Description: “When the service deems your off-site activity as a breach of their terms, your account can be terminated. This is a breach of user privacy and confirms that your activity is tracked, even off-site.”
DDG Check
Reasoning
There’s a bit of services that can terminate, suspend and/or refuse to provide their services based on user off-site comments, behaviour, etc. This is really grave and should be comunicated to the user.
Responses
We should warn users directly about specific practices. The more specific, the better.
Why make it a blocker?
Case 129 is also a blocker, and it deals with a very similar topic, in my opinion. We should be consistent and deem off-site/off-service tracking a blocker by default, as it is too grave of an issue.
I think we can all agree that said Case is used more in the context of user data being tracked on other websites, rather than how said tracking is enforced/used by the service.
considering https://edit.tosdr.org/cases/201 is classified as bad, this point should not be classified higher imo. At least your suggested point has the possibility for the user to get named a reason. While 201 could also be used ban a user for off site activity without giving a reason.
doesn’t necessarily mean that. Twitch suspends streamers for off site activity if it is reported to them or happens publicly / is publicly reported.
sidenote: TBH for building a community I also don’t think that is a bad clause to have, I wouldn’t want people that are known to be hostile to my community, join my community. And same for sports, most sports have a list of disallowed players that gets shared across tournament organisers, because you don’t want to have a known cheater competing.
instead?