Quora Doesn’t Know What a Contract Is
sneak.berlin
sneak.berlin
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.
As usual in these environments, the quality of the content you see is directly related to who you follow.
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.
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 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.
My browser, for example, is configured to ignore all cookie headers sent from the server. Those dialogs appear just the same!
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 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 like popups either, but you don’t get emails very well otherwise.
Ugly high-contrast pancake buttons convert better than slick, elegant ones too. :/
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.
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.
Contracts, licenses, and terms of service are all completely different things.
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.
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.
> 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're right, though, the arbitration clause is awful.
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.
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.
However, just because it is common doesn't mean it isn't utterly ridiculous and unenforceable.
“Everyone’s doing it” is not a legitimate defense to well-reasoned criticism.
Otherwise, I agree.
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.
> 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...