ETA: GOOD NEWS!
mastodon.social/@Mastodon/1147…
In reading an important discussion of the IP assignment in the new Mastodon.social ToS:
github.com/mastodon/mastodon/i…
I was GOBSMACKED to discover the new ToS has a "binding arbitration waiver," which takes away your right to sue, no matter how badly the service abuses you.
These are profoundly unethical, terrible clauses. They should never, ever appear in "adhesion contracts" (that is, contracts that you merely click through, rather than negotiating.)
New Terms of Service IP clause cannot be terminated or revoked, not even by deleting content
Summary Since it first opened, mastodon.social has operated without any sort of explicit IP grant from the users to the service, which is unusual for a social networking service. Today Mastodon ann...mcclure (GitHub)
We've heard your feedback on the Terms of Service updates for mastodon.social and mastodon.online, and we're pausing the implementation date (previously announced to users via email as 1st July 2025) so we can take further advice and make improvements.It may take us a moment to consult with the right people, so please bear with us while we do so. As always, we appreciate your patience and support.
Questa voce è stata modificata (3 mesi fa)
like this
reshared this
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •No one, and I do mean NO ONE, should ever, ever, EVER agree to a binding arbitration waiver.
These are the most grotesquely unfair contractual terms in routine use today. The potential for abuse is literally unlimited.
Remember when a Disney World visitor died of an allergic reaction after being assured that her food order was allergen-free? Disney argued that her family couldn't sue because her husband had clicked through an arbitration waiver when signing up for a free trial of Disney Plus.
reshared this
vixxo, ckohtala, Joe Vinegar e damon reshared this.
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •I am very shocked to see this in the ToS for the flagship Mastodon instance, promulgated by the Mastodon nonprofit.
To be clear, I think this is *much* worse than, say, requiring users of mastodon.social to agree to have their posts used to train LLMs. The harms of having your work fed to an AI are mostly hypothetical and relate to moral qualms.
By contrast, a binding arbitration waiver would literally allow the management of mastodon.social to cause your DEATH and face no consequences.
damon likes this.
reshared this
vixxo, ckohtala, Clockwork ☃️✒️ e damon reshared this.
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •I am trying not to be dramatic here, but this is a deal-breaker for me - literally. I changed dentists because I wouldn't sign binding arbitration. I changed solar installers because I wouldn't sign binding arbitration.
I could never, in good conscience, recommend that someone use a service that required binding arbitration as a condition of use - which means that as of July 1, I would no longer be able to recommend that people get an account on mastodon.social.
reshared this
RevK, Democracy Matters e damon reshared this.
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •And since mastodon.social is the flagship instance, which sets the moral example - and the workaday template - for most instances in the Fediverse, this catastrophically bad clause is likely to proliferate far and wide throughout the Fediverse, rendering most of this new, better internet unfit for use.
Please, @Gargron, reconsider this. It is a very bad look - and worse still, it's a very, very bad example.
reshared this
Murray GM - Paperposts, FKA ZOG e RevK reshared this.
Viss
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Pax Ahimsa Gethen
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •@Gargron
I assume you'll be blogging about this shortly?
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Pax Ahimsa Gethen • • •Pax Ahimsa Gethen
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •@Gargron @mmasnick
Even if they do remove it I think it would be useful to blog about why you believe binding arbitration is so dangerous, unless you already have done so recently.
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Pax Ahimsa Gethen • • •@funcrunch @Gargron @mmasnick
Here's the "binding arbitration" tag on my blog:
pluralistic.net/tag/binding-ar…
binding arbitration – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
pluralistic.netRFanciola reshared this.
OldCoder
in reply to Pax Ahimsa Gethen • • •Mr. Doctorow:
I see in the Github issue that, moving forward, the new language will be the default based on its inclusion in the Mastodon #ToS templates. This isn't ideal.
If #Pleroma is better in this regard, one option would be to encourage the adoption of Pleroma and its forks. Pleroma is much lighter anyway. FWIW: I've run my own Pleroma instance for 4 years and this is being posted from it.
However, realistically, Mastodon is likely to remain a dominant force in the Fediverse. The ToS issue is therefore significant.
I have nothing against the Mastodon core group's likely desire to be bought out for $1B due in part to its creation of "birdsites" that own piles of content. But the Fediverse might well be one of the few things that is still standing between the boot and the human face in "1984".
You're a "name" that's associated with rights. If you do the following, it might gain some traction. Work with your circle to set up a light automated fork of Mastodon. The fork could also be thought of as a spoon.
The fork or spoon would be identical to upstream except for changes made by automation scripts. Such as replacement of the ToS templates with versions that your group would select. It would be a simple matter.
Forks usually die quickly. However, there's little to prevent semi-automated spoons from lasting indefinitely. Sometimes, too, forks end up with both superior features and momentum. See: angie, a full fork of nginx.
Mastodon gGmbH has trademarked the term "Mastodon" as a software mark. However, a spoon could certainly refer to itself as Mastodon (tm) compatible. If "Xnet" isn't trademarked, that term could be trademarked and used as the repo name. Or perhaps "Little Brother" would work.
One nice thing about the spoon approach, aside from the fact that it might be relatively low effort, is that other people would have different concerns about Mastodon that could be addressed at the same time as the stated issue.
Creative Commons people would, for example, like to see increased promotion of Creative Commons in the default Mastodon setup.
So, you might be able to assemble a group of 5 to 10 people. That would be more than enough. Or the prospect of a spoon might offer some leverage in discussions with @Gargron.
Illustration: A #Mastodon is facing a fork by somebody who has a better known name than he does. The Mastodon reconsiders his position on intellectual property issues.
The illustration is partly LLM, though I have concerns related to LLM, and partly GIMP.
OldCoder
in reply to OldCoder • • •@mastodon has commented as follows:
"We've heard your feedback on the Terms of Service updates for mastodon.social and mastodon.online, and we're pausing the implementation date (previously announced to users via email as 1st July 2025) so we can take further advice and make improvements."
Mastodon
Mastodon hosted on mastodon.socialreshared this
Wietze Brandsma 🏴☠️ reshared this.
Kat Kimbriel
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Complexity of systems
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Eugen Rochko
in reply to Complexity of systems • • •Cory Doctorow reshared this.
Walter van Holst
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Dr Andrew A. Adams #FBPE 🔶
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •So, rather than going for lawyers used to working for the surveillance capitalism sector, try reaching out to the lawyers used to working for the FLOSS sector or the digital rights sector. See the FSFE's Legal Network for some FLOSS lawyers or EDRi for digital rights lawyers.
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •reshared this
myrmepropagandist, Jon Henshaw, Mark Wyner Won’t Comply, Catharina Bethlehem ☑️ Cath e Joe Vinegar reshared this.
M. Grégoire
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •There's an enormous potential for abuse in binding arbitration clauses, absolutely. But the legal system is also easy for people (with money) to abuse, as, e.g., patent trolls show.
Is there a better way to resolve disputes with some sort of arbitration? Or are the law courts as good as it gets?
Cory Doctorow
in reply to M. Grégoire • • •Matt
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Cassandrich
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Eugen Rochko
in reply to Cassandrich • • •Deadly Headshot
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •@Gargron
Ash_Crow
in reply to Deadly Headshot • • •clause in a contract that requires the parties to resolve their disputes through an arbitration process
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)slash
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Allan Chow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Bub's
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •@Gargron
Hope these forms to be modified to a better form. I left Facebook for it's abusing potential I'd be sad to be compelled to do it again with Mastodon
Aurelian Dumanovschi
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •LisPi
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Binding arbitration should just be illegal.
What's the point of being a citizen if some random contract can completely cut off one from the local legal system?
Cory Doctorow
in reply to LisPi • • •Ehay2k
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •@lispi314
#SpecialPlaceInHell
Sharkie
in reply to LisPi • • •@lispi314 This is such a tough issue.
If someone sued some of the smaller (fully non-profit) projects I'm involved in, they (and I, having separate no legal fiction for them) would simply be destroyed.
We know arbitration is bad, but how do we balance the existence and survival of projects intended for civic good with the potential harms they could cause, when even a basic legal defense can bankrupt the person behind the project?
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Sharkie • • •@sekka @lispi314
With reasonable indemnity clauses and liability insurance, which every nonprofit should carry (and which every nonprofit whose board I've ever served on DOES carry).
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •@sekka @lispi314 If your org can structure itself as a 501(c)3, it can also get insurance (and any good board member would make this the first order of business for any (c)3).
Cory
Julie Webgirl
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •@sekka @lispi314
LisPi
in reply to Julie Webgirl • • •It's a wonderful example of decentralized failing to provide the advantages of distributed.
Hosting other people as a service is always a major source of liability. Doubly so without proper anonymization.
Sometimes the legal system permits throwing money at the problem to mitigate the liability, but not always.
Sharkie
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •@lispi314 Certainly in the case of a 501(c)3,, but what about a private or charitable organization that doesn't earn income? Liability insurance could easily be too much of a burden, and certain jurisdictions like EU have laws that pose risk to them.
This is a hypothetical, but not a big stretch. Think open source liability, for a simple case. We tend to assume that our licenses with the big fat disclaimers protect us, but claims against them still can be litigated.
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Sharkie • • •Sharkie
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •@lispi314 Apologies, I was careless in my terminology; I didn't specifically mean to refer only to IRS-recognized entities. I was thinking of a lot of the harsh EU-style regulations and how they can generate what looks, on the surface, like strict liability for entirely charitable works.
There are many examples I can think of from the BBS days, but also several instances where services like beloved MUSHes—run entirely from the pockets of the owner—died under legal pressure.
oscarfalcon
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Oh man... Does this mean I HAVE TO CHANGE INSTANCES??? IT DOES DOESN't IT!
Blast!
Cory Doctorow
in reply to oscarfalcon • • •@oscarfalcon
I think that's premature - in the Github discussion, Eugen says that the lawyers they used were unfamiliar with this kind of community-oriented project. It's not too late to amend the ToS, and I am reasonably certain that this represents a misstep, not a deliberate attempt to foist bad terms on Mastodon users. I think we should expect that Eugen and the org will do the right thing here.
Mastodon Migration reshared this.
oscarfalcon
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •oscarfalcon
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Steve's Place
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •meek cynics
in reply to oscarfalcon • • •You don't have to, @oscarfalcon, but you definitely should: please see the Mastodon monoculture problem by @rysiek.
Cc: @pluralistic
Mastodon monoculture problem
Songs on the Security of Networksreshared this
RFanciola reshared this.
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦
in reply to meek cynics • • •@cnx what's this about?
/me reads the thread
oh. oh I see. *sigh*
@pluralistic @oscarfalcon
pettter
in reply to Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦 • • •Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦
in reply to pettter • • •@pettter it was published over two years ago.
Anyway, updated now.
A Tattered Scrapbook
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •claudex
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •they've paused the new TOS mastodon.social/@Mastodon/1147…
Mastodon
2025-06-19 11:35:54
Kookie 🍪🇵🇸
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Cory Doctorow
in reply to Kookie 🍪🇵🇸 • • •@kookie Dentist, doctor, my kids' sports teams, etc etc. They have become a plague.
The worst was the solar installer, though: you're going to do work that, if performed incorrectly, could incinerate my house and kill me and my family, and you don't think we should have the right to sue if you screw up?
How about if you just don't screw up?
Kookie 🍪🇵🇸
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •I only know them from US media, I don't know if Germany has a similar process (i looked it up and yes, but it didn't sound particularly common). I'm gonna be looking for a similar clause in every contract I sign from now on 😬
(btw i really liked little brother, although maybe not amazing to listen to shortly before going to bed 😛 -- that's on me though)
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Kookie 🍪🇵🇸 • • •Democracy Matters
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •6g
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •RE
I am trying not to be dramatic here, but...
Me too, not trying to be dramatic, but WHY NOT any #hastags in your posts⁉️ Like ZERO‼️
RE
use a service that required ⭕#BindingArbitration as a condition
Yea, #FuckBindingArbitration
@Greengordon Thx 4 orig boost
Christian
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •I post from mastodon.social and yes it is a shame but you know - if your readers device if your free internet content - is Microsoft, Apple or Google its likely train some LLM or A.I.
Its kind of unlikely to have secrets - so be aware and stay analog..
InfiniteHench
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Exceptionally hard disagree about the 'hypothetical' harms of people's work being stolen by AI.
People steal a couple hundred dollars of groceries or retail goods and they go to jail, at least here in the US.
Every. single. major AI company has openly admitted to the *fact* that they have stolen tens if not hundreds of millions in licensed content to build their companies. Their companies *could not exist* without the millions if not billions in content they have stolen instead of license - their words, not mine.
It is one of the most widespread, brazen, and massive transfers of wealth from the working class to the oppressive oligarchy class I can think of.
Éric Freyssinet
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •David Somers
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Jack Allnutt
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •The ToS also states that the laws of Berlin, Germany apply (including those relating to arbitration).
The fact that US arbitration law is horrible doesn't mean that arbitration law in other jurisdictions is.
Simon Brooke
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •such a clause would, I believe, be illegal and unenforceable in the UK in a consumer contract, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015:
legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/…
@neil ?
As we were in the EU at the time this law was enacted and thus necessarily in conformance with EU law, I would expect similar legislation to be in place in all EU countries, specifically including Germany.
In other words, I think this 'agreement' has no legal force.
IANAL etc.
Consumer Rights Act 2015
www.legislation.gov.ukCory Doctorow reshared this.
Drew Crecente (they/them)
in reply to Simon Brooke • • •@simon_brooke @neil
Yesterday I received a Switch2 as a gift (thanks Brian) and, while setting it up, was disappointed to see the Nintendo TOS included mandatory #arbitration (!).
I'd inadvertently used the US as my location at first. But then I remembered that I instead live in the UK. I switched on my #VPN to properly reflect that location.
😍 As if by magic, the TOS became very brief. Also: no arbitration clause.
I have no problem consenting to TOS based on Europe's consumer-friendlier laws. I finished setting up my new game system, relieved for an easy solution.
👉 The use of mandatory arbitration against consumers is contrary to its original intent. It was designed for business entities of like size and power.
(Spent a summer in Europe studying international arbitration while in law school.)
Glad to know folks are talking about this.
Alyssa Voronin
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •I stopped using Steam for twelve years, while they had a mandatory arbitration clause in their TOS. I turned down a job because they had a mandatory arbitration clause in their employment contract.
Fortunately, I'm not on the mastodon.social instance. I just wonder if they're going to merrily feed all the data from federated servers into their database of stuff to sell later.
CockneyLaurie
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Very true...
Unfortunately every day we have thousands of companies writing literally pages of TS and Cs that you have to sign for and acknowledge in order to use a system... The example of Disney... Who'd expect you are signing off your rights to book a ticket!!
That should be illegal
I remember someone wrote in a set of TS and Cs that said something like the first person to contact here will get a free bottle of wine....
It was some years later and many ticks before someone finally claimed it
Max Gregroom
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Falling forward 🍉
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Cat-in-a-Hat
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Pteryx the Puzzle Secretary
in reply to Cat-in-a-Hat • • •You do still have until the end of the month.
Cat-in-a-Hat
in reply to Pteryx the Puzzle Secretary • • •Thank you.
Pteryx the Puzzle Secretary
in reply to Cat-in-a-Hat • • •@Myoldpiano
Seems the situation has just changed in any case due to public outcry:
mastodon.social/@Mastodon/1147…
Mastodon
2025-06-19 11:35:54
Tanquist
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •SpaceLifeForm
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •This is why one should leave.
@mcc
Bruce Elrick
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •atom_skillz
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Julie Webgirl
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Cory Doctorow
in reply to Julie Webgirl • • •@juliewebgirl Yes, though that appears to be an easily fixed oversight, and the worst case scenario is that something you intended to have in public might remain public if you change your mind, which is bad, but nowhere near a dealbreaker for me.
However, waiving my right to sue irrespective of how negligent or malicious the offending conduct is, and no matter how badly that conduct harms me? That is massive.
Julie Webgirl
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Yeah I just have issues with an instance admin being sued over admining an instance. Users? That's one thing, but the admin is providing an up to date secure platform.
Nobody is eating food that can kill them like the Disney example.
I would absolutely not admin an instance if I could be sued over what? Something a user posted?
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Julie Webgirl • • •Julie Webgirl
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •If they're protected, what would you, as a user, sue your instance over that makes arbitration a deal breaker?
Anything I can think of is a moot point if my contract ends when I delete my account, which is why irrevocable seems like a bigger deal.
R.L. Dane 🍵
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •No way.
github.com/mastodon/mastodon/i…
What the actual f---?
@Gargron, bro, this is despicable.
Please, PLEASE put the kibosh on this.
New Terms of Service IP clause cannot be terminated or revoked, not even by deleting content
mcclure (GitHub)Tyler Allen
in reply to R.L. Dane 🍵 • • •Cory Doctorow
in reply to Tyler Allen • • •Amber Or Bust
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Carolleisa
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Skystryder
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •robbin_easy
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •nini
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Tris
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Also: mastodon.social/@mcc/114706910…
mcc
2025-06-18 23:15:55
Beige CatsWhoCode
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •NikuNashi
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Thank you for flagging.
I had an old account redirecting to this one, I've just deleted it.
I sincerely hope they will walk this back.
This will hinder promoting mastodon to others given the easiest path is no longer acceptable.
cc: @Gargron
mcc
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Yeah, I… yeah! I see at least three separate problems with the new license. In my GitHub complaint, I decided to focus on just one. But the others are *kind of bad!*
What really baffles me is this is going in the *default template TOS*, in the git repo and official releases. So people are going to be selecting the default TOS because it's the TOS, assuming it's a basic regular TOS, missing the arbitration clause, and locking their users *and themselves* into arbitration! :/
Chancerubbage
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •@mastodonmigration
If Mastodon instances could be sued, it would take barely any effort for anyone with the money to hire a lawyer and kill that instance. And the next. One by one. Most instances barely pay for their server costs.
That isn’t to say that abuses can’t happen.
Chris
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Simon Dückert
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Erwin Rossen 🔸
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •indyradio
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Cory, thank you for finding this, and applying your usual thorough analysis.
"no matter how badly the service abuses you." is not a surprise to me.
There are people who were bounced early in the propaganda phase because their thinking was not approved by the GMBH. They were clueless, walked away and didn't care.
It would be a long project to go back to the commits by invisible devs, and commits made by the GMBH for anonymous contributors, but it looks to me...
(next)
Bob Smith
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •DJGummikuh
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Megan Lynch (she/her)
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Eugen Rochko
Unknown parent • • •like this
Sean Tilley e damon like this.
Paul J Wege
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •I know that you know that your writing will have a big impact. Maybe it will be a good choice to write a text about it? Perhaps it would be appropriate to write an equally passionate text about this fact? If I remember correctly, you are involved in some way there.
Melanie M
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •JollyOrc
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •The thing that confuses me is that on the one hand they clearly state that german law and the courts in Berlin are applicable, but then the whole Arbitration section is chock-full of concepts and terms that aren't applicable in Germany at all.
(we have no small-claims courts, nor any trial by jury, and so on....)
Yora
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •tmaher
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Knud Jahnke
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Good reaction - thank you!
Urix Turing
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •to pile on, in Spain this ToS also seem unenforceable under current consumers' rights law 1/2007:
- Article 57.4: arbitration agreements cannot be binding for consumers if agreed before a dispute arises.
- Article 58.1: acceptance of arbitration agreements must be explicit, written and voluntary.
Which begs the question as to why an European company would choose the most harming jurisdiction to users, which I predict to be unenforceable in most of the EU. boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A…
BOE-A-2007-20555 Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2007, de 16 de noviembre, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley General para la Defensa de los Consumidores y Usuarios y otras leyes complementarias.
boe.esCory Doctorow reshared this.
Jörn Franke
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Daniel Pache⚓
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •@Gargron @kdekooter @addressforbots
"Today is a public holiday in Germany"
Only in the lazy parts of Germany. 😁
FreediverX
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Tofu Golem
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Cory Doctorow
in reply to Tofu Golem • • •Tofu Golem
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Good to see that @Mastodon has hit pause on the new ToS and are going to revisit the offending clauses.
mastodon.social/@Mastodon/1147…
Mastodon
2025-06-19 11:35:54
reshared this
FKA ZOG, JonChevreau, Mastodon Migration e Bytebro 🇬🇧 🇺🇦 reshared this.
jeremy
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Nick 'The Viking'
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •@Mastodon@mamot.fr
Thank you Cory for bringing this issue out into the light.
@Mastodon thanks for correcting your error.
Cory Doctorow reshared this.
Steve Holden
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Cory Doctorow
Unknown parent • • •kellenoffdagrid 🌱🌧🌻
Unknown parent • • •小缪咪权且代一下铲屎官的班
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •I don't know how big of a problem this clause is, at least I roughly know that this clause has both advantages and disadvantages
But as an artist, I admire Mastodon's regulation of AI very much, and LLM's harm to people needs to be stopped
Then, I think Mastodon's problem cannot be compared with Disney's case, it is an inappropriate analogy
Steffen Voß
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •christoph schmon
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •it seems that @Mastodon has already heard you. mastodon.social/@Mastodon/1147….
Mastodon
2025-06-19 11:35:54