There should be standard TOS clauses that are approved based on their legality and enforceability that click or use based “contracts” should be limited to. Or at the very least, they should need to be legally ratified rather than only looked at closely if legally challenged.

Like that whole “you waived our liability for real world shit by using Disney+” should have resulted in the disbarment of any lawyers that wrote, approved, and tried to argue it in court when it came up and punitive damages to Disney for even trying.

if they cant be punished globally, they cant be made to obey local laws. Kind of like if you could do crimes in one country and just leave after heat gets too bad. For us, interpol will go after you.

Do you have any concrete examples of this being enforced in practice?

All I see:

• our data still gets collected
• our phones, TVs, wiretap “assistants” still spy on us and upload all of our information to personal datasets that companies can access
• “deleting your data” as per GDPR is just a database flag/row that says the data says it is deleted
• EU just authorized any and all companies to spy on your communications 24/7, 365 days a year
• freedom of speech/expression doesn’t exist here any more than in America, maybe less

Our right to privacy (freedom right pillar) is literally daily being violeted 1000 times over and the most I have ever seen happen is a slap on the wrist 0.01% of yearly revenue fine that didn’t change anything. Companies can fuck you over all they like unless you have a 10million € army of lawyers…

Also how is it going in Germany with the Palestine protester that had been locked in solitary confinement (known torture) for 23 hours per day for the past almost year after a show trial kangaroo court where they wouldn’t allow even any independent record of the trial inside (violation of both dignity and justice pillars)

There is precious little enforcement of many rights, so we absolutely cannot take them for granted and have to fight for them on every front.

Sorry, not true (I wish it were). Even in the EU there are few rights that cannot be taken away or waived.

It used to be like that in the US. It was not until the 90s into the 00’s that employers were allowed to make employees sign away their right to sue and instead use binding arbitration of the employer’s choosing, or manufacturers and retailers forcing consumers to waive their rights to sue in purchasing the product, and so forth.

Judges used to throw them out. And if a contract had egregious language, it could invalidate the entire contract not just the part that is illegal.

Since the federalist society conquered the courts all of that changed.

You know, like a reasonable place would. Not this “rights are inaliable!” Unless you do x, y, or z.

Not a single thing you said is correct.

This is all wrong.

As long as the minor has US citizenship (through naturalization, parents, ect) they have citizenship. We can see this with ICE deporting non US citizen minors (there might be a rare exceptiom, but those are outliers).

Minors have constitutional rights as they have been ruled by the US supreme court to protest politically in schools (as long as it doesn’t interfer with school operation or other students). They even have the ability for the second amendment as long as they are provided permission from the parent and is under adult supervision (hunting, target practice, compitition). Also still protected against unconstitutional searches or seizures.

Minors are not wards of the state unless they are sentenced to a correctional facility, some kind of state mental hospital, or orphinege. Children are under control of their parents unless some substantial reason (parent or guardian death, judification, extreme mental health).

As the other poster stated, children have protections such ad labor laws, protections against military service, protections against adult criminal trials (unless ruled by a judge).

(some of this will vary state by state, but most is the same)

Minors (except immigrants who have not been naturalized) are citzens, and they do have rights. For example, minors can be issued passports, and cannot lawfully be deported. That’s because they’re citizens.

Also, you can’t just walk down the street and kill a minor. That’s an example of a right that everyone has, regardless of whether they’re citizens. Generally, the Constitution refers to such people as persons rather than citizens.

The vast majority of minors are not wards of the state, the only exception being those who are declared wards of the state through explicit legal procedures.

So nothing you said was correct.

The real rationale for Roblox being full of shit is that minors cannot execute contracts. And there are what are called unconscionable contracts, which are invalid even if the signatory is not a minor.

Is that so? It would be a bit strange for me that children have no rights. What would prevent child labor or protect them from abusive parents otherwise?

That’s fine. All I’m saying is that the article claims that their stance is an eight year old can waive rights, while also claiming indirectly that the mother waived the rights too. Because it says that she placed parental controls on the account, which in the case of Roblox means she made an account for herself and agreed to the same terms.

I have no idea whether the terms are enforceable or not. I’m only commenting on the article sensationalizing by making it look like the company says the 8 year old agreeing to their terms is enough.

Although maybe one thing to add could be that the child could not have gotten access to chat either without the mother enabling it for her. The article makes it sound like children are immediately exposed to all sorts of things on Roblox but the reality is unverified accounts are heavily restricted, and for a child, the restrictions have to be disabled by a parent.