#termsofservice — Public Fediverse posts

#Telegram - If data is shared, we will include such occurrences in a quarterly #transparency report published at:

https://t.me/transparency

8.3. Law Enforcement Authorities

If Telegram receives a valid order from the relevant judicial #authorities that confirms you're a #suspect in a case involving #criminal activities that violate the Telegram #TOS / #TermsOfService, we will perform a legal analysis of the request and may disclose your IP address and phone number...

https://telegram.org/privacy/eu#8-2-telegrams-group-companies

There are updated Terms of Service for mastodon.social, which were released today, where "updated" means they've changed stuff.

Before blowing stacks, "sanitizing" text for the web means making sure it's only text and not, for example, hiding executable code. It's not a euphemism for censorship.

Feel free to blow your stack over anything else, as is your privilege on mastodon.

"We assert, and you agree, that we hold an exclusive right to select the name of your firstborn kitten, puppy, hamster, reptile, snake, flying creature, or ant queen."

https://mastodon.social/terms-of-service/2026-08-31

#Mastodon #TermsOfService

There are updated Terms of Service for mastodon.social, which were released today, where "updated" means they've changed stuff.

Before blowing stacks, "sanitizing" text for the web means making sure it's only text and not, for example, hiding executable code. It's not a euphemism for censorship.

Feel free to blow your stack over anything else, as is your privilege on mastodon.

"We assert, and you agree, that we hold an exclusive right to select the name of your firstborn kitten, puppy, hamster, reptile, snake, flying creature, or ant queen."

https://mastodon.social/terms-of-service/2026-08-31

#Mastodon #TermsOfService

Is This Chaos Accidental?

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News

Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — July 18, 2026

Asking the Uncomfortable Question

At some point, prolonged disorder stops looking like incompetence and starts looking like intent.

That is the question this essay confronts, cautiously but directly: is TikTok’s chaos simply the result of scale and poor governance, or is it the byproduct of a deeper internal philosophy that treats user confusion as a feature rather than a flaw?

This is not an accusation. It is an analytical question that arises naturally when systems behave consistently badly over time.

Chaos, Consistently Applied

TikTok’s terms of service and community guidelines exist on paper. In practice, they behave more like suggestions than rules.

Enforcement is:

• Inconsistent across regions
• Opaque to users
• Poorly explained when action is taken
• Largely immune to appeal

The result is not merely frustration. It is disorientation. Users do not learn what behavior is acceptable. They learn only that outcomes are unpredictable.

That unpredictability has persisted long enough to raise a serious question: what if that confusion is the point?

Ridicule as a Systemic Byproduct

One possible interpretation — uncomfortable but increasingly difficult to dismiss — is that the platform’s internal culture may be quietly contemptuous of how the general public uses social media.

Not hostile. Not openly adversarial. Simply dismissive.

Under this interpretation, chaos functions as a kind of ridicule. Users are trained to dance for visibility, guess at invisible rules, and accept penalties without explanation. The more people scramble, the more engagement is generated. The more engagement is generated, the more the system is justified internally.

From the inside, this may look clever. From the outside, it looks exploitative.

The Hacker-Origin Hypothesis

There is another question that follows naturally from this pattern.

Is it possible that TikTok’s architecture reflects the mindset of a hacker collective that successfully monetized its skills — building a legitimate revenue machine while retaining an internal culture that delights in gaming, destabilizing, and outmaneuvering its own users?

Again, this is not an allegation. It is a hypothesis prompted by behavior.

Systems reflect the values of the people who design them. When a platform repeatedly privileges confusion over clarity, leverage over trust, and engagement over governance, it is reasonable to ask what worldview shaped those decisions.

Learning From What Others Get Away With

There is also a more mundane explanation, and it is not mutually exclusive.

TikTok may simply be watching what other major platforms have normalized — learning that weak enforcement, vague rules, and performative accountability carry little real consequence.

If regulatory capture and public fatigue allow large platforms to behave this way, the lesson is obvious: if they can do it, so can we.

That logic does not require malice. It only requires indifference to downstream harm.

Why This Question Matters

Whether TikTok’s chaos stems from cultural contempt, inherited norms, or strategic cynicism is ultimately less important than the outcome.

The outcome is the same:

• Users absorb risk without clarity
• Creators operate under constant uncertainty
• Sellers are asked to transact on shifting ground

A platform that ridicules its users — even implicitly — cannot be trusted with commerce, governance, or long-term social influence.

And yet TikTok continues to expand its reach and its ambitions without resolving these foundational contradictions.

Holding the Question Open

This essay does not close the case. It opens it.

Future entries in this series will continue to document behavior, not speculate wildly about motives. But it is important to name the question plainly now, before the evidence piles higher:

Is TikTok’s disorder an accident — or is it an expression of how its architects actually view the people who rely on it?

If that question feels uncomfortable, it should.

For more social commentary and excellent fiction, see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com

This essay will be archived to the WPS News Monthly Brief available through Amazon.

Is This Chaos Accidental?

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News

Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — July 18, 2026

Asking the Uncomfortable Question

At some point, prolonged disorder stops looking like incompetence and starts looking like intent.

That is the question this essay confronts, cautiously but directly: is TikTok’s chaos simply the result of scale and poor governance, or is it the byproduct of a deeper internal philosophy that treats user confusion as a feature rather than a flaw?

This is not an accusation. It is an analytical question that arises naturally when systems behave consistently badly over time.

Chaos, Consistently Applied

TikTok’s terms of service and community guidelines exist on paper. In practice, they behave more like suggestions than rules.

Enforcement is:

• Inconsistent across regions
• Opaque to users
• Poorly explained when action is taken
• Largely immune to appeal

The result is not merely frustration. It is disorientation. Users do not learn what behavior is acceptable. They learn only that outcomes are unpredictable.

That unpredictability has persisted long enough to raise a serious question: what if that confusion is the point?

Ridicule as a Systemic Byproduct

One possible interpretation — uncomfortable but increasingly difficult to dismiss — is that the platform’s internal culture may be quietly contemptuous of how the general public uses social media.

Not hostile. Not openly adversarial. Simply dismissive.

Under this interpretation, chaos functions as a kind of ridicule. Users are trained to dance for visibility, guess at invisible rules, and accept penalties without explanation. The more people scramble, the more engagement is generated. The more engagement is generated, the more the system is justified internally.

From the inside, this may look clever. From the outside, it looks exploitative.

The Hacker-Origin Hypothesis

There is another question that follows naturally from this pattern.

Is it possible that TikTok’s architecture reflects the mindset of a hacker collective that successfully monetized its skills — building a legitimate revenue machine while retaining an internal culture that delights in gaming, destabilizing, and outmaneuvering its own users?

Again, this is not an allegation. It is a hypothesis prompted by behavior.

Systems reflect the values of the people who design them. When a platform repeatedly privileges confusion over clarity, leverage over trust, and engagement over governance, it is reasonable to ask what worldview shaped those decisions.

Learning From What Others Get Away With

There is also a more mundane explanation, and it is not mutually exclusive.

TikTok may simply be watching what other major platforms have normalized — learning that weak enforcement, vague rules, and performative accountability carry little real consequence.

If regulatory capture and public fatigue allow large platforms to behave this way, the lesson is obvious: if they can do it, so can we.

That logic does not require malice. It only requires indifference to downstream harm.

Why This Question Matters

Whether TikTok’s chaos stems from cultural contempt, inherited norms, or strategic cynicism is ultimately less important than the outcome.

The outcome is the same:

• Users absorb risk without clarity
• Creators operate under constant uncertainty
• Sellers are asked to transact on shifting ground

A platform that ridicules its users — even implicitly — cannot be trusted with commerce, governance, or long-term social influence.

And yet TikTok continues to expand its reach and its ambitions without resolving these foundational contradictions.

Holding the Question Open

This essay does not close the case. It opens it.

Future entries in this series will continue to document behavior, not speculate wildly about motives. But it is important to name the question plainly now, before the evidence piles higher:

Is TikTok’s disorder an accident — or is it an expression of how its architects actually view the people who rely on it?

If that question feels uncomfortable, it should.

For more social commentary and excellent fiction, see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com

This essay will be archived to the WPS News Monthly Brief available through Amazon.

Tubefilter: YouTube clarifies that creators can’t monetize “generic or repetitive content,” content that’s “unsatisfying or off-putting,” or content with fake AI “experts”. “To be clear, this is not a new policy. The update is a communications fix: clearer, more actionable language so creators know why a channel gets flagged. The rules themselves haven’t changed, and creators […]

Tubefilter: YouTube clarifies that creators can’t monetize “generic or repetitive content,” content that’s “unsatisfying or off-putting,” or content with fake AI “experts”. “To be clear, this is not a new policy. The update is a communications fix: clearer, more actionable language so creators know why a channel gets flagged. The rules themselves haven’t changed, and creators […]

New Google ToS inaccessible without login

They inform you that they have updated their terms of service and

1. They summarize the changes using language that is incomprehensible and vague
2. They require a login for you to read the new terms

There’s just no end to their bullshit 🤣

@mods: Just wanted to vent. Delete if you find the post inappropriate.

New Google ToS inaccessible without login

They inform you that they have updated their terms of service and

1. They summarize the changes using language that is incomprehensible and vague
2. They require a login for you to read the new terms

There’s just no end to their bullshit 🤣

@mods: Just wanted to vent. Delete if you find the post inappropriate.

The Guardian: Microsoft to tighten human rights measures after inquiry into Israel’s use of its tech. “Microsoft has said it will tighten human-rights controls when working with national security agencies after an inquiry into how the Israeli military used its cloud technology for the mass surveillance of Palestinians.”

The Guardian: Microsoft to tighten human rights measures after inquiry into Israel’s use of its tech. “Microsoft has said it will tighten human-rights controls when working with national security agencies after an inquiry into how the Israeli military used its cloud technology for the mass surveillance of Palestinians.”

Banksying in Modern Dating: Insights from Lorene Cowan and Madeline Trenholm on Ghosting’s New Evolution

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/26

Lorene Cowan is a certified matchmaker, entrepreneurial life strategist, and founder of Yoke, the innovative dating app designed for ambitious professionals seeking meaningful connections. She is the author of The Yoke Experiment, a groundbreaking book that applies entrepreneurial tools like strategy, metrics, and vision to modern dating. Through her coaching company, Entrepreneurial Success Lab, Lorene helps entrepreneurs align love, life, and business without burnout. A sought-after speaker and media voice, she blends emotional intelligence with business insight, guiding people to build legacy-driven relationships and purpose-driven careers. Her mission bridges personal growth with professional ambition. More here: https://www.wemetonyoke.com/.

Madeline Trenholm, MSW, LICSW, is a licensed psychotherapist and the founder of Maddy Trenholm Counseling in Minneapolis, Minnesota. She specializes in helping clients overcome perfectionism, burnout, trauma, anxiety, and performance blocks through evidence-based approaches, including EMDR. With professional experience spanning private practice and international work, Maddy supports individuals from diverse backgrounds—whether athletes seeking mental performance strategies or parents striving for balance and resilience. Her practice emphasizes compassionate, client-centered therapy focused on reconnecting people with purpose, self-worth, and emotional strength. She is dedicated to guiding clients toward sustainable healing and personal growth.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: As a certified matchmaker and founder of the upcoming dating app Yoke, you’ve observed trends like “banksying.” Why do you think this behavior has emerged in modern dating?

Lorene Cowan: Banksying is essentially ghosting with a longer fuse. It often stems from emotional avoidance—people want out, but fear confrontation, guilt, or the discomfort of expressing disinterest. So they fade slowly: slower replies, fewer plans, vaguer engagement. It gives the illusion of “not being that bad,” when in reality, it prolongs confusion and pain.

In today’s swipe culture, where people are overwhelmed with options and often lack relational skills, this behavior becomes a way to exit quietly while avoiding responsibility.

Jacobsen: What effect does being “banksied” have on the person left behind?

Cowan: Being “banksied” can feel like emotional gaslighting. The relationship doesn’t end with clarity; it erodes. That ambiguity can lead to obsessive overthinking: Did I imagine the connection? Did I say something wrong? Should I follow up again?

Unlike ghosting, which at least provides a harsh finality, banksying keeps hope alive just long enough to erode self-trust and confidence.

Jacobsen: What does this reveal about modern dating culture overall?

Cowan: Banksying reflects our collective discomfort with honesty in relationships. We’ve created an environment where people fear being “the bad guy,” so they choose the passive exit. But avoidance is still an action; it just lacks integrity. The irony? Many who banksy don’t want to be ghosted themselves.

This trend also highlights the growing need for emotional maturity in dating, not just chemistry or convenience.

Jacobsen: For someone who might suspect they’re experiencing this, what are the early signs of banksying?

Cowan: How to Spot It Early

Some early red flags:

A noticeable shift in tone or frequency of communication

Vague excuses or chronic “busyness” without rescheduling

Energy that feels non-committal or distracted

If the connection feels like it’s slowly slipping without explanation, you might be experiencing banksying.

Jacobsen: And for those who might be tempted to banksy instead of giving closure, what would you advise?

Cowan: If you’re considering fading out, ask yourself: What conversation am I avoiding, and why?

Ending things with kindness and clarity not only respects the other person but also shows self-respect. Closure doesn’t have to be dramatic. A simple, direct message can prevent someone from internalizing unnecessary hurt.

Jacobsen: Why do you think some people choose this approach rather than addressing relationship issues directly?

Madeline Trenholm: Banksying appears to be a longer form of ghosting. People who have had childhood trauma or prior stressful relationships and breakups may crave a relationship, but fear long term commitment. For some people it can be a sense of control knowing that they were the ones to end the relationship rather than be broken up with.

Jacobsen: What role does conflict avoidance play in this behavior?

Trenholm: Additionally, some people fear conflict and rather than discussing issues and seeing them as a natural part of relationships, may see problems as meaning the relationship is not working and are afraid to address the issues and see ‘banksying’ as a solution to this and a gentle letdown, indicating that dating these days are more and more leaning towards avoidance as a solution to problems.

Jacobsen: How should someone respond if they notice their partner may be withdrawing in this way?

Trenholm: If someone is noticing their partner may be withdrawing, it’s important to address this right away but in a noncritical way and state their needs and start a conversation. Conversely, if someone is noticing the urge to “banksy” their partner, they should also reflect on if their relationship is really that problematic and dig deep on what is causing this urge—whether a fear of conflict or something else. It’s also important to attempt at problem solving and if a breakup is in order, then being clear and direct is kind.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Lorene and Madeline.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

Banksying in Modern Dating: Insights from Lorene Cowan and Madeline Trenholm on Ghosting’s New Evolution

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/26

Lorene Cowan is a certified matchmaker, entrepreneurial life strategist, and founder of Yoke, the innovative dating app designed for ambitious professionals seeking meaningful connections. She is the author of The Yoke Experiment, a groundbreaking book that applies entrepreneurial tools like strategy, metrics, and vision to modern dating. Through her coaching company, Entrepreneurial Success Lab, Lorene helps entrepreneurs align love, life, and business without burnout. A sought-after speaker and media voice, she blends emotional intelligence with business insight, guiding people to build legacy-driven relationships and purpose-driven careers. Her mission bridges personal growth with professional ambition. More here: https://www.wemetonyoke.com/.

Madeline Trenholm, MSW, LICSW, is a licensed psychotherapist and the founder of Maddy Trenholm Counseling in Minneapolis, Minnesota. She specializes in helping clients overcome perfectionism, burnout, trauma, anxiety, and performance blocks through evidence-based approaches, including EMDR. With professional experience spanning private practice and international work, Maddy supports individuals from diverse backgrounds—whether athletes seeking mental performance strategies or parents striving for balance and resilience. Her practice emphasizes compassionate, client-centered therapy focused on reconnecting people with purpose, self-worth, and emotional strength. She is dedicated to guiding clients toward sustainable healing and personal growth.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: As a certified matchmaker and founder of the upcoming dating app Yoke, you’ve observed trends like “banksying.” Why do you think this behavior has emerged in modern dating?

Lorene Cowan: Banksying is essentially ghosting with a longer fuse. It often stems from emotional avoidance—people want out, but fear confrontation, guilt, or the discomfort of expressing disinterest. So they fade slowly: slower replies, fewer plans, vaguer engagement. It gives the illusion of “not being that bad,” when in reality, it prolongs confusion and pain.

In today’s swipe culture, where people are overwhelmed with options and often lack relational skills, this behavior becomes a way to exit quietly while avoiding responsibility.

Jacobsen: What effect does being “banksied” have on the person left behind?

Cowan: Being “banksied” can feel like emotional gaslighting. The relationship doesn’t end with clarity; it erodes. That ambiguity can lead to obsessive overthinking: Did I imagine the connection? Did I say something wrong? Should I follow up again?

Unlike ghosting, which at least provides a harsh finality, banksying keeps hope alive just long enough to erode self-trust and confidence.

Jacobsen: What does this reveal about modern dating culture overall?

Cowan: Banksying reflects our collective discomfort with honesty in relationships. We’ve created an environment where people fear being “the bad guy,” so they choose the passive exit. But avoidance is still an action; it just lacks integrity. The irony? Many who banksy don’t want to be ghosted themselves.

This trend also highlights the growing need for emotional maturity in dating, not just chemistry or convenience.

Jacobsen: For someone who might suspect they’re experiencing this, what are the early signs of banksying?

Cowan: How to Spot It Early

Some early red flags:

A noticeable shift in tone or frequency of communication

Vague excuses or chronic “busyness” without rescheduling

Energy that feels non-committal or distracted

If the connection feels like it’s slowly slipping without explanation, you might be experiencing banksying.

Jacobsen: And for those who might be tempted to banksy instead of giving closure, what would you advise?

Cowan: If you’re considering fading out, ask yourself: What conversation am I avoiding, and why?

Ending things with kindness and clarity not only respects the other person but also shows self-respect. Closure doesn’t have to be dramatic. A simple, direct message can prevent someone from internalizing unnecessary hurt.

Jacobsen: Why do you think some people choose this approach rather than addressing relationship issues directly?

Madeline Trenholm: Banksying appears to be a longer form of ghosting. People who have had childhood trauma or prior stressful relationships and breakups may crave a relationship, but fear long term commitment. For some people it can be a sense of control knowing that they were the ones to end the relationship rather than be broken up with.

Jacobsen: What role does conflict avoidance play in this behavior?

Trenholm: Additionally, some people fear conflict and rather than discussing issues and seeing them as a natural part of relationships, may see problems as meaning the relationship is not working and are afraid to address the issues and see ‘banksying’ as a solution to this and a gentle letdown, indicating that dating these days are more and more leaning towards avoidance as a solution to problems.

Jacobsen: How should someone respond if they notice their partner may be withdrawing in this way?

Trenholm: If someone is noticing their partner may be withdrawing, it’s important to address this right away but in a noncritical way and state their needs and start a conversation. Conversely, if someone is noticing the urge to “banksy” their partner, they should also reflect on if their relationship is really that problematic and dig deep on what is causing this urge—whether a fear of conflict or something else. It’s also important to attempt at problem solving and if a breakup is in order, then being clear and direct is kind.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Lorene and Madeline.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

The Register: Google accused of pushing ‘free for life’ G Suite users onto paid plans. “A reader alerted The Register to what appears to be a new crackdown on long-standing G Suite Legacy accounts, with similar complaints now piling up on Reddit from users accused of violating Google’s non-commercial use policy, despite insisting they use the accounts only for family email and personal […]

The Register: Google accused of pushing ‘free for life’ G Suite users onto paid plans. “A reader alerted The Register to what appears to be a new crackdown on long-standing G Suite Legacy accounts, with similar complaints now piling up on Reddit from users accused of violating Google’s non-commercial use policy, despite insisting they use the accounts only for family email and personal […]

"Binding contractual agreements for every single digital service have become a tool companies exploit at the expense of consumer rights that makes us even less safe on the internet, and it’s pure enshittification." #security #digitalsovereignty #enshittification #termsofservice

You Can’t Vote Out Amazon Web ...

"Binding contractual agreements for every single digital service have become a tool companies exploit at the expense of consumer rights that makes us even less safe on the internet, and it’s pure enshittification." #security #digitalsovereignty #enshittification #termsofservice

You Can’t Vote Out Amazon Web ...

You Can’t Vote Out Amazon Web Services: Fighting Internet Contracts One Library At A Time

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/21/you-cant-vote-out-amazon-web-services-fighting-adhesion-contracts-one-library-at-a-time/

You Can’t Vote Out Amazon Web Services: Fighting Internet Contracts One Library At A Time

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/21/you-cant-vote-out-amazon-web-services-fighting-adhesion-contracts-one-library-at-a-time/

If you are like me and rarely read the #ToS #TermsOfService on websites, as when creating an account.

Then https://tosdr.org/en is worth checking to get the am idea of the #BadStuff you agree to.

If you are like me and rarely read the #ToS #TermsOfService on websites, as when creating an account.

Then https://tosdr.org/en is worth checking to get the am idea of the #BadStuff you agree to.

The Register: Even Microsoft knows Copilot shouldn’t be trusted with anything important. “Despite the last update taking place in late 2025, the document for Copilot for Individuals recently attracted new attention from netizens. It includes this gem: ‘Copilot is for entertainment purposes only. It can make mistakes, and it may not work as intended. Don’t rely on Copilot for important advice. […]

The Register: Even Microsoft knows Copilot shouldn’t be trusted with anything important. “Despite the last update taking place in late 2025, the document for Copilot for Individuals recently attracted new attention from netizens. It includes this gem: ‘Copilot is for entertainment purposes only. It can make mistakes, and it may not work as intended. Don’t rely on Copilot for important advice. […]

Copilot: The Digital Assistant's Ambiguous Purpose

Microsoft Copilot's purpose is debated: Is it for fun or work? A report suggests using it for work violates terms. Learn how to use it effectively.

#MicrosoftCopilot, #AIChatbot, #TermsOfService, #TechNews, #DigitalAssistant

https://newsletter.tf/microsoft-copilot-use-fun-or-work-terms-of-service/

Copilot: The Digital Assistant's Ambiguous Purpose

Microsoft Copilot's purpose is debated: Is it for fun or work? A report suggests using it for work violates terms. Learn how to use it effectively.

#MicrosoftCopilot, #AIChatbot, #TermsOfService, #TechNews, #DigitalAssistant

https://newsletter.tf/microsoft-copilot-use-fun-or-work-terms-of-service/

A report suggests using Microsoft Copilot for work tasks might violate its terms of service, contrasting with Microsoft's aim to make it a 'workday sidekick'.

#MicrosoftCopilot, #AIChatbot, #TermsOfService, #TechNews, #DigitalAssistant
https://newsletter.tf/microsoft-copilot-use-fun-or-work-terms-of-service/

A report suggests using Microsoft Copilot for work tasks might violate its terms of service, contrasting with Microsoft's aim to make it a 'workday sidekick'.

#MicrosoftCopilot, #AIChatbot, #TermsOfService, #TechNews, #DigitalAssistant
https://newsletter.tf/microsoft-copilot-use-fun-or-work-terms-of-service/

WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY, ANYWAY? A QUERY FOR THE CURRENT MOMENT.

Explore why philosophy is crucial today for understanding evolving digital terms of service and privacy policies. Learn how critical thinking helps navigate online changes.

#Philosophy, #DigitalEthics, #TermsOfService, #PrivacyPolicy, #CriticalThinking

https://newsletter.tf/why-philosophy-matters-for-digital-rules/

WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY, ANYWAY? A QUERY FOR THE CURRENT MOMENT.

Explore why philosophy is crucial today for understanding evolving digital terms of service and privacy policies. Learn how critical thinking helps navigate online changes.

#Philosophy, #DigitalEthics, #TermsOfService, #PrivacyPolicy, #CriticalThinking

https://newsletter.tf/why-philosophy-matters-for-digital-rules/

Philosophy's role in understanding digital rules is more important than ever. This is because online platforms constantly change their terms, affecting user rights.

#Philosophy, #DigitalEthics, #TermsOfService, #PrivacyPolicy, #CriticalThinking
https://newsletter.tf/why-philosophy-matters-for-digital-rules/

Philosophy's role in understanding digital rules is more important than ever. This is because online platforms constantly change their terms, affecting user rights.

#Philosophy, #DigitalEthics, #TermsOfService, #PrivacyPolicy, #CriticalThinking
https://newsletter.tf/why-philosophy-matters-for-digital-rules/

Pokemon Go Had Players Capturing More Than They Realized

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://hackaday.com/2026/03/12/pokemon-go-had-players-capturing-more-than-they-realized/

Pokemon Go Had Players Capturing More Than They Realized

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://hackaday.com/2026/03/12/pokemon-go-had-players-capturing-more-than-they-realized/

🚨 Breaking News: Zed's latest #innovation is requiring you to be an adult to read their Terms of Service. 🎉 Because nothing screams "cutting-edge tech company" like a thrilling legal document adventure for 18+ only! 🙄🔍
https://zed.dev/terms #Zed #TermsOfService #AdultContent #LegalAdventure #TechNews #HackerNews #ngated

🚨 Breaking News: Zed's latest #innovation is requiring you to be an adult to read their Terms of Service. 🎉 Because nothing screams "cutting-edge tech company" like a thrilling legal document adventure for 18+ only! 🙄🔍
https://zed.dev/terms #Zed #TermsOfService #AdultContent #LegalAdventure #TechNews #HackerNews #ngated

Reuters: Musk’s Starlink updates privacy policy to allow consumer data to train AI. “SpaceX (SPAX.PVT) revised its Starlink privacy policy to allow the use of customer data for AI training, a shift that ​could bolster Elon Musk’s AI ambitions.”

Reuters: Musk’s Starlink updates privacy policy to allow consumer data to train AI. “SpaceX (SPAX.PVT) revised its Starlink privacy policy to allow the use of customer data for AI training, a shift that ​could bolster Elon Musk’s AI ambitions.”

Is there a company slimier than Yelp (don't answer that, its rhetorical)? Seriously, on 19 Jan they sent me a notice of new terms of service, and by continuing to use the service, you agree to them. All the usual normal BS, right? Not exactly, considering that the new terms of service are effective 1 January. Yep, almost three weeks before they bothered to tell me they changed the new rules.

Is there a company slimier than Yelp (don't answer that, its rhetorical)? Seriously, on 19 Jan they sent me a notice of new terms of service, and by continuing to use the service, you agree to them. All the usual normal BS, right? Not exactly, considering that the new terms of service are effective 1 January. Yep, almost three weeks before they bothered to tell me they changed the new rules.

The Register: eBay updates legalese to ban AI-powered shop-bots . “eBay has decided to ban agentic shopping bots from its digital tat bazaar. The company’s decision emerged in an update to its user agreement posted on January 20th, which insists users must not use ‘buy-for-me agents, LLM-driven bots, or any end-to-end flow that attempts to place orders without human review’ on the site, […]

The Register: eBay updates legalese to ban AI-powered shop-bots . “eBay has decided to ban agentic shopping bots from its digital tat bazaar. The company’s decision emerged in an update to its user agreement posted on January 20th, which insists users must not use ‘buy-for-me agents, LLM-driven bots, or any end-to-end flow that attempts to place orders without human review’ on the site, […]

The Rise, Crisis, and Continuity of Nathan J. Robinson’s Current Affairs Magazine

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/09

Nathan Robinson’s articles, and Current Affairs generally, have been con­sistently challen­ging and thought-provoking, with incisive critique and informative discussion, lucid and provocative, and focused on well-chosen issues of major significance. I find myself regularly recommend­ing Robinson’s articles to others, and re-reading them myself. Unusually valuable contributions.

Prof. Noam Chomsky

Current Affairs is one of few superb places to go to get moral and spiritual depth combined with crucial progressive analysis and vision in a decadent American culture! The rich legacies of Martin Luther King, Jr., Noam Chomsky and Barbara Ehrenreich are alive in this marvelous magazine.

Dr. Cornel West

Nathan J. Robinson and Current Affairs are con­sistently ex­cellent, writing at a very high standard, and offering serious and compelling alternative perspectives. Very worth following and reading.

Glenn Greenwald

Yes, Nathan is a brazen hypocrite who would be leading the righteous denunciation if this happened to anyone else. The schadenfreude is merited. But the left has created a deranged, self-immolating culture where nobody can survive… Over and over, left-wing spaces destroy themselves. They’re impotent, can’t achieve anything, so turn on each other to feel strong and meaningful. But they can only raise their fist over cheap, performative theater. The puritanical rules they’ve imposed ensure self-destruction... Nathan is reaping what he sowed, just like Scott Stringer, Dianne Morales and so many others. The Frankenstein they unleash to sadistically destroy others eventually comes to eat them. Nathan is a mewling, obsequious socialist, but in this sick leftist prism, he’s Jeff Bezos.

Glenn Greenwald

We are sad, aghast, betrayed, and of course, angry to realize that this person we trusted has been lying to us for years. We, a small staff composed entirely of women and non-binary people, have faithfully worked to make Current Affairs the beautiful, engaging leftist magazine and podcast that it is.

Current Affairs Open Letter

Dr. Nathan Robinson earned a J.D. from Yale Law School. He completed his Ph.D. in Sociology and Social Policy at Harvard University in May 2022. He is a libertarian socialist. He advocates for workers’ rights, democratic workplaces, and anti-capitalist principles. He writes on a wide range of socialist subjects.

He founded the publication Current Affairs in 2015 with Oren Nimni. The original 2015 Kickstarter campaign raised $16,607, surpassing its $10,000 goal. Nimni serves as Legal Editor. Currently, it is based out of New Orleans, Louisiana. It is published as a bimonthly left-wing magazine with thousands of subscribers. It carries no advertising. It is funded by subscriptions and donations.

For about 6 years, things were good, until alleged firings and a worker co-op dispute happened. It involved Dr. Robinson, Allegra Silcox (Business Manager), Lyta Gold (Managing and Amusements Editor), Kate Christian Gauthreaux (Administrative Assistant), Aisling McCrea (Former Podcast Producer), and Cate Root (Poet at Large).

Staff alleged the triggering event was a Zoom meeting on August 7, 2021. There were discussions for a “more democratic workplace” for more than a year on a continuous basis. Robinson perceived the proposed changes as disregarding his vision for Current Affairs.

On August 8, 2021, staff were locked out of Slack. They received emails. The emails requested resignations. Alternatively, he offered “honorary titles.” The titles came with no governance power. Staff perceived this as de factoterminations. No prior notice was given.

No performance improvement plans were provided. Standard practice gives a two-week performance improvement period. However, it is not legally required in all employment contexts, especially for at-will employees in the U.S. Staff claimed being fired for attempts to restructure Current Affairs to a worker-owned cooperative reducing the unilateral control of Dr. Robinson.

The former staff members published a public letter in August, 2021, linked by Lyta Gold. Their central allegation hinged on single statement. “We were fired by the editor-in-chief of a socialist magazine for trying to start a worker co-op.”

The letter highlighted the perceived hypocrisy of Dr. Robinson by staff members based on public socialist advocacy, i.e., holding disproportionate power, lack of responsiveness, and prolonged absenteeism. Several portions are indicative:

Yes, we were fired by the editor-in-chief of a socialist magazine for trying to start a worker co-op… Nathan became agitated… behaved in a hostile manner… started removing people from the company Slack… sent letters requesting resignations, eliminating positions… offering new ‘honorary titles’ which would have no say in governance… he admitted that he simply did not want Current Affairs to be a democratic workplace… he wrote: ‘I think I should be on top of the org chart, with everyone else selected by me and reporting to me’… We note darkly that he says ‘egalitarian community of friends,’ and not, of course, a workplace… he has effectively fired us for organizing for better work conditions… we are sad, aghast, betrayed… Nathan J. Robinson can write articles and give speeches, but… he simply isn’t up to the task… We have no better explanation for Nathan’s behavior than any of you, but it is clear to us now that this is simply the most extreme event in a pattern of controlling and dishonest actions that began long before this sequence of events and has created an untenable situation for the workers… this feels like a light going out.

Dr. Robinson’s responses changed over time. The initial response, he claims to have “irreparably lost faith” in his staff’s ability to collaborate effectively. Within the first 24 hours, Robinson changed the position, while retracting the original response. Now, he still supported a democratic workplace, but went against a co-op structure. He considered Current Affairs “purely” his project and not a collectively governed entity, but an “egalitarian community of friends.”

He acknowledged personal leadership and shortcomings in this. At the same time, he maintained general support for labour organizing elsewhere. He did not address the hypocrisy allegations directly. Dr. Robinson took three actions. He:

1. requested resignation of three staffers.
2. reassigned an employee’s title.
3. offered a contractor a different role.

On August 19, 2021, the board of directors issued a public statement. No staff had been ‘officially’ fired, while severance discussions were ongoing. Subsequently, Current Affairs was announced as on hiatus on Twitter (now X) by Vanessa A. Bee.

Uncertainty for the future of the magazine surrounded this hiatus. Dr. Robinson began reconciliatory efforts. He offered reinstatement of staff positions. Earlier, in February 2021, The Guardian discontinued Robinson’s U.S. opinion column. The discontinuation followed a satirical tweet about U.S. military aid to Israel.

He struggled with severance negotiations and the maintenance of the organizational community. On August 13, Dr. Robinson proposed $234,352 (USD) in severance. Staff remained on the payroll through September, 2021; bylaws prevented formal terminations. Five departing staffers received severances totaling $76,014. This was about 34% of the magazine’s cash reserves. They remained on payroll through September 2021 per board bylaws.

Yasmin Nair alludes to departing staff spreading falsehoods; further, those leading to online harassment of Robinson and financial harm to the magazine. Direct causal connection and financial specifics remain unconfirmed. Structural and vision disagreements were the dispute, not ideological betrayal.

The staff’s push for a co-op structure aligned with progressive values and Dr. Robinson’s stipulated values. The tension between individual centralized authority and collective governance showed in the story. Since 2023, no major developments on this particular narrative. He co-authored The Myth of American Idealism with Prof. Noam Chomsky in 2024. Currently, Current Affairs is operational and Dr. Robinson retains status as Editor-in-Chief.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

#books #Copyright #CreativeCommons #licensing #literature #photography #poetry #TermsOfService #writing

Ars Technica: Apps like Grok are explicitly banned under Google’s rules—why is it still in the Play Store? . “It really could not be more clear from Google’s publicly available policies that Grok should have been banned yesterday. And yet, it remains in the Play Store. Not only that—it enjoys a T for Teen rating, one notch below the M-rated X app. Apple also still offers the Grok app on […]

Ars Technica: Apps like Grok are explicitly banned under Google’s rules—why is it still in the Play Store? . “It really could not be more clear from Google’s publicly available policies that Grok should have been banned yesterday. And yet, it remains in the Play Store. Not only that—it enjoys a T for Teen rating, one notch below the M-rated X app. Apple also still offers the Grok app on […]

#TermsofService #GoFundMe

https://www.wired.com/story/gofundme-ice-jonathan-ross-renee-good-fundraiser/

#TermsofService #GoFundMe

https://www.wired.com/story/gofundme-ice-jonathan-ross-renee-good-fundraiser/

In a dazzling display of cutting-edge #journalism, #Bloomberg bravely tackles the burning question: "What *is* code?" only to deliver a riveting tale of #CAPTCHA battles and cookie woes. 🔍🤖 Because who needs actual content when you can have a thrilling adventure through Terms of Service instead? 🍪💥
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-paul-ford-what-is-code/ #CookieWoes #TermsOfService #CodeAdventures #HackerNews #ngated

In a dazzling display of cutting-edge #journalism, #Bloomberg bravely tackles the burning question: "What *is* code?" only to deliver a riveting tale of #CAPTCHA battles and cookie woes. 🔍🤖 Because who needs actual content when you can have a thrilling adventure through Terms of Service instead? 🍪💥
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-paul-ford-what-is-code/ #CookieWoes #TermsOfService #CodeAdventures #HackerNews #ngated

TermsTooLong - L'outil qui note les CGU que vous ne lisez jamais

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://korben.info/termstoolong-cgu-trop-longues.html

Daily Nous: What Will Academia.edu Do with Its New Rights to Your Name, Likeness, and Voice? (updated). “Users of the Academia.edu service are cancelling their subscriptions in response to perceived overreach by the firm in its recent update to its terms of service.” Academia is backtracking.

https://rbfirehose.com/2025/09/27/daily-nous-what-will-academia-edu-do-with-its-new-rights-to-your-name-likeness-and-voice-updated/