Not what it says.

It's in the Baldur's Gate 3 EULA.

Read the article.

What they're saying is this is a relatively common temrination clause. It's meant to apply to, say, refunds.

Just because people don't read the agreements and didn't know about it doesn't mean they should have put it. Destroy physical copies is a dump clause and isn't enforcible.

Of course that doesn't stop companies from trying to enforce unenforceable clauses example:
edition.cnn.com/2024/08/16/pol…

For sure. There's plenty of unenforceable stuff in EULAs. For one thing a bunch of these are trying to apply globally across places with way different laws managing customer protections.

But if you don't mind that logic getting turned both ways, just because a EULA clause isn't enforceable doesn't mean you shouldn't add it.

If the idea is your lawyers think there's a risk of people buying a copy, refunding it and keeping it and you want to make sure that doesn't happen it makes some sense to add the clause. If a judge ever says that clause doesn't apply to a given situation you still mitigated the risk from the intended applicable situation.

That's why these license deals also tend to have boilerplate about how a clause being unenforceable or made illegal should not impact the rest of the clauses. It's a maximalist text, by design. It mostly exists like a big wet umbrella to keep companies out of the splash zone. Whatever ends up being used in practice is anybody's guess. The world of civil law and private deals is way less of a black and white exact science than most people getting their legal intuition from crime dramas tend to think.

In the case they should have made it clearer in the terms, there are many companies that try to enforce them even if they seem unenforceable like Disney in the death case.

There is no excuse to put terms like this, Disney proved that even if they look unenforceable they might try to enforce them.

Yes, that's the point. You put them in there, try to enforce them, see if that plays out or not. Ultimately you're punting the determination of how far they can apply to the courts.

Which ends up being why a lot of these never get enforced. In some cases the companies would rather let you quietly break their terms than roll the dice and find out that they don't have the protections they tried to give themselves.

Ultimately the limits of EULAs are set in legislation. What really matters is consumer protections. And in issues like these and copyright more generally we are in a bit of a no man's land where the regulations are woefully out of date, not keeping pace with the new online-driven economy of digital goods and companies are mostly not trying to enforce a bunch of their EULAs anyway.

We end up in a system where a significant chunk of our online economy is decided by Google and social media companies by default.

Nobody knows what the term means. Even Wikipedia doesn't describe Reddit as a link aggregator. For potential new users this is a massive turn off. Unless we want Lemmy to stay a niche community it needs to accommodate to layman terms.

Most people who land on the join Lemmy page don't even know what the Fediverse is.

I mean that someone made up the term "link aggregator" without realizing whether it was an accurate term to describe what it was. Or what it would become.

Eventually it grew far past a simple link posting site. What made Reddit and Digg popular was the user interaction. Not link aggregatition. It was a giant forum with many subforums. That is the simplest way to describe it for laymen. And a description should be for laymen.

The term "link aggregator" is not descriptive of any function. Links are posted on any medium including chatrooms like Discord.

Users can also make posts, such as this one, which do not contain external links. Thus this is a forum.