?

Find a real job, gorilla.

>>59744837
Probably not, because it hasn't happened yet.

All of these retards shitposting about this bullshit don't seem to realize that the legislation in question didn't exist a year ago, either. ISPs have always been able to do it and just don't give a shit.

File: fuck.jpg (144KB, 673x432px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 673x432px

>>59744837
>lawsuit for visiting a website

>hacker now threatens you with a lawsuit for visiting their website according to their shady ToS

This is where it breaks down. How would a ToS enable them to sue you for visiting a website?

>>59745238
>Implying that you're not agreeing with a ToS as soon as you visit a website

read the fine line son

>>59745283
debateable. But again, what in this ToS specifically would give them grounds for a lawsuit?

>>59745304
I don't know, I'm not a lawyer to say what will or won't work.

Maybe something like "You agree to pay us $500 if you visit our website"

>>59745364
>"You agree to pay us $500 if you visit our website"
Would never hold up in court

>>59744837
Consider this
>Drumpf makes website with shady ToS
>Says "all coloreds that visit this website forgo all rights"
>Forces all ISPs to redirector people to this website
>now drumpf and his facist regime can deport everyone
>ISPs hack your email because they can see passwords
>Give all your information to government
>Drumpf fascist Nazi police come and deport all the hard working families
>America collapses being full of nothing but redneck hicks and stupid rascists.

>>59744837
You have no idea how terms of service work

Terms of Service are, at best, a glorified server rules list
You can't waive away your rights by agreeing to them, and any bullshit people attempt to pull with them would get thrown out in court

this is entrapment and wouldn't hold in court

>>59745364
google and bing web scrapes the page.

>>59745014
that's called capitalism
>inb4 gtfo commie

>>59745629

This.

Terms of Service is more of a guideline for the site owner to enforce rules. IE the ToS says you won't post nudes in their forum and then you post nudes, so they ban you and have something to stand on.

You however do not waive your rights as a person just because you agreed to it. It's funny to read those TOS they said you can't bring them to court, yea right...

>>59746098
>that's called capitalism
What capitalism have to do with lawsuits, first that lawsuits are managed by the state and whatever political/economic system one country picks up, absurds ToSs should be denied, i.e.: If you touch my grass you have to die. Or seeing by another angle, if the website's visitor sign a term in an official paper, then the lawsuit should proceed BUT it's still deniable by the absurdity.

>>59744837
>terms of service have even a gram of credibility in court
yeah, definitely not ever.
shit is simply a means to protect distributors from getting fucked. hasn't ever been used as a means to fuck the consumer... yet
otherwise mericah wouldn't have anyone to drop/manufacture bombs considering apples terms of service