Why Does Wal-Mart Need A 3,379-Word Terms Of Use For Its Twitter Account?
from the someone-please-explain dept
Twitter only gives you 140-characters, of course, but what do you do if you're an old-school company that's been around for ages and is used to legalizing everything? Apparently, you create a 3,379-word terms of use for your Twitter account. Boing Boing points us to Wal-Mart's Twitter Terms of Use, which is really impressive if only in that if it were Twittered in 140-character increments it would take about 165 separate tweets. But, honestly, I can't figure out who this Terms of Use is directed at. It can't be those who read the various Twitter feeds from Wal-Mart employees, since most of them will never even come to this page at all (they're just following on Twitter, not on Wal-Mart's site). It's unlikely that it's for the Wal-Mart employees directly, as one assumes they don't need a public Terms of Use. So what's its purpose?Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: terms of use
Companies: twitter, wal-mart
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I blame the Economy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I blame the Economy
I'd guess that the average shelf stockers would and could compose a Terms of Use with fewer words than the average attorneys could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By the word
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it necessary? probably not, but lets not proclaim them writing vast amounts of legalese for no purpose. They simply re-used a standard piece of boilerplate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Um, what's the difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some lawyers charge by the hour. Apparently, some others charge by the word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We won’t reply to off topic @replies. Personal attacks and foul language = FAIL. Adding to the discussion = WIN."
http://walmartstores.com/9179.aspx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With a twitter feed, however, I'm at a loss to completely understand how Walmart could be held liable for anything that can happens a result of some one reading their tweets, or what they could possibly tweet in 140 characters that they would need to cover with a copyright. It seems to me to be more of lawyers justifying their existence by writing more EULA language. I wonder what Walmart corp got charged in exchange for that EULA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
@WalMart: Sale on toilet paper, now 0.49 cents!
Or maybe it's in case something they say that they want to "control" ends up getting re-tweeted in a way they don't approve of (with these "somethings" and "ways" to be determined later).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attention as a Scarce Resource
I have a question about it and I don't know where to post it such that you'll see it and hopefully respond. So I'm trying to get your attention here. Could you please direct me to where I can post my question and hopefully have you deem it worthy of an answer?
Here is the key question that is haunting me:
Your model suggests that making the content free will expand the size of the market. But it seems to me that the market for content consumption (music, books, whatever) is limited more by human attention (on the part of the content consumers) than by the amount of money the buyers have to spend. So while I agree that in a world of free music, it would be easier for more people to have more songs on their ipods than in a world of paid music, it seems that the total number of songs people can listen to per day is more limited by time than by money. And the amount of attention people can direct toward the consumption of the scarce goods associated with the music is also scarce and not subject to significant expansion. I might be more likely to discover (for free) a new band I love and then pay for their concert or fansite as opposed to U2's. But that would be a shift in the market rather than an expansion of it. The market will change--money will flow toward the scarce goods rather than the infinite goods, and there will be different winners and losers, but I'm not clear on how the market expands. Won't the total amount of content consumption attention remain largely the same, and won't the total amount of content consumption dollars stay roughly similar?
Please let me know what you think about this. This is the only thing I'm confused about in your elegant well-explained model.
Thank you!
Alex
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Attention as a Scarce Resource
I think you're right, there's not more time or money, necessarily, being put into the system, but that's not really the only way to "expand" the market.
Should've asked on a post discussing music or the economics of free, though, rather than one focused onstrange EULAs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Attention as a Scarce Resource
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Attention as a Scarce Resource
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Attention as a Scarce Resource
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Answer to Question Posed in Post's Title
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Wal-Mart reserves the right, at its sole discretion, without advance notice, to change, modify, add or remove all or any portion of the Site or the Terms."
So it's double useless: unenforceable because it server no purpose and because the courts already have decided that you can't be bound to something that changes with no notification.
I wonder if the EFF will include it in the TOS watchlist...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is who it's for ...
"http://walmartstores.com/twitter/".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It has been 10+ years since I have been in one of their crap filled boxes and I don't plan to start up again anytime soon. Crap filled also applies to their online efforts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
model of infinite and scarce goods
You talk about the "model of infinite and scarce goods" as if Mike is recommending that this is how the "world" SHOULD be. I think he's telling us that this is how the "world" IS or is becoming. His recommendations and reporting are more about how to cope with this new reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: model of infinite and scarce goods
Economics is like meteorology. It's the study of an incredibly complex system, we only understand a tiny fraction of it, and the more we futz with it the worse things get. We don't make the rules, we're still trying to figure out what they are.
But with the economy, it's worse than that. Someone is trying to make the rules too. But that's like writing an almanac and expecting the weather to follow that plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even more....
http://walmartstores.com/9179.aspx
I love that "by using the service" you agree to the terms of use. I'm a bit confused though - I didn't realize that Walmart ran Twitter!
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fail...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dedicated Hosting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]