Friday, February 14, 2020

Email alert

If you are a Replatformer with an account created BEFORE December 19, 2019 and you wish to put a certain company on 30-day notice concerning their recent deceptive practices and contractual breaches, as required by the law, please be on the lookout for an email with DECEPTIVE PRACTICES NOTICE in the subject.

The email contains a link to a file with instructions. All that is required is providing some basic information, then sending an email to the address contained in the file. If you have an SG2 account and you follow me, you can directly access the file from there. Please respond quickly to the email, as the more who object, the more likely it is that the deceptive practices will come to an end.

Eligible VFM should take part in The Noticing.

UPDATE: About half the emails went out today. The other half will go out tomorrow.

Labels: ,


Blogger Z MAlfoy February 14, 2020 9:42 AM  

Done. Always happy to toss pebbles with the rest of the avalanche.

Blogger Teleros February 14, 2020 9:49 AM  

Just sent the email off, looking forwards to yet more winning in the months to come.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 14, 2020 9:55 AM  

Started replatforming Octoberish. Waiting as fast as I can for the email. Even emptied the spam folder to make it easier to spot.

Blogger Beardy Bear February 14, 2020 9:59 AM  

There's nothing I'd love more. How festive.

Blogger Avalanche February 14, 2020 10:19 AM  

Done. Make the rubble bounce!

Blogger Richard Rahl February 14, 2020 10:20 AM  


Blogger BentheBrave February 14, 2020 10:20 AM  


Blogger Ranger February 14, 2020 10:24 AM  


Blogger TruthSeekerBear February 14, 2020 10:35 AM  


Blogger PragmaticTroll February 14, 2020 10:48 AM  


Blogger Warunicorn February 14, 2020 11:04 AM  

Turn the screws!

Blogger 🐻Drew🐻 February 14, 2020 11:06 AM  

"all we wanted to do was make videos"....

Blogger Lissa February 14, 2020 11:30 AM  

Done and done. I'm so excited to get my first taste of bouncing rubble!

Blogger Cary February 14, 2020 11:33 AM  


Blogger Grey Carter February 14, 2020 11:43 AM  


Blogger Unknown February 14, 2020 11:47 AM  


Blogger Kraemer February 14, 2020 12:00 PM  

They started it, but we will finish them

Blogger Gregory the Tall February 14, 2020 12:04 PM  

I am in Europe, now waiting for them to come over to discuss what I shall rightfully demand.

Blogger David Ray Milton February 14, 2020 12:18 PM  


Blogger Carlen February 14, 2020 12:21 PM  


Blogger Jeroth February 14, 2020 12:22 PM  

Excited to be a part of this.

Blogger DannyDanger February 14, 2020 12:22 PM  


Blogger pdwalker February 14, 2020 12:23 PM  

I think I qualify, but I've not seen an email yet, even in spam. I'll check again tomorrow.

Blogger Argus Bacchus February 14, 2020 12:35 PM  


Blogger JAU February 14, 2020 12:38 PM  


Blogger Logan February 14, 2020 1:04 PM  


Blogger Doktor Jeep February 14, 2020 1:04 PM  

Hoka hey

Blogger Barr Tab February 14, 2020 1:13 PM  

Done. Great start to a great day.

Blogger eclecticme February 14, 2020 1:56 PM  

Slightly OT. New Californian arbitration legislation re payment processors. Mike Cernovich quoted. BTW I finished Corporate Cancer. Good book.

Blogger John Bosch February 14, 2020 1:58 PM  

Eagerly watching this one from the sidelines.
May your rubble bouncing rattle them to their bones.

Blogger justaguy February 14, 2020 2:00 PM  

What did they do?

Blogger Akulkis February 14, 2020 2:00 PM  


Blogger Noah B. February 14, 2020 2:01 PM  


Blogger Valiant February 14, 2020 2:13 PM  


Blogger Reph February 14, 2020 2:29 PM  

I'm excited to be a part of this one. Genuinely disappointed that I missed the last! Cheers SDL

Blogger Karen took the Kids February 14, 2020 3:02 PM  

Done. That sound in the distance is rubble bouncing.

Blogger Dave February 14, 2020 3:03 PM  

#NOTICED via SG2 worked like a charm.

For those that have received SG2 invitations but haven't got around to creating an account, well, what are you waiting for? In this case, simply clicking on the link in Vox's SG2 post, bam, done. No waiting on an email, no repeated searches of spam folders.

Blogger LR27 February 14, 2020 3:23 PM  


Blogger Philippe M February 14, 2020 4:25 PM  

Rubble bounced

Blogger Gregory the Tall February 14, 2020 6:02 PM  

Just to boost the overall enthusiasm here a quote from Paypal's Terms of Use:
"You and PayPal each agree that any and all disputes or claims that have arisen or may arise between you and PayPal, including without limitation federal and state statutory claims, common law claims, and those based in contract, tort, fraud, misrepresentation or any other legal theory, shall be resolved exclusively through final and binding arbitration, rather than in court, except that you may assert claims in small claims court, if your claims qualify and so long as the matter remains in such court and advances only on an individual (non-class, non-representative) basis. This Agreement to Arbitrate is intended to be broadly interpreted. The Federal Arbitration Act governs the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement to Arbitrate."

Blogger Bibliotheca Servare February 14, 2020 6:52 PM  

Done. Hope the rubble ends up in orbit.

Blogger Mauldication Bear February 14, 2020 7:22 PM  


Blogger Unknown February 14, 2020 7:27 PM  


Blogger GAHCindy February 14, 2020 7:28 PM  

So much value for just a dollar!

Blogger Tars Tarkas February 14, 2020 8:26 PM  

Christmas in February! I cannot wait!

How high can we pile the skulls? CRUSHING!

Blogger Akulkis February 14, 2020 8:56 PM  

@40 Gregory the Tall

All of which means absolutely nothing, because with Paypal, there's money involved. Either a payment gets made from customer C to vendor V, or it does not.

If payment is made as desired, neither C nor V has any cause for complaint.

If it doesn't get made, then it's

1) tortuous interference, which they can't force into arbitration

Otherwise, payment is extracted from C, either
2A) there's a payment made without the client's permission or (theft, which is criminal, and can't be forced into arbitration... and once the criminal side is done, jamming it into civil court is too easy, as the payment processor is then already convicted of the crime)

2B) Payment is taken from C with C's permission, put never passed onto V. This constitutes receiving a thing of value (the amount of payment) under false pretenses, and constitutes fraud. Once again, that fraud goes to criminal court, and once a conviction is obtained, a payment processor has no grounds to force it into arbitration as the payment processor is already convicted of the crime.

In short, that entire paragraph, is, once again, intimidation blah-blah meant to dissuade people from pursuing any action ("I've already lost X funds, if it doesn't work, I'll be out X + arbitration fee.")

It has no more teeth than all of the illegal stuff in Microsoft's infamous EULA, which completely violates the principle of PURCHASING a thing (which is one reason why MS has made computer vendors stop shipping install disks -- so that you don't have any PRODUCT in your hand).

Blogger VD Bear February 14, 2020 9:54 PM  

SG2 for the win.

Blogger Crave February 15, 2020 1:39 AM  

Eagerly awaiting my opportunity to smash the fasch.

Blogger Eisenhorn February 15, 2020 2:27 AM  


Blogger Gregory the Tall February 15, 2020 3:15 AM  

Dear Akulkis,
what I meant was that Paypal is vulnerable to mass arbitration requests, so I do not regard this as an "intimidation", but rather as an invitation.
I am thinking of 2 situations (after listening to the last Darkstream):
1. They stop processing thousands of payments to a content provider or a merchant and freeze his money for half a year (e.g. BB). Is this not tortuous interference with the contractual relations between the consumer and the provider of content, services or goods? Is this not an opportunity for mass arbitration demands?
2. They change their terms of use, and tens of thousands of people who regularly use their services find something in this change unconscionable. Would they not have the right to contest that in arbitration using the battle cry "where we go one we go all"?
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Blogger Section 8A February 15, 2020 8:19 AM  


Blogger Ingot9455 February 15, 2020 2:46 PM  


Blogger IncoherentM February 15, 2020 3:14 PM  


Eagerly awaiting the SG2 invite. Can't wait to jump aboard.

Blogger Tom February 15, 2020 4:15 PM  


Blogger mrpinks February 15, 2020 4:56 PM  


Blogger MJ February 15, 2020 6:04 PM  

Does it matter if I've since canceled my patreon membership? I only had it for December.

Blogger Matt February 15, 2020 6:05 PM  

Done. Thanks Vox

Blogger Unknown February 15, 2020 6:10 PM  


Blogger Puerhbear February 15, 2020 7:41 PM  


Blogger pdwalker February 15, 2020 9:59 PM  


Blogger Seredusc February 15, 2020 10:06 PM  

I can't find my Account creation date, it was created at least 2 years ago got that by email. Been over all the pages with ctrl-f. Did I really miss it? Planning to contact them Monday.

Blogger Akulkis February 16, 2020 5:09 AM  

@ Gregory the Tall.

I think you misunderstood my comment. I can see no appreciable difference between what you wrote and what I meant.

Also, in the U.S. (and any business based in the U.S.), post-hoc changes to contracts are null and void unless both parties come to the negotiation table.

These "updates" to Terms of Use, etc. are entirely null and void if they are imposed on current users, because they aren't what the original users signed up for. This is a form of business shenanigans which are not merely frowned on in U.S. courts but explicitly illegal in almost every jurisdiction throughout the U.S., under the term "bait and switch" It's USUALLY applied to a store advertising a product at a very low price, and then when people come to buy it, they are told that the product is sold out, and directed to some other product at twice the price of the advertised product, or even higher. But "bait and switch" is not strictly limited to such things.

And "Well, you clicked "Yes, I agree to these changes to the terms of service" won't help, as the other party is not even allowed to continue using the service under the old terms of use, which constitutes breach of contract, nor compensated for breach of contract if they click "no" to the changed Terms of Service.

And no, putting "[X] reserves the right to change the terms of this agreement at any time" has no legal standing, because such a statement means, "there is no contract at all", because contracts cannot be changed without BOTH parties agreeing BEFORE ANY CHANGES TAKE PLACE that the current state of the contract should be changed. One side, especially the more powerful side, saying that the terms of the agreement need to be changed, without similar agreement BEFORE negotiating any changes to the contract, makes any proposed changes null and void.

This is especially true with contracts of attachment, such as what these contracts from online service providers offer, as what they're saying is "We don't like the rules we forced you to agree to, with no opportunity for you to negotiate them, and now we want them to be even MORE lopsided in our favor."

No judge with an interest in being nominated to an appeals court is going to put the slightest bit of credence in any such changes, as doing so will set up his opinions to be overturned by on appeal.

The courts have a VERY strong interest in upholding fairly negotiated contract. They have very little interest in upholding highly slanted contracts of attachment, and zero interest in upholding one-sided revisions to contracts of attachment.

In U.S. legal theory, a contract cannot exist unless BOTH parties receive some benefit from the contract. If you and I sign an agreement that you will mow my lawn every week, that's not a contract. If we sign an agreement that I pay you $50 every week, that's not a contract. If we sign an agreement that you mow my lawn every week and in exchange, I pay you $50 each week, that *IS* a contract.

Furthermore, any revisions to a contract follow the same principle. No contract revision can consist of one side conceding a bunch of benefits or suffering any other forfeitures, while receiving nothing in return for such concessions and/or forfeitures -- which is what ALL of these "updated" Terms of Service are pushing.

Thus, every single one of them is null and void for existing customers.

I'm not a lawyer, but these are basic principles of contract law which are comprehensible to anybody who looks into it.

Blogger Akulkis February 16, 2020 5:10 AM  

Until recently, there was a radio program consisting of 2-minute pieces by a man named Neil Chayet called, "Looking at the Law" which took a look at interesting legal cases, challenging the listener to take a stab at how the case was ruled on before going to a commercial break, and then coming back with the decision and the reasoning behind it. Most of these cases cited were at the appeals court level, so by then, the case was boiled down to one particular point of the law, not the entire panapoly of circumstances that lead to the case winding up in court to begin with. Thus, the appeals court rulings he cited focused on legal principles which have significance far beyond the narrow circumstances of the original case.

Unfortunately , Mr. Chayet retired in June 2017, and then died in August. His little show was one of the most informative ones on the radio, in terms of useful information.

A lot of his shows are available in podcast form at his site which is preserved.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 16, 2020 6:17 PM  

File downloaded, email sent.

Blogger DanjCaslaw February 17, 2020 3:42 AM  

Email sent.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts