Dunno how many of you have read the new terms and conditions?
I’ll do a wee poll here for you too indicate.
They’ve obviously been written by corporate lawyers tasked with wholly one-sided protection of the corporation. There are links to copyright and all sorts of other things so the total reading is very large. Inhibitively so - even for fully cognitively able folk. If you’ve got any defecits you’ll likley need a summary.
Here it is: “anything we decide goes, you have no right of appeal, we need no justification, It’s up to us whether we will bother to explain. we hold a Sword of Damocles above you that equals we will turf you out whenever we feel like it”
I may have used informal language but I have accurately conveyed the totality of the meaning (I’ve had very many years of experience reading small print in contracts & legal agreements).
I haven’t read all the references and addendums yet and I haven’t even seen one that says ownership of content Which I think is required by the Information Commissioners Office of all Data Controllers the stroke association in this case - so I guess it must be there somewhere. When Ive found it I’ll see what it says ( the UK GDPR/DPA regulations have real legalTEETH & set out a number of rights for Data Subjects - us!) I’ll summarise what I find - I have several decades of experience with the DPA.
I’ve read them all and understand them and agree
I’ve read them all understand them and disagree with their fairness
I’m plodding through them and I’ll vote when I’ve finished!!
I’ve read them - didn’t understand
I haven’t read them but they concerned me
I haven’t read them and what they say bothers me not a jot (I’m happy to continue using the forum bound by them)
Simon, I read the T&C but having not come across a free bottle of expensive wine, I was too disgruntled to give them proper reflection. These kinds of legalese documents tire my mind, immensely. T&Cs for stroke survivors should really be spelled out in a rather simplified if not without a little tongue in cheek humour to make them palatable to stretched minds, I’m not suggesting comic sans, but one can’t live off hindsight alone.
I found them, I’m in the process of reading them,
get distracted or side tracked so have to find them again,
the find where I left off. But I’ll vote that I never got to understand them because I forgot what I’ve already read…but only IF I ever get to finish them
I recall that if I edit the polls options it zeros out everything so far (I’ve tested in the past) but I do agree your sentiment
Thet have not been written with a shred of acknowledgement at the cognitive challenge for a survivor means that there probably beyond accessible - contract law is a complex area. It requires two or more competent parties choosing to enter a legally enforceable agreement for the benefit of all parties.
It comprises three parts offer and consideration and acceptance each other
Arguably this fails the tests but contesting it would be exhausting and beyond reach for us and the fact that we would have to has things stand show that we would not wish to enter into the bargain that is presented
They are just plain one sided and it still looks to me like incomplete
Hello @SimonInEdinburgh. I’m afraid I agree with @Rups and @EmeraldEyes. They are just too complicated for me to spend energy trying to read and process them. I have not voted because I didn’t want to tick the didn’t understand box. In the nicest possible way I refuse to accept I am stupid, as if my life depended on it I would sit down, make lists, piece it together but life is too short.
Thank you for trying to create change for the better x
Not being able to understand these T and C isn’t a case of stupidity on the part of the reader.
It’s a case of misunderstanding of the balance of duties of care in the role by the authors. I’d actually be surprised if the drafter did not point that out to the commissioner of the text.
Hopefully useful dialogue will eventually break out and then we can all move forward rather than wasting energy on stuff that shouldn’t need energy spent upon it
We are aware that the Terms and Conditions are very detailed, and some of you may find it hard to read. We have worked with our accessibility team to develop our community rules which is an easy- read version.
We are also waiting for a final PDF version to include pictures for people with aphasia which can be read aloud. The PDF version is available without the pictures. If you would like this version, please contact us through the Service desk as it does not have a URL link and can only be shared as an attachment.
It would seem sensible then that the simple version be the only item in the headline and then the ‘rules’ include the T&Cs link (at the start?)
But doesn’t say what the T&Cs do. As such it’s deficient, unsatisfactory.
I’ve searched a bit to find anything that explains your obligations and choices around criteria for care of forum data: for example people’s right to be forgotten, ownership including re-publication and analysis of posts once submitted etc. I don’t see it but it’s probably there somewhere.
Please advise.
It isn’t (afaiks) in the privacy policy. &BTW the policy refers to My Stroke Guide but not to the online community as it is now branded.
It explicitly states “…forum is viewable to anyone but posts can be made private.” Which I believe to be inaccurate from the “but” onward.
Can you either explain how or enable in order to be compliant with policy please
