Hacker News Reader

Comment by Dayshine | Hacker News Reader

> We encourage you to contact us if you have an issue. If a dispute does arise out of these terms of use or related to your use of the service, and it cannot be resolved by way of a discussion between us, the matter of the dispute shall be resolved by way of binding arbitration in British Columbia in accordance with the Arbitration Act (BC). The costs of such arbitration shall be borne by the losing party.

Wow, that's a hard pass then...

View on HN

You must pass on a lot of services then, considering how prevalent similar arbitration clauses are in ToS

Is this any different from Youtube, Twitch, Vimeo, or Patreon? I would assume they all have abusive binding arbitration clauses.

>Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms

no hits for "arbit"(ration)

I suppose YouTube doesn't need arbitration, they'll just van your accounts and ignore you until you make enough of a stink on social media.

I expected YouTube to have an arbitration class myself but as it probably didn't have one from the start and the extra stink of adding it now would only serve to make people more hostile to the platform, adding it probably doesn't make sense..

Most (American) Internet companies do have an arbitration clause though so I can see where the parent comes from. It's expected to be in the terms of any web company these days.

YouTube doesn't, patreon doesn't, vimeo has a small claims exemption.

So, yeah, not at all universal

Can you elaborate at all?

Do you prefer litigating?

Do you think it's better for consumers?

Do you think it's better for the business?

This isn't a standard term in consumer contracts nor business contracts.

As a user I would rather be able to sue in small claims court.

As a creator I wouldn't want to have the threat of unlimited extra costs if I have to sue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com