Hacker News Reader

Comment by xypage | Hacker News Reader

A user agreement isn't just a "person with account" agreement, in fact, if you read the first sentence of the introduction [1] to their current one, you'll see it says

> You agree that by clicking “Join Now”, “Join LinkedIn”, “Sign Up” or similar, registering, accessing or using our services (described below), you are agreeing to enter into a legally binding contract with LinkedIn

in other words, anyone that "access[es] or us[es]" their services are agreeing to the contract. This definitely includes what OP is doing.

[1]: https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement#introduction

View on HN

So if I write on a piece of paper "If bob breathes, he owes me $100" that would also be valid contract?

Not a lawyer, but that is ridiculous. You'd have to accept the terms to even be permitted to read the terms, as they are hosted on linkedin.com.

For a couple of reasons, no.

Bob would have to agree. And Bob would have to be getting _something_ out of it.

(I'm not a lawyer)

No of course not, but there's a huge difference between someones bodily autonomy and using a service that you provide. Are you saying that companies should only be able to apply their terms of service to people who make accounts on their website? Or that they should host those terms somewhere besides their own domain so that you can access them without having to abide by them?

The terms of service should only apply to people who use the services. For example if you use Firefox to connect to a website, and violate the TOS of that website, Mozilla would obviously not be involved.

To me it’s like building a storefront and asking everyone to not look at it and/or to not speak about it elsewhere, unless you abide. Turn your head and get legally bound.

I know law doesn’t work that way, but it doesn’t make it non-absurd either.

Edit: I remember from my childhood public transport “artists” who could enter a train, perform their “art” and then demand money “because I’ve seen that you watched it”. Not exactly the same, but strong vibes.

I'd disagree. The users of OPs tool certainly are, but it doesn't seem like that's the responsibility of the developer.

If they're advertising it as a LinkedIn scraper then it is, and that seems to be what's cited as the actual problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com