BrazenSigilos

Edit: User is 3 minutes older then this post, which is also the only post they ever made. Happy birthday bot.

"B is for Buy-n-Large, your very best friend."

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, just someone who knows his rights in this particular case in my particular locality.

Some companies will "require" that condition to have an account, but legally you have to be given the chance to opt-out and not be retaliated against for that choice. I haven't had a single company refuse me an account or access for excluding myself from their arbitration clause, yet. However, I suppose it is a possibility, although I believe a very small one. Since it's a legally protected right. However a business can refuse service, so it's up to the individual to determine how they want to safeguard their rights or surrender them for services, based on their needs.

PSA: You can opt-out of arbitration clauses

You can not be forced to give up legal rights in a contract in the USA, and anytime an arbitration agreement in the US is pushed out onto the public like a big ol' turd by the @55holes 5h!tting on us from up high, we have the legal tight to opt-out. This usually only lasts for a limited amount of time, typically 30 days after "agreeing" to the new TOS, and the process has to be done manually, like with an email or actual letter. Yes it's a pain, they design it that way so less users will do it. But it can be done.

Watching the movie Idiocracy.

Disassociation mostly.

Biker Mice from Mars, I loved that show as a kid, gave me a lifelong appreciation for Root Beer

I see someone else also listens to Factually! podcasts.

Only sport that team would play is disk golf

The logic of this is nonexistent. An argument could be made very convincingly that cars are dangerous to allow in the hands of criminals. 2 tons of metal, well known for and capable of ending a life, with the ability to aid criminal enterprises and avoidance of law enforcement. So should car sales now require a criminal background check? All this would do is further disenfranchise convicted felons, regardless of the actual crime committed, and create new difficulties for a group that includes a very high percentage of people already proven to give no shits about the law who will find and exploit ways to continue activities despite any laws attempting to restrict them.

I've already said I don't pay for anything in Lemmy. If by support you mean, do I contribute code, servers or bandwidth to Lemmy as a project? No, because I don't have those things to contribute in this field. I only know enough code to announce "Hello World", I don't own or operate a server farm or service, and I don't have enough bandwidth to be able to contribute a reasonable amount to a project. However, I think your argument is starting to lose focus. I have not been advocating leaving social media of all kinds, that would be hypocritical since I'm posting this here after all, I have been advocating for avoiding the use of overly monetized platforms. I also noted that I don't have an objection to paying for a service I find desirable. I pay for a streaming service for my household, and occasionally purchase apps that I find important. However, I think the over use of ads and subscriptions have polluted the market of software and services. Of course open-source projects, like Lemmy, are going to develop slower then a corporate alternative. But we wouldn't be here if we all wanted the corporate alternative, would we? I can't speak for your choice, of course, but I for one use Lemmy because I left Reddit. I use Linux because I prefer it over Windows and despise Mac, and I use Raspberry Pi's because I prefer to self-host my photo back ups rather then use Google.

Twitter has become a shit show, not unlike watching Facebook devolve back in the early 2000s. I prefer not to use it because I have better options in life for my time, not because I think I'm better then those who do use it. My original comment was a sufficient explanation of this philosophy, I think. I'm not calling for such extreme measures as cutting all social media from use, I'm reminding with my own example to be cognizant of one's time and use of services that are not under one's own control. That can be Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Lemmy, Mastodon, Twitch, Youtube, or any of the numerous other platforms that are available today. Don't avoid the path if it's really the one you want to walk, but be aware of your choice and know you have one. That's all I'm saying.

When I said there where other options for my time, I meant if I don't like the service's conditions, I can choose to not use it at all and do something else with my time. As an example, I don't like Facebook, mostly due to its privacy violations and seeking disregard for security. So, I don't use it. I spend my time playing games, or visiting a library, or pursuing a hobby. Facebook is unnecessary to my social life or my existence.