Turn bad cases into neutral

Currently, to get an A at ToS;DR classifications, a service must have no bad (or blocker) cases.
Sometimes this may seem unfair, especially when a service only has bad cases that aren’t really affecting user’s rights.
As a result, I propose changing to neutral the following cases (further explanations are detailed below):

These cases can be applied to any service, and anyway terms that don’t disclaim warranties are often incomplete and not enforceable (there’s no such thing as a Service that is able to guarantee that they’ll meet our requirements, for instance).

Regarding this case, the reason is similar too. It’s impossible to know if someday in the future they would need to stop providing some features or even terminate the service.

As raised in The problem of "You must create an account to use this service", this case is quite ambiguous. There are many services (like email providers, VPNs or Anti-Virus services) for which requiring users to register makes sense and creating an account doesn’t necessarily mean providing personally identifiable information (which is covered by case 409)
We could purge the points linked to it, and only keep those linked to services that shouldn’t require users to register, but that would make the case even more ambiguous and probably only few services would fit with the case.

What are your thoughts?

1 Like

I heartly agree, these cases do not really affect users rights.

Same should be applied to Case 379: User-generated content can be blocked or censored for any reason

1 Like

This could potentially affect user rights actually.
If I understood well the meaning of the case, it applies to services reserving the right not to publish or display some user communications for any reason.

For instance, I’ve recently reviewed the service Metager (search engine) and created a point linked to this case, stating:

We also reserve the right to block web pages with demonstrably incorrect information, web pages of extremely poor quality and other particularly dubious web pages.

I think this kind of censorhip shouldn’t get unnoticed.

1 Like

The main issue lies in the case name vs the case description

The title implies that the user can be banned or blocked, it is basically like this everywhere though. The description however states “for any or no reason”, so we should at least reflect that in the title or its misleading as you do not see the case descriptions in the annotation list.

1 Like

Completely agree, this will make it clearer.

Is this case about users or content? I’d say “User communications” refers to content posted or similar, so this case would refer to content censored before publication, but I may have misunderstood the title.

1 Like

True, however “user communications” is a broad term to be honest. If a user is blocked from posting content I consider that account blocked.

1 Like

Agreed, should we rephrase it to “User-generated content can be blocked or censored for any reason”?

1 Like

Yep that sounds good!

1 Like

Sounds good to me too!

2 Likes

Due to the positive feedback I’ll apply the changes now and re-run the grading cron.

2 Likes