Too Long; Didn't Read: Finding Meaning in Platforms’ Terms of Service Agreements

Michael Karanicolas
{"title":"Too Long; Didn't Read: Finding Meaning in Platforms’ Terms of Service Agreements","authors":"Michael Karanicolas","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3887753","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It has become a common trope to note that online terms of service agreements are lengthy, obtuse, and universally ignored by the millions of users who bind themselves under these contracts every minute of every day. However, the enormous power that a handful of online platforms now wield over the global expressive discourse, power which is manifested through interpretations of the content standards laid out in these byzantine documents, has led to a growing focus on how these rules are set, modified, and interpreted. In the context of an ongoing debate around reform proposals to section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, this article argues for a model of contractual interpretation which limits the scope of protection available to platforms through the boilerplate exculpatory clauses in their terms of service agreements. The article justifies this position through a comparative analysis of the user agreements of the three largest platforms, to demonstrate a widening gap between the structure of the content policies and privacy policies on one hand, and the boilerplate terms of service on the other, arguing that this structural evolution supports the application of theories of contract and pseudo-contract to interpreting the terms of service.","PeriodicalId":430410,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Regulation of Contracting Private Parties (Topic)","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Regulation of Contracting Private Parties (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3887753","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It has become a common trope to note that online terms of service agreements are lengthy, obtuse, and universally ignored by the millions of users who bind themselves under these contracts every minute of every day. However, the enormous power that a handful of online platforms now wield over the global expressive discourse, power which is manifested through interpretations of the content standards laid out in these byzantine documents, has led to a growing focus on how these rules are set, modified, and interpreted. In the context of an ongoing debate around reform proposals to section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, this article argues for a model of contractual interpretation which limits the scope of protection available to platforms through the boilerplate exculpatory clauses in their terms of service agreements. The article justifies this position through a comparative analysis of the user agreements of the three largest platforms, to demonstrate a widening gap between the structure of the content policies and privacy policies on one hand, and the boilerplate terms of service on the other, arguing that this structural evolution supports the application of theories of contract and pseudo-contract to interpreting the terms of service.
太长时间;没有阅读:在平台的服务协议条款中寻找意义
在线服务协议的条款冗长、晦涩,每天每时每刻都被数百万用户所忽视,这已经成为一种常见的修辞。然而,少数在线平台现在对全球表达话语施加的巨大权力,通过对这些拜占庭文件中列出的内容标准的解释表现出来的权力,导致人们越来越关注如何设置、修改和解释这些规则。在围绕《通信规范法》第230条改革提案的持续辩论的背景下,本文提出了一种合同解释模式,该模式通过服务协议条款中的样板免责条款限制了平台可获得的保护范围。本文通过对三个最大平台的用户协议的比较分析来证明这一立场,以证明一方面内容政策和隐私政策的结构与另一方面样板服务条款之间的差距越来越大,并认为这种结构演变支持应用合同理论和伪合同理论来解释服务条款。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信