undefined

points

[-]

The corporation did not do this to her. It was a two party agreement. She bears just as much blame for the agreement as the corporation. She entered into it willingly. And that does and should have consequences.

Morally speaking I think the company is reprehensible. But nor do I think contact law should be changed because of it.

by rkomorn15 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I'd agree with you if there wasn't a significant power imbalance that virtually always skews way more in favor of the corporation.

It is far more likely that an individual would do best to agree to a corporation's terms even if they favor the corporation than the other way around.

by zaphar14 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The antidote to a power imbalance is to recognize that there is no power imbalance and go about your life that way.

Pretending there is one lands you in an imaginary trap. Build a society where we recognize that and you build a society where the imaginary trap disappears.

by mindslight14 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

You're the one pretending here. The economy is unfortunately designed around most people relying on an income stream that remains at the whims of someone else.

by thayne16 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> She lives in the UK and I'm speaking from a US perspective.

But the contract is being enforced from the US.

by fmajid15 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

The UK is far worse, with draconian libel laws where the burden of proof is on the defendant. Originally designed to stop uppity commoners from challenging the aristocrats, now used by oligarchs to silence journalists.

by mindslight15 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> I understand she's free to speak but there may be consequences

nit: this isn't generally a valid analysis. Rather, it's a common refrain used by people undermining freedom of speech while pretending to support it. This trope is often even trotted out in full-powertalk mode where it's applied to consequences coming from the government itself.