It does seem as though they acknowledge that most users won't read or completely understand the entire terms, and invite users to rely on the summarized terms instead. So if there were ever litigation that involved careful interpretation of the terms, might the "basically" sections be construed as estoppel and override the main text?
If so, doesn't this make the summarized text the actual controlling terms of service, leaving full "legalese" to clarify ambiguities only to the extent that is consistent with the "basically" sections?
Not sure, there is quite a few comments on the original hn article. I think the crux of it is that the "basically" and effectively summarize the point without trying to sneak something in which the "basically" does not cover. I think it would very much depend on you ToS if you are able to use this. I'd imagine the likes of Facebook have such complex ToS that they could not effectively summarize like this without missing out on a lot of important detail.
Comments
It does seem as though they acknowledge that most users won't read or completely understand the entire terms, and invite users to rely on the summarized terms instead. So if there were ever litigation that involved careful interpretation of the terms, might the "basically" sections be construed as estoppel and override the main text?
If so, doesn't this make the summarized text the actual controlling terms of service, leaving full "legalese" to clarify ambiguities only to the extent that is consistent with the "basically" sections?
Not sure, there is quite a few comments on the original hn article. I think the crux of it is that the "basically" and effectively summarize the point without trying to sneak something in which the "basically" does not cover. I think it would very much depend on you ToS if you are able to use this. I'd imagine the likes of Facebook have such complex ToS that they could not effectively summarize like this without missing out on a lot of important detail.