that any and all disputes or claims that have arisen or may arise between you and Y Combinator, whether arising out of or relating to this Terms of Use (including any alleged breach thereof), the Site, any advertising, any aspect of the relationship or transactions between us, shall be resolved exclusively through final and binding arbitration, rather than a court, in accordance with the terms of this Arbitration Agreement, except that you may assert individual claims in small claims court, if your claims qualify.
> YOU AND Y COMBINATOR AGREE THAT EACH OF US MAY BRING CLAIMS AGAINST THE OTHER ONLY ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS AND NOT AS A PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER IN ANY PURPORTED CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION OR PROCEEDING. UNLESS BOTH YOU AND Y COMBINATOR AGREE OTHERWISE, THE ARBITRATOR MAY NOT CONSOLIDATE OR JOIN MORE THAN ONE PERSON’S OR PARTY’S CLAIMS AND MAY NOT OTHERWISE PRESIDE OVER ANY FORM OF A CONSOLIDATED, REPRESENTATIVE, OR CLASS PROCEEDING. ALSO, THE ARBITRATOR MAY AWARD RELIEF (INCLUDING MONETARY, INJUNCTIVE, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF) ONLY IN FAVOR OF THE INDIVIDUAL PARTY SEEKING RELIEF AND ONLY TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO PROVIDE RELIEF NECESSITATED BY THAT PARTY’S INDIVIDUAL CLAIM(S).
HN doesn't even offer the ability to opt out of arbitration, so it's even worse than Quora in this aspect.
> You agree that any and all disputes or claims that have arisen or may arise between you and Y Combinator, whether arising out of or relating to this Terms of Use (including any alleged breach thereof), the Site, any advertising, any aspect of the relationship or transactions between us, shall be resolved exclusively through final and binding arbitration, rather than a court, in accordance with the terms of this Arbitration Agreement, except that you may assert individual claims in small claims court, if your claims qualify.
> YOU AND Y COMBINATOR AGREE THAT EACH OF US MAY BRING CLAIMS AGAINST THE OTHER ONLY ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS AND NOT AS A PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER IN ANY PURPORTED CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION OR PROCEEDING. UNLESS BOTH YOU AND Y COMBINATOR AGREE OTHERWISE, THE ARBITRATOR MAY NOT CONSOLIDATE OR JOIN MORE THAN ONE PERSON’S OR PARTY’S CLAIMS AND MAY NOT OTHERWISE PRESIDE OVER ANY FORM OF A CONSOLIDATED, REPRESENTATIVE, OR CLASS PROCEEDING. ALSO, THE ARBITRATOR MAY AWARD RELIEF (INCLUDING MONETARY, INJUNCTIVE, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF) ONLY IN FAVOR OF THE INDIVIDUAL PARTY SEEKING RELIEF AND ONLY TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO PROVIDE RELIEF NECESSITATED BY THAT PARTY’S INDIVIDUAL CLAIM(S).
HN doesn't even offer the ability to opt out of arbitration, so it's even worse than Quora in this aspect.
For myself, and where I am, I know this clause to be non-binding. And it in fact invalidates the entire agreement because it tries to enforce something that is not considered to be legal (forced arbitration). (Some places may only invalidate that particular section, however the precedent here is an invalidation of the entire contract).
I don't really have any interest in going down that particular road, but that's one of the hiccups these sorts of contracts hit when faced with real world legalities.
I don't really have any interest in going down that particular road, but that's one of the hiccups these sorts of contracts hit when faced with real world legalities.
For two reasons -- first, I wasn't aware of the arbitration clause, and second, HN is actually valuable.
You're right, though, the arbitration clause is awful.
You're right, though, the arbitration clause is awful.
I don't disagree with the sentiment of the post, but unfortunately this has been the norm for web service terms for a very long time. As far as I can see, there's nothing unusual in what Quora specifically is doing here.
Even HN's privacy policy and terms include both an arbitration agreement and phrases very similar to the ones he's complaining about, like:
> By using the Service, you agree to the practices described in this Privacy Policy.
> Your continued use of the Site after the date any such changes become effective constitutes your acceptance of the new Terms of Use.
Even HN's privacy policy and terms include both an arbitration agreement and phrases very similar to the ones he's complaining about, like:
> By using the Service, you agree to the practices described in this Privacy Policy.
> Your continued use of the Site after the date any such changes become effective constitutes your acceptance of the new Terms of Use.
This isn't unique to Quora and somewhat unfairly picks on them.
However, just because it is common doesn't mean it isn't utterly ridiculous and unenforceable.
However, just because it is common doesn't mean it isn't utterly ridiculous and unenforceable.
The practice is bullshit. They are performing the practice. Therefore, they are choosing to engage in bullshit and picking on them isn’t unfair.
“Everyone’s doing it” is not a legitimate defense to well-reasoned criticism.
“Everyone’s doing it” is not a legitimate defense to well-reasoned criticism.
It is unfair insofar as they are not unique examples of it.
Otherwise, I agree.
Otherwise, I agree.
As a person who has seen Quora evolve over the years, I am truly surprised that it’s respected even nearly as much as it is. By all accounts it’s a glorified content mill that is the slightly smarter consumer’s answer to Yahoo Answers, fielding such important questions as “how is babby(sic) formed?”
This is an honest question— how many HN users are relying on Quora as a viable alternative to something like a Wikipedia search when researching? I’ve nearly never found that a Quora answer was sufficient to answer my question. I’ll admit that in terms of SEO they’ve got things figured out; they always appear near the top of DuckDuckGo searches, but as far as real content goes, they leave a lot to be desired.
This is an honest question— how many HN users are relying on Quora as a viable alternative to something like a Wikipedia search when researching? I’ve nearly never found that a Quora answer was sufficient to answer my question. I’ll admit that in terms of SEO they’ve got things figured out; they always appear near the top of DuckDuckGo searches, but as far as real content goes, they leave a lot to be desired.
This does seem quite sneaky for terms of service on essentially a QnA website.
Lately, the Quora results that show up for me in search have been very ad-like. It's as if a team of accounts are trying to direct traffic toward their own individual websites or businesses. It amkes Quora very spammy. Not a fan.
I'm going to quote myself from 2012 [1]:
> I can't help bit feel vindicated by moves like this because they're a sign that Quora isn't the Next Big Thing that many inside the bubble that is Silicon Valley seemed to think it is ...
This being about the forced login requirement. I said then and stand by it now that there is limited upside in Q&A sites.
We saw this with ExpertSexChange years before. At first some quality content but ultimately the only growth is from low-value content, SEO, dark UX patterns (eg hiding answers, requiring logins, putting answers after a long set of ads) all for something that just isn't that special.
Stackoverflow did an admirable job of organizing technical answers but ultimately Google remains their primary source of traffic (~90% was the last figure I heard) and by publishing their answers with a Creative Commons License (a move I applaud) they've insured the community against a later management change that would otherwise decide to enact those same dark patterns as the only viable growth path.
And yes I know there's Stack Exchange but none of those sites has hit similar success to SO.
As for this post about Quora's attempt to force binding individual arbitration on users, the first comment I have is of course I'm not surprised. The second is that IANAL but this this isn't a contract, it's an updated Terms of Service. That being said, I'm pretty sure this isn't necessarily legal in all (any?) North American jurisdictions and even where that question is unknown it probably just hasn't been tested in court yet.
I was going to say that Quora is based in California and CA has generally been pretty user-friendly here but that may not exactly be true. A couple of things I found:
- California law (specifically the California Arbitration Act or CAA) may be preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). There's a pending case in Federal Court where a stay has been issued against CAA pending that trial. It's not clear to me (being NAL) if this is specific to certain areas (eg employment, construction) or general and whether it applies to updated ToS;
- A California court upheld an arbitration clause in clickwrap ToS on an app as of October 2019 [2]
My main takeaway however is I don't care about Quora, I've never cared about Quora, I don't understand why anyone cares about Quora, I've never posted to Quora and I've never understood why anyone else posted or continues to post to Quora so this has net zero effect on me.
Quora wasn't (IMHO) relevant in 2012 and is less relevant now. These are the moves of a company in its death throes. Ok, bye.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4377904
[2]: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/court-enforces-arbitrat...
> I can't help bit feel vindicated by moves like this because they're a sign that Quora isn't the Next Big Thing that many inside the bubble that is Silicon Valley seemed to think it is ...
This being about the forced login requirement. I said then and stand by it now that there is limited upside in Q&A sites.
We saw this with ExpertSexChange years before. At first some quality content but ultimately the only growth is from low-value content, SEO, dark UX patterns (eg hiding answers, requiring logins, putting answers after a long set of ads) all for something that just isn't that special.
Stackoverflow did an admirable job of organizing technical answers but ultimately Google remains their primary source of traffic (~90% was the last figure I heard) and by publishing their answers with a Creative Commons License (a move I applaud) they've insured the community against a later management change that would otherwise decide to enact those same dark patterns as the only viable growth path.
And yes I know there's Stack Exchange but none of those sites has hit similar success to SO.
As for this post about Quora's attempt to force binding individual arbitration on users, the first comment I have is of course I'm not surprised. The second is that IANAL but this this isn't a contract, it's an updated Terms of Service. That being said, I'm pretty sure this isn't necessarily legal in all (any?) North American jurisdictions and even where that question is unknown it probably just hasn't been tested in court yet.
I was going to say that Quora is based in California and CA has generally been pretty user-friendly here but that may not exactly be true. A couple of things I found:
- California law (specifically the California Arbitration Act or CAA) may be preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). There's a pending case in Federal Court where a stay has been issued against CAA pending that trial. It's not clear to me (being NAL) if this is specific to certain areas (eg employment, construction) or general and whether it applies to updated ToS;
- A California court upheld an arbitration clause in clickwrap ToS on an app as of October 2019 [2]
My main takeaway however is I don't care about Quora, I've never cared about Quora, I don't understand why anyone cares about Quora, I've never posted to Quora and I've never understood why anyone else posted or continues to post to Quora so this has net zero effect on me.
Quora wasn't (IMHO) relevant in 2012 and is less relevant now. These are the moves of a company in its death throes. Ok, bye.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4377904
[2]: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/court-enforces-arbitrat...
But there are far, far more answers that look like this (with an alarmingly high number of upvotes):
> "I read a study once that said <insert thing> was bad for you. <couple sentences of possibly made up statistics>. Unfortunately, I forgot where I read it, or I'd post it here, sorry!"
I feel like if it were not one of the Silicon Valley TechBro™ companies, Google would have already de-ranked results from this site to the second page by now.