As much as the SCOTUS may be cucked, and knowing nothing about this case other than what can be inferred from this image, I can probably predict this:
Fyk did not read the terms of service before he signed up.
If he did, he would have seen, in black and white, that the service lays claim to all user submitted data, to do anything they want with, forever and for any reason, including deleting it.
Look, facebook is awful. But can we please stop crying about the abuses? The abuses were laid out in plain English for all to read. Never mind the constant warnings we were given for years about the inherent issues with these kinds of services.
Just because something is in a TOS doesn't automatically make it legal. Imagine if I put the condition in my TOS that, at my determination, I can enslave anyone who signs up for a period of three years to work without pay. It's black and white and it's in the TOS, but it doesn't magically become legal. It's a common, but very silly, misunderstanding of the law.
Plaintiff had used Facebook’s free online platform to create a series of, among other amusing things, pages dedicated to videos and pictures of people urinating.
In enforcing its community standards, Plaintiff alleges that Facebook blocked content posted by Plaintiff and removed content in order to make room for its own
sponsored advertisements. Plaintiff contends these actions by Facebook destroyed or severely devalued his pages.
As much as the SCOTUS may be cucked, and knowing nothing about this case other than what can be inferred from this image, I can probably predict this:
Fyk did not read the terms of service before he signed up.
If he did, he would have seen, in black and white, that the service lays claim to all user submitted data, to do anything they want with, forever and for any reason, including deleting it.
Look, facebook is awful. But can we please stop crying about the abuses? The abuses were laid out in plain English for all to read. Never mind the constant warnings we were given for years about the inherent issues with these kinds of services.
Just because something is in a TOS doesn't automatically make it legal. Imagine if I put the condition in my TOS that, at my determination, I can enslave anyone who signs up for a period of three years to work without pay. It's black and white and it's in the TOS, but it doesn't magically become legal. It's a common, but very silly, misunderstanding of the law.
Contracts can not absolve crimes.
You can however forfeit rights in a contract, which is what every Facebook user agreed to do when they signed up.
I think that should be legal, and anyone dumb enough to sign up will then receive a nice darwin award. I mean this retard is still using twitter.
It should spark a debate on restricting regulations based platform status.
What is the debate?
Seems like an interesting Facebook page.
Wow no wonder it got laughed out of court.
Facebook is not a platform.
Facebook reserves the right to delete user submitted content, for any reason.
Facebook users also waive their right to seek damages.
Super dumb lawsuit.