> I mean, it was clear enough for the other OP to know they went against it. They didn’t need to be told, they already knew their usage was against the TOS and just didn’t like that Cloudflare decided to enforce the rule they very well knew they were already breaking. They even said it themselves.
It's evidently clear. Did you even read the thread we’re talking about? Like even remotely? Or are you continuing on the same diatribe regardless what was clearly already written?
> I am not saying I am right. I did break the TOS. They have the right to do what they did. It's just not nice and I don't like them anymore :)
This is not a person who was confused. Period.
Actually no.
The statement that you responded to was "Mostly for all other their user(1/3 of internet or something like this) that maybe doesn't even know there are not full-compliant to TOS and risk their business to be terminated suddenly.".
So, for those other users, that "maybe doesn't even know there are not full-compliant to TOS ", it is not clear.
You literally responded and quoted a hypothetical where it is not clear to the people who "maybe doesn't even know there are not full-compliant to TOS".
That you chose to discard them is on you. But that doesn’t mean they just magically don’t exist.
And your response was basically: "Ignorance is no defense".
It sounds like you are now backing off on that response, by instead attacking the premise of the statement.
So great, as long as you agree that "Ignorance is no defense" is actually a bad argument, and that actually it is on the company to make sure that people understand the TOS, then awesome, you agree with me.
Here’s a gold star, champ.
Once again, whatever you want to believe to help you sleep at night.
Well you said the following "Warnings are nice, but it's ultimately the user's responsibility".
And I am responding to this shift of responsibility onto the user, and saying that the responsibility should be on the company to give warnings.
So it is not that warnings are nice. Instead it is that they should be an obligation, less consumers engage in their fully legal right to cause the company large amounts of monetary damages like this very same PR campaign that just happened.
> that users are just allowed to do whatever they want with no repercussions because it’s too difficult to read the agreement they signed
Well, if the company wants to avoid the very real and large amount of PR damage, that users are legally allowed to cause via PR campaigns like this, then yes the company would be obligated to make things not difficult to understand and read.
Thems the breaks.
> So? People post here all the time
So, what that means, is that it caused them enough damage that it got their attention.
If they didn't want that negative attention, then they should have made a better process from the beginning.
> but that executives want to do damage control
Yes! I am saying that they took PR damage, and thus have to do damage control.
If they didn't want that damage in the first place, they shouldn't have screwed up, by having things be unclear.
> It says nothing about the TOS being clear on the issue.
If people are misunderstanding the TOS, then it is unclear by definition.
Something being "clear" only matters, in so far as it is understood. That is my definition of "clear". It is only clear if it is understood, no matter what, or how clear you think it is. It is defined as unclear, if it is not understood, commonly.