Before we begin, here are two terms I had to look up while I was reading:
EULA: End-User License Agreement
EEA: European Economic Area
About a year ago, I read a section of the iPhone IOS User agreement while playing guitar at a talent show. The crowd laughed, and I had to work hard to keep from laughing myself as the dry text clashed with my happy guitar chords.
Today, I learned that user agreements are a lot less funny without happy music in the background.
I decided to read the TikTok terms of service, because a fun app has to have a fun user agreement, right? Right??? Nah.
One of the first things I noticed on the terms of service webpage was that there were four separate agreements based on the user’s place of residence: The U.S., the EEA & Switzerland, India, and elsewhere. Each separate EULA had the same basic structure, organized into 11 sections starting with “1. Your Relationship With Us” and ending with “11. Other Terms.” Almost all the information and wording in the separate EULAs were the same. I did a quick skim to see what the first difference I noticed between them would be: Only in India are convicted sex offenders banned from using the app.
I know that sections 9 and 10, “EXCLUSION OF WARRANTIES” and “LIMITATION OF LIABILITY,” are the sections TikTok really doesn’t want people to read because THESE SECTIONS ARE WRITTEN ENTIRELY IN ALL-CAPS AND IT MAKES MY EYES HURT. I Googled why TikTok does this: according to Slate.com reporter L. H. Newman, certain parts of contracts are required by law to be “conspicuous” because they contain important information that the legal system doesn’t want people to miss. I personally think there are better ways to make text conspicuous than to make it painful to read, but who knows—Maybe the pain activates our brains and helps us understand. On a more serious note, I would expect based on what I’ve learned that many companies use all-caps to write sections of their user agreements that they think they are most likely to lead to law suits, because theoretically, a user has no excuse for breaking a rule that was written in a conspicuous manner. It goes to show that theory doesn’t always play out in practice.
TikTok appears to have taken great pains to protect itself legally. The terms state that “We accept no liability in respect of any content submitted by users and published by us or by authorized third parties.” Essentially, if anything bad happens on TikTok, TikTok isn’t responsible. This clause reminded me of the in-class viewing and discussion we had on the disaster that happened in Myanmar that was fueled by discriminatory Facebook posts. I imagine that TikTok, as well as other social media companies, desire to be protected from liability for disasters like this, as well as smaller-scale events resulting from malicious posts. It makes sense that the users themselves should be held liable for creating posts which incite violence; however, if the social media company has no fear of liability, what incentive do they have to police and remove certain posts? After all, although Facebook was criticized for its role in Myanmar’s violence against the Rohingya, I couldn’t find any articles describing a punishment or fine for the company.
While I was exploring the pages connected to TikTok’s terms of service on the app’s website, I noticed that there were 2 privacy policies: the general privacy policy and the privacy policy for younger users. The latter policy describes how the service is altered for users under 13 years old. They are not allowed to share nor comment on videos, and less information is collected from them, as per COPPA regulations. However, the privacy policy doesn’t mention how the younger user mode for TikTok is activated. I did some research and found that there were parental control options on TikTok. Since many kids out there who want to use TikTok probably won’t take the time to ask their parents for permission, I have my doubts as to how often parental controls are activated in situations with youth.
Another topic I have my doubts about is whether the TikTok staff themselves have the time to analyze and upkeep their own terms of service document. When I tried to follow a link labeled “Community Policy” in the terms of service, I was directed to this delightful page:
It’s safe to say that I’m siding with most of the world’s population when I say that I don’t usually read user agreements. They’re long and uninteresting, which makes them averse to the media they represent in many ways. Consider the uses and gratifications of social media described by Whiting & Williams (2013). People use social media for social interaction—which, unless they’re reading it with a group of friends, people won’t get from the user agreement. People use social media to pass time—watching paint dry is a more fun way to pass time than reading a user agreement. People use social media for entertainment—once again, just watch paint dry instead. User agreements aren’t relaxing, they don’t have communicatory utility, and they aren’t particularly convenient. The only use of social media that could apply to user agreements as well is information seeking, and to be honest, the only people who voluntarily seek information from a user agreement are probably already in legal trouble. The point I’m trying to make is that people who are interested in downloading and using social media apps will have a hard time re-routing their interests towards reading a user agreement. To make a long story short: People are interested in social media. People aren’t interested in user agreements.
References:
Whiting, A. & Williams, D. (2013). Why people use social media: A uses and gratifications approach. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 16(4), 362-369. DOI: 10.1108/QMR-06-2013-0041
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.