English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room

Cerberus

12:00

Hey, any idea what "the yellow press" is?

As written in English by a German.

Matt Эллен

the one next to the red press?

Cerberus

And what's that?

Matt Эллен

sorry, just being flippant

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

Yellow press is a lemon squeezer.

Matt Эллен

Yellow journalism

Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. defines yellow press newspapers as having daily multi-column front-page headlines covering a variety of topics, such as sports and scandal, using bold layouts (with large illustrations and perhaps color), heavy reliance on unnamed sources, and unabashed self-promotion. The term was extensively used to describe ...

Cerberus

12:01

Ah, thanks!

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

@Cerberus You must be joking!

Matt Эллен

no worries. Why use google when you've us ;)

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

You're telling me you don't know that term?

Matt Эллен

I didn't know it

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

WHAT?

Matt Эллен

12:02

IT'S TRUE

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

Who are you people?

Robusto

@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 What does a plum have to do with anything?

Matt Эллен

@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 we're the hoi polloi

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

I am stupefied.

Robusto

@Cerberus: What about triumph? Is that three oomphs?

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

12:03

I mean, what else do you name it other than yellow press?

Matt Эллен

I'm with stupefied

@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 Tabloid Journalism

Robusto

@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 I knew stupefied. Stupefied was a friend of mine. Matt, you're no stupefied.

Cerberus

Yes, tabloid.

Or gutter press.

Matt Эллен

Yes

Cerberus

Or paparazzi.

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

12:05

Hahaha. Gutter press. Nobody says that. You know gutter press but don't know yellow press?

Matt Эллен

@Robusto I'm not, I'm with him

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

Paparazzi is not even remotely the same.

Cerberus

Perhaps because "yellow press" is American?

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

Yellow press is international.

Cerberus

It's German, perhaps.

I saw it in a thesis written by a German.

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

12:06

It's two English words.

The English Wikipedia has an English article about it.

German doesn't enter the building.

Cerberus

I mean, it is probably more common among Germans than Dutchmen.

Somehow.

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

Possibly.

I mean, if it's not common among Dutchmen at all, then it certainly is more common among Germans.

KitFox

@Robusto Good luck tomorrow, in case I don't see you later.

Robusto

@KitFox Thanks.

Cerberus

@Rob: Apparently triumph comes from Greek triombos, which was some kind of triumphal cry.

But I can't find the etymology of that.

KitFox

12:13

OH yes, it's similar to a yawp.

Cerberus

And what Kit says!

KitFox

Don't you remember when we were pub crawling the Decapoli that time?

Cerberus

@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 If a Brit doesn't know it, that says something.

Matt Эллен

The term was invented in New York

Cerberus

Which time? You mean last week, or the week before, or...

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

12:14

10 mins ago, by RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

I am stupefied.

People should read Mark Twain.

If you don't read Mark Twain, that's your own fault. Even if you are a Brit.

KitFox

@Cerberus Nah, way back when there were all of them there.

Matt Эллен

Yeah, just like they should read EULAs

Cerberus

Not sure I would like Twain.

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

Matt. That's not even funny.

KitFox

No, they should read more Mark Twain then EULAs.

Good morning.

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

12:15

You are comparing Twain to EULA? Them's fighting words where I come from.

Matt Эллен

Good afternoon :)

KitFox

May I have some pity please?

Matt Эллен

@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 Of the things people have to read, I am comparing them

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

@Cerberus Wow. Stop it already.

Matt Эллен

@KitFox how are you feeling? Any better than yesterday?

Cerberus

12:15

@KitFox Even Philadelphia?

KitFox

Especially Philadelphia.

Cerberus

Good.

Pretty name anyway.

KitFox

@MattЭллен thinks Um, tireder than yesterday.

Cerberus

Aww.

Matt Эллен

I think people should read privacy statements and EULAs to see what they are getting into.

Cerberus

12:16

How are the children?

Matt Эллен

hugs @Kit

KitFox

Apparently, plenty chipper about daycare this morning, so that's a relief.

Matt Эллен

jolly good :)

KitFox

Especially since I was thinking about what else we could do instead of daycare.

Cerberus

Apr 23 at 18:32, by Cerberus

> They put all of this together and estimated that it would normally take a person about 244 hours per year to read every new privacy policy they encountered... and even 154 hours just to skim them.

@KitFox Good.

Matt Эллен

12:18

@Cerberus which I why we have work. So we can catch up with all the legal documents we've agreed to

Cerberus

Heh.

Or we could just not read them.

Matt Эллен

And not read Twain?

Cerberus

And trust that a judge would nullify any unfair EULAs.

KitFox

If you have the financial resources and will to oppose one, that is.

Cerberus

I think it wouldn't be that hard here.

And you can get a pro-deo lawyer here if you're poor.

And you could get insurance against legal costs.

But even if you don't do anything, and the case is fairly clear, the judge will probably nullify any unfair conditions.

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

12:22

@Cerberus that's nonsense. I skim every EULA. And I don't spend 154 hours a year on that. And I am way more active on the Internet than the average person. The average person does not have the Internet.

Cerberus

Perhaps you don't use many things that have EULAs. And perhaps you forgot that you don't skim certain kind of EULAs?

They probably calculated that for the average person.

How long does it take you to skim the Adobe Flash EULAs alone at every update?

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

I skim everything to which I expressly agree.

Cerberus

I think the estimate could be correct for me.

Robusto

@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 Including milk, I presume.

KitFox

Well, you can hardly compare us to the slack-jawed, knuckle-walking mouth-breathers that compose the hoi polloi. And yes, I did that on purpose.

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

12:24

@Cerberus how often is that? Once a year?

KitFox

@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 Mine's about every three days.

Cerberus

How about every other week?

Or three days, yes.

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

Well there's your problem right there.

Matt Эллен

I've had several flash updates this year already

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

I don't have time for that shit. I already have Flash.

Cerberus

12:25

Not to mention every time you post anything on a website or buy anything anywhere.

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

@Cerberus I have read the Amazon Terms of Service.

Once.

Cerberus

@Reg: How often do you check Stackexchange's EULA in case it's changed before you post a new line in chat?

Matt Эллен

Which is why you should buy everything everywhere, so you only have that problem once. Creditors be damned

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

@Cerberus what nonsense is that.

2 mins ago, by RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

I skim everything to which I expressly agree.

I have agreed to the SE EULA once, and that's when I read it.

Cerberus

Again, it's all about your definitions, children!

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

12:27

@Cerberus well of course you spend 154 hours per year on updates if your definition is that you spend 154 hours per year on updates.

Cerberus

My point is that just clicking on a checkbox probably doesn't count as "agreeing" any more than posting a line and thereby supposedly implicitly agreeing with SE's EULA.

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

@Cerberus clicking on a checkbox is explicit.

Gigili

I'm not children.

Cerberus

I don't think it would stand in court.

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

You are trying to mix it up with "implicitly agreeing", whatever that is, on purpose.

@Cerberus it would in Germany.

It has, in point of fact.

But "implicitly agreeing", whatever that is, has not, and would not.

Cerberus

12:29

A judge will reason that, since hardly anyone (there are always exceptions) reads most EULAs, checboxes or no, they don't count as legally binding.

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

@Cerberus a judge can't reason that as long as there's a law explicitly stating otherwise.

KitFox

Yes, same reason as why I gotta put checkboxes on my site that popup and say "Now you know that if you are doing something illegal, you can get in trouble and shit?"

Cerberus

I am talking about here.

@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 I believe there is no such law (which would be absurd anyway).

KitFox

You click the box, that means you read the popup.

Cerberus

I don't think it works that way here.

KitFox

12:31

ass = covered.

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

@Cerberus many laws are absurd, but that does not mean that the very fact whether or not they exist is subject to beliefs.

Matt Эллен

Yes, not acknowledging a court didn't save Saddam Husein

Cerberus

In fact I read a PhD thesis about this not long ago, and it was argued that in fact EULAs have little legal power here, if any.

If I remember correctly.

Which is only reasonable.

You can't hold people to conditions that nobody ever reads if they are unreasonable. I can imagine they might carry a bit of weight if the situation is not clearly in favour of one party or the other.

But in any case the checkbox probably changes nothing as compared to just have some general rules posted on a website.

Matt Эллен

I shall put the clause "While I am stood on only my right leg, you will stand on only your left leg" in any EULA I issue

Cerberus

Yay!

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

12:35

@Cerberus how does a conscious action change nothing as opposed to inaction?

Cerberus

@MattЭллен I bet we will soon see the results on every street in Britain!

Oh, and:

Apr 23 at 18:33, by Cerberus

> ... Imagine if you read terms of service and end user license agreements too... Of course, sometimes those include little hidden gems. Like the time a company put a clause in its EULA that the first person to read that clause and contact them would get $1,000. It only took four months for someone to actually spot it.

Gigili

I'm not children.

Cerberus

@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 As I said, because people cannot be expected to read them.

Matt Эллен

@Gigili you are someone's children

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

@Cerberus you dodge my question.

Basically you argue that any kind of online business should be made impossible.

Cerberus

12:36

Not at all.

Gigili

@MattЭллен It doesn't mean I am children.

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

Every time you buy something online, you enter an agreement. How else would you do it if not by clicking on something?

Matt Эллен

@Gigili It does

Gigili

I was adults last time I checked.

Matt Эллен

So you are boths!

Cerberus

12:38

It's just that clicking with your mouse itself doesn't change much, and a text that nobody reads doesn't change much either, unless there is a situation in which it is hard to establish which party is reasonable. But, again, then the FAQ as found on a site probably has just as much power legally.

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

@Cerberus nobody would read a printout of that text IRL, either. And yet, as soon as you sign it, that's not the same as not signing it.

Matt Эллен

very true

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

Clicking on "I sign this" is the equivalent of signing it. Whether or not you've read it, is beside the point.

KitFox

You agree to be bound by the terms of the contract.

Cerberus

@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 It is not the clicking itself that is the essence, but your agreement. And the agreement depends on the content of the agreement, to which nobody can reasonably expected to agree if nobody is expected to read it.

KitFox

12:40

Courts don't care if you read the terms or not.

Cerberus

@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 Signing is very different.

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

@Cerberus so you are making online business impossible.

Cerberus

@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 Not at all true.

Matt Эллен

courts only care if a "normal" person is capable of understanding the terms, not if it's likely that they get read

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

Well explain to me how it's different and not true. And how online agreements are supposed to work at all, if the very context of anything online is that people cannot be expected to read it.

@MattЭллен exactly. That is way more relevant.

Cerberus

12:42

@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 Look, whether or not the agreement is binding depends on whether or not people are expected to know what they agree to. This is the case when you click on "buy" on Ebay, because you are expected to read what's on that page; but it is not the case when you are not expected to read the EULA.

@MattЭллен Not here.

That's Anglo-Saxon.

@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 Not anything.

You are expected to read certain texts, but not others.

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

@Cerberus show me one thing online that people can be reasonably expected to have read.

People don't even read the Google home page.

Matt Эллен

The FAQ at EL&U, oh wait...

Cerberus

@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 Most of the things on any page where you can look at and buy an Ebay product.

If there isn't too much information on it, and it is clearly presented, and it is reasonable.

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

@Cerberus any page on eBay that I read says "I am a private person and do not abide by any law, buy at your own risk".

Cerberus

Recently there was a case in America where a girl put up pictures of a phone on Ebay. And somewhere in the description she said "you are bidding on a picture of a phone".

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

12:45

In fact, on most eBay auction pages I read that's the only sentence. That they do not admit any responsibility to anything.

Cerberus

@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 And yet they have lots of responsibility.

They cannot slip out of it just by stating that.

It has no legal meaning.

Matt Эллен

@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 luckily in the UK we have statutory rights which are not affected by such disclaimers

Cerberus

Exactly.

And we have much more "binding law", i.e. rules that you cannot opt out of.

Gigili

EULA? English Usage and Language Animation?

Cerberus

And we have much more "reasonable interpretation", as opposed to the letter of the law.

That is a difference between Anglo-Saxon law and Dutch law.

Matt Эллен

12:47

@Gigili Association?

Cerberus

I don't know much about German law, but I would expect it to be more like Dutch law.

Matt Эллен

@Gigili Acrobatics?

Gigili

Anatomy?

Cerberus

In other words, if a EULA includes some unreasonable passage, a Dutch judge most probably will not hold you to it.

Gigili

Ah-pft?

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

12:48

@Cerberus Exactly. So you're saying, when someone lists responsibilities in a lengthy EULA, that's not binding, but whenever they just deny responsibility in a short sentence, they have a whole list of responsibilities. And you call that reasonable? I'm not following.

KitFox

> Like in all Hanna Barbera cartoons, their universe is governed by stupidity and unlogic.

Matt Эллен

:D

Cerberus

@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 I am saying that the law assigns many responsibilities to both parties that neither party can change. If a party attempts to do so in a contact, a judge will simply strike it.

KitFox

@MattЭллен cracked.com/blog/the-6-worst-marvel-cartoons-all-time

Pretty funny, especially since I'm watching a bunch of these.

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

@Cerberus but that is completely orthogonal to whether or not clicking a checkbox equals to a signature of sorts.

Again, all your points apply to real-life, brick-and-mortar contracts as well.

Cerberus

12:50

@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 It is not orthogonal, but it is a different point.

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

Which is why I don't understand why you keep dodging it and discussing your different point instead.

Matt Эллен

@KitFox > That's a lot like Def Leppard releasing an album where the only original member is Rick Allen's severed arm.

lol

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

I never challenged your point that a judge can strike any and all unreasonable clauses in a contract. I only challenged your point that clicking on a checkbox is the same as not clicking on it.

KitFox

Oh! Right! One good thing about this weekend is my eldest son has discovered the Transformers!

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

They still exist?

KitFox

12:53

On Netflix.

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

Uh.

KitFox

And there is a cooler, newer series.

That might not suck too much.

Cerberus

@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 There are two points. One is that a judge may strike unreasonable clauses, and that he will easily do so in Holland. Two is that people are not supposed to have read something merely because one party says so; written contracts require a signature, and you are truly expected to read those. Even then, if the contract uses obscure language, such passages will probably be struck. A text on the internet you are not always expected to read: the demands on the consumer are much weaker.

KitFox

And my husband made fun of me for singing along to the Transformers theme. But seriously, I think I watched them all a dozen times. How can you not know the theme song? It's like three lines long.

The 80s version, I mean.

Cerberus

So there is an important difference between a signed text and a clicked text.

Matt Эллен

12:54

@KitFox I have a whole bunch of Dreamwave(they bought the license in 2000 or something) Transformers comics. I really need to shift them...

KitFox

@Cerberus In the US, a judge can strike unreasonable clauses as well.

@MattЭллен I didn't know that. Interesting.

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

@Cerberus if you click a checkbox saying "I have read this", that's not one party saying that you are supposed to; that's you saying that you have.

KitFox

And oh my god, do the old cartoons suck.

Cerberus

@KitFox Yeah I know, but contracts are said to be be more enforcing in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, so it is a difference in degree.

KitFox

shrugs

Matt Эллен

12:56

Dreamwave Productions

Dreamwave Productions was a Canadian art design studio and comic book publisher founded in 1996 and is best known for their multiple Transformers comic book series. The company shut down on January 4, 2005. History In 1996, brothers Pat Lee and Roger Lee founded Dreamwave Productions in Toronto, Canada, as an imprint under Image Comics and published their first mini-series, Darkminds. Pat maintained artistic control while his older brother managed the business operations. They quickly made their manga-influenced style a trademark, merging the look of an animated film with sequential ar...

Cerberus

@RegDwightΒВBẞ8 Why would it be? It's just a click.

KitFox

If you click the box, you agree to be bound by the terms of the contract. If you understand that, you don't need to read the terms to be bound by them.

Cerberus

A click doesn't mean that you have read something.

Matt Эллен

they have done a lot of good comics. Especially warlands

KitFox

Oh, they did Arkanium?

Cerberus

12:57

A click can have more or less power depending on the circumstances.

KitFox

55 secs ago, by KitFox

If you click the box, you agree to be bound by the terms of the contract. If you understand that, you don't need to read the terms to be bound by them.

Cerberus

But the fact alone that it is well known that hardly anybody reads EULAs will be a very strong argument for a Dutch judge to place little value in them.

@KitFox Dutch law doesn't work like that.

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

@Cerberus because clicking is the opposite of not clicking.

KitFox

Well, then Dutch law is dumb.

Cerberus

I think it is good.

KitFox

12:59

"I pulled the trigger, but I can't be expected to know that the gun was loaded."

RegDwight ΒВBẞ8

Again, you are arguing that no online commerce may take place. Because clicking on a "buy" button is just like not clicking on it.

Cerberus

But this is a largely unexplored field. Not everything has been decided yet.

Transcript for

English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…