
Quora Doesn’t Know What a Contract Is - sneak
https://sneak.berlin/20200210/quora/
======
Nuzzerino
I'm very disappointed with how Quora turned out. It seemed to be on a strong
trajectory a few years ago, but has now devolved into Yahoo Answers 2.0. There
are still good answers here and there.

But there are far, far more answers that look like this (with an alarmingly
high number of upvotes):

> "I read a study once that said <insert thing> was bad for you. <couple
> sentences of possibly made up statistics>. Unfortunately, I forgot where I
> read it, or I'd post it here, sorry!"

I feel like if it were not one of the Silicon Valley TechBro™ companies,
Google would have already de-ranked results from this site to the second page
by now.

~~~
c3534l
I'm amazed at how many people speak nonsense with seeming authority, with bad
or unread or irrelevant sources and credentials that are either fake or maybe
just don't mean much. Yahoo Answers was clearly just random people answering
your questions. Quora is full of people pretending to be experts giving
perniciously wrong answers that sound authoritative. That's far more
dangerous, in my opinion. When your girlfriend's friend recommends you a crank
cure, or your cousin who was in jail once tells you that you can't sue for
damages, you're more skeptical of the claims. When that person calls
themselves a doctor, or suggests they're a legal expert, but really they're a
poorly trained nutritionist or LEO at best and not true experts, then people
get seriously fucked over.

~~~
dorchadas
Makes me wonder if there's a market for a Quora like site where credentials
are manually verified by staff.

~~~
OrderlyTiamat
There are subreddits that are more specific that operate in that market, such
as r/askscience and r/askhistorians. In these subreddits, anyone can ask
questions, but answers are given by people whose credentials is added as
flair.

------
baddox
> The point of this post is not some legal analysis, simply the common sense
> observation that in our society, simply putting some copy up on my webpage
> that basically says “if you use my website, you are agreeing to not sue me”
> is Not How Any Of This Works.

> A contract is a meeting of the minds. This is decidedly not.

> Saying that anything I do “constitutes acceptance” short of explicitly and
> unambiguously agreeing to your contract and terms is foolish and
> disrespectful. At the very least, it’s shady. I sure hope it’s
> unenforceable, as well.

I couldn't agree with this more. It applies equally well to shrink wrap
software licenses and "social contract" arguments.

~~~
thaumasiotes
This is a good place to note that a lot of current cookie disclosure popups
state that "by using our site, you agree to our use of cookies".

~~~
sneak
It is up to the browser whether or not to store the cookies sent by the
server, and up to the browser to send those same cookies with subsequent
requests or not. By choosing a tool that does that, the user has explicitly
opted in to that. The dialog is superfluous.

My browser, for example, is configured to ignore all cookie headers sent from
the server. Those dialogs appear just the same!

------
ifdefdebug
> "Hello, friend. (I'm quite sorry for the interruption—the non-modal popups
> didn't fit enough text.)"

I was reading your post when suddenly that bullshit popped right into my face,
in the middle of a sentence. How on earth can you think it´s a good idea to
interrupt my thoughts process in this actively-aggressive way? You pissed me
off, I am out and I won't come back.

~~~
sneak
I’m sorry if the popup offended you. It’s possible to block such things by
using a browser extension such as uBlock Origin, which will allow you to black
or greylist 3p requests to services such as Mailchimp that provide that modal.

I urge you to consider the alternatives though. Publishing today happens via a
very small number of heavily censored services that decide not only what you
can say, but who gets to see it, how often, and when.

Millions seem unfazed that a tiny handful of people decide what they are
allowed to read.

Aggressively requesting direct contact information from my audience is one of
the few remaining censorship-free ways of communicating with people. I don’t
like popups either, but sometimes it is necessary to yell a bit to get
people’s attention.

I vastly prefer slightly annoying people (exactly once, see below) to having
the only push-based method of communication being censored and surveilled
systems like most modern centralized social media. I’m sorry it upset you.
There just aren’t any other great options that I know of to ensure that people
who want to receive push-based communications from me always can in the
future. RSS usage died some years ago and the only remaining feeds people look
at are their email inbox and censored algorithmic “timelines” (which are
anything but).

In any case, it attempts to set a cookie on your device, so you should never
receive it again in that browser for any page on my site. If you are anything
like me, you might wish to browse with uBlock greylisting all third party
resources on all sites. It works a charm for de-annoying the web when all you
want to do is read.

~~~
Nextgrid
I don’t think the problem here is centralisation or censorship. The problem is
simply that people don’t like shit-letter popups and not all content has to be
push-based.

~~~
sneak
Without push, you won’t reach very much of your audience unless you are hyper-
mega-famous. I am not and have no wish to be.

I don’t like popups either, but you don’t get emails very well otherwise.

Ugly high-contrast pancake buttons convert better than slick, elegant ones
too. :/

------
enitihas
Quora was a very good site when the userbase was small. All the content was
very high quality, and I learnt a lot of stuff reading it back then. Now that
quora has a very large number of users, it resembles the real world more
closely, as in the average quality of content is very low. I am wondering
whether there are websites which manage to retain high quality discussions
even with a huge user base (HN certainly is one, but I think HN has way less
users than quora, and HN is geared specifically towards certain people looking
for intellectual excitement).

~~~
frandroid
StackExchange manages to do this, and it's not just the developers of
StackOverflow, it's also all the other communities. Set a proper model and see
good information flow.

~~~
mr_toad
Most of StackExchange is good. The Skeptics site is ironically full of troll
posts.

------
manigandham
This has nothing to do with Quora and is standard practice for _terms of
service_ for all major websites.

While it's on shaky foundations right now, the slowly building wave of website
consent management platforms due to data/privacy regulations will make these
agreements much more solid since you will be actively consenting to them.

~~~
Nextgrid
The majority of consent management solutions are absolutely not compliant with
the law they’re supposed to help you comply with.

~~~
manigandham
Sure, we published a study about all the complications but regardless there's
more upfront agreements now than the use-it-therefore-you-agree terms before.

------
tacostakohashi
Looks like the author doesn't know what a contract is either - it's something
that requires consideration, which is clearly lacking when using a website.

Contracts, licenses, and terms of service are all completely different things.

~~~
CPLX
Using a website would certainly constitute consideration in a legal sense.
Assuming there’s some value to the content of the website then that’s
consideration.

I still agree with the author that posting something in public and then saying
you’ve agreed to a contract by looking at it is not good policy.

------
huzaif
Why push the website usage as a middleman? Why not just say "If you are able
to read this email, you can't ever sue us." /s

------
nabraham
This all started in the US with Judge Easterbrook in ProCD.
[https://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/procd.html](https://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/procd.html)

The basic gist of Easterbrook's argument is that in everyday life it is common
to buy now and find out the terms later, and under the law and the UCC the
sequence of money and accepting terms don't matter.

While the case has been stretched to the limit, and lots of research shows
that users aren't reading the terms of service, the practice and the law in
the US has only strengthened.

------
JohnFen
IANAL, but that arbitration clause doesn't sound remotely enforceable to me.
Regardless, that they put it in there is more than good enough reason to not
use the site.

~~~
Deimorz
Why are you using HN then, when its terms include a similar arbitration
agreement?

> You agree that any and all disputes or claims that have arisen or may arise
> between you and Y Combinator, whether arising out of or relating to this
> Terms of Use (including any alleged breach thereof), the Site, any
> advertising, any aspect of the relationship or transactions between us,
> shall be resolved exclusively through final and binding arbitration, rather
> than a court, in accordance with the terms of this Arbitration Agreement,
> except that you may assert individual claims in small claims court, if your
> claims qualify.

> YOU AND Y COMBINATOR AGREE THAT EACH OF US MAY BRING CLAIMS AGAINST THE
> OTHER ONLY ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS AND NOT AS A PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER IN
> ANY PURPORTED CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION OR PROCEEDING. UNLESS BOTH YOU
> AND Y COMBINATOR AGREE OTHERWISE, THE ARBITRATOR MAY NOT CONSOLIDATE OR JOIN
> MORE THAN ONE PERSON’S OR PARTY’S CLAIMS AND MAY NOT OTHERWISE PRESIDE OVER
> ANY FORM OF A CONSOLIDATED, REPRESENTATIVE, OR CLASS PROCEEDING. ALSO, THE
> ARBITRATOR MAY AWARD RELIEF (INCLUDING MONETARY, INJUNCTIVE, AND DECLARATORY
> RELIEF) ONLY IN FAVOR OF THE INDIVIDUAL PARTY SEEKING RELIEF AND ONLY TO THE
> EXTENT NECESSARY TO PROVIDE RELIEF NECESSITATED BY THAT PARTY’S INDIVIDUAL
> CLAIM(S).

HN doesn't even offer the ability to opt out of arbitration, so it's even
worse than Quora in this aspect.

~~~
shakna
For myself, and where I am, I know this clause to be non-binding. And it in
fact invalidates the entire agreement because it tries to enforce something
that is not considered to be legal (forced arbitration). (Some places may only
invalidate that particular section, however the precedent here is an
invalidation of the entire contract).

I don't really have any interest in going down that particular road, but
that's one of the hiccups these sorts of contracts hit when faced with real
world legalities.

------
Deimorz
I don't disagree with the sentiment of the post, but unfortunately this has
been the norm for web service terms for a very long time. As far as I can see,
there's nothing unusual in what Quora specifically is doing here.

Even HN's privacy policy and terms include both an arbitration agreement and
phrases very similar to the ones he's complaining about, like:

> By using the Service, you agree to the practices described in this Privacy
> Policy.

> Your continued use of the Site after the date any such changes become
> effective constitutes your acceptance of the new Terms of Use.

~~~
eximius
This isn't unique to Quora and somewhat unfairly picks on them.

However, just because it is common doesn't mean it isn't utterly ridiculous
and unenforceable.

~~~
sneak
The practice is bullshit. They are performing the practice. Therefore, they
are choosing to engage in bullshit and picking on them isn’t unfair.

“Everyone’s doing it” is not a legitimate defense to well-reasoned criticism.

~~~
eximius
It is unfair insofar as they are not unique examples of it.

Otherwise, I agree.

------
manifoldgeo
As a person who has seen Quora evolve over the years, I am truly surprised
that it’s respected even nearly as much as it is. By all accounts it’s a
glorified content mill that is the slightly smarter consumer’s answer to Yahoo
Answers, fielding such important questions as “how is babby(sic) formed?”

This is an honest question— how many HN users are relying on Quora as a viable
alternative to something like a Wikipedia search when researching? I’ve nearly
never found that a Quora answer was sufficient to answer my question. I’ll
admit that in terms of SEO they’ve got things figured out; they always appear
near the top of DuckDuckGo searches, but as far as real content goes, they
leave a lot to be desired.

------
salvagedcircuit
This does seem quite sneaky for terms of service on essentially a QnA website.
Lately, the Quora results that show up for me in search have been very ad-
like. It's as if a team of accounts are trying to direct traffic toward their
own individual websites or businesses. It amkes Quora very spammy. Not a fan.

------
cletus
I'm going to quote myself from 2012 [1]:

> I can't help bit feel vindicated by moves like this because they're a sign
> that Quora isn't the Next Big Thing that many inside the bubble that is
> Silicon Valley seemed to think it is ...

This being about the forced login requirement. I said then and stand by it now
that there is limited upside in Q&A sites.

We saw this with ExpertSexChange years before. At first some quality content
but ultimately the only growth is from low-value content, SEO, dark UX
patterns (eg hiding answers, requiring logins, putting answers after a long
set of ads) all for something that just isn't that special.

Stackoverflow did an admirable job of organizing technical answers but
ultimately Google remains their primary source of traffic (~90% was the last
figure I heard) and by publishing their answers with a Creative Commons
License (a move I applaud) they've insured the community against a later
management change that would otherwise decide to enact those same dark
patterns as the only viable growth path.

And yes I know there's Stack Exchange but none of those sites has hit similar
success to SO.

As for this post about Quora's attempt to force binding individual arbitration
on users, the first comment I have is of course I'm not surprised. The second
is that IANAL but this this isn't a contract, it's an updated Terms of
Service. That being said, I'm pretty sure this isn't necessarily legal in all
(any?) North American jurisdictions and even where that question is unknown it
probably just hasn't been tested in court yet.

I was going to say that Quora is based in California and CA has generally been
pretty user-friendly here but that may not exactly be true. A couple of things
I found:

\- California law (specifically the California Arbitration Act or CAA) may be
preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). There's a pending case in
Federal Court where a stay has been issued against CAA pending that trial.
It's not clear to me (being NAL) if this is specific to certain areas (eg
employment, construction) or general and whether it applies to updated ToS;

\- A California court upheld an arbitration clause in clickwrap ToS on an app
as of October 2019 [2]

My main takeaway however is I don't care about Quora, I've never cared about
Quora, I don't understand why anyone cares about Quora, I've never posted to
Quora and I've never understood why anyone else posted or continues to post to
Quora so this has net zero effect on me.

Quora wasn't (IMHO) relevant in 2012 and is less relevant now. These are the
moves of a company in its death throes. Ok, bye.

[1]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4377904](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4377904)

[2]: [https://www.natlawreview.com/article/court-enforces-
arbitrat...](https://www.natlawreview.com/article/court-enforces-arbitration-
clause-clickwrap-agreement-ganjapreneur-app)

