Hacker News Reader

Comment by zorked | Hacker News Reader

No, it isn't. Stop normalizing this behavior. There was no consent. You expect that you are playing a game, not working for them for free.

View on HN

Of course there was consent. There is even an explicit EULA listing in plain writing that you are actually collecting data for them that people have to agree to before playing.

That people suddenly wake up to the fact that they were dumb for providing labour for worthless virtual gifts doesn't magically allow them to claim it was abuse post-fact.

If people don’t read or understand the EULA, then it violates the spirit of the legislation (not to mention it’s plain shady). Consent must be voluntary (opt-in) and informed.

If you don’t read what you sign, it’s not uninformed consent. It’s you being an idiot.

You can spin this both ways. So if I include a 12,000 page EULA with my product, you're the idiot if page 8,172 includes a footnote that allows me to sell your data, but uses terms defined a few thousand pages earlier, so you actually have to read all of it?

You can play these shenanigans with businesses, but I for one am happy such behaviour is illegal here when selling to consumers.

Don’t use product with EULA you refuse to read. Then people will stop including them. Especially when it’s a game.

Anyway I’m all for outlawing the inclusion of predatory clauses in EULA but this is not one of this case.

People just want to have their cake and eat it to.

I assume you are reading all them EULAs of all products and services you use.

I absolutely agree with you that this should not be the norm. The fact is that "they" absolutely do it and even give you "rewards" for your behaviour and actions in the free game. Reminds me of a certain opiod crisis, but now it is combining software with the human phyche almost directly.

You were too lazy to read the rules of the game

Reply on news.ycombinator.com