https://tosdr.org/en/service/1448 says both:
"You maintain ownership of your data: This service does not claim ownership over user-generated content or materials, and the user * doesn't need to waive any moral rights* by posting owned content."
and
"You waive your moral rights"
Edit: I have no energy for figuring out which of these statements is more true.
It's just one in coming from EU TOS[1] and another comes from USA TOS[2]
And the website doesn't support that
[1] https://www.tiktok.com/legal/page/eea/terms-of-service/en
[2] https://www.tiktok.com/legal/page/us/terms-of-service/en
Wikipedia has 4 thumbs down 1 thumbs up and is grade B. Tor has 0 thumbs down 3 thumbs up and is grade C.
DuckDuckGo has only 1 thumbs down: "Instead of asking directly, this Service will assume your consent merely from your usage." and is grade B, presumably because of this. Startpage is grade A, has no thumbs down, but going on startpage does not prompt me to agree to anything either.
Regarding Startpage, It's not mandatory to show the cookie banner if you don't track. Startpage doesn't track you at all, so it's grade A.
Wikipedia has that all the bad things happen to your account except for the tracking, but you can still use Wikipedia without using an account. I agree that it's a B.
I'm not familiar enough with Tor to answer that grade.
Are they? The table at the bottom page doesn't explain anything - in particular doesn't give any indication why Tor might be ranked below Wikipedia (for instance). How can a service with no mentioned negative qualities have a grade C?
Startpage does not have or need a ToS
> You must provide your identifiable information
but that's reasonable for a company like PayPal?
It would make more sense as filtering criteria for a search engine.
If the website wants to block something the EFF deems a good and reasonable protection for the user, then maybe they should indeed block the request.
For that reason ToS should be illegal unless, at least, written in layman terms.
Apparently this means that YT can acces the synced browser history if you're logged into Chrome.
If the ToS were understandable, neither of those would be accomplished.
Surprise, surprise ... The people get 1 change, Name.com getall the rest; including making parts of it more ambiguous.
But it was easy to understand using the LLM analysis and it took longer to read than generate.
This vacuous objection can be raised against every single piece of information any human has ever learned from elsewhere, recursively, back to the dawn of communication, regardless of the nature of the third party source of information.
Furthermore, LLM hallucination, particularly of reviewed documents, is not a problem I experience any longer with the models I use. For example, my LLM setup and the query I would use would cause the output to include quotes of the differences, which makes ctrl+f/f3 to spot check easy.
Whenever people come across any "terms" document, they are well served by simply ignoring it entirely and assuming it contains the following statements:
> you own nothing
> the company owns everything
> you have no rights
> you promise not to try and exercise any right you think you have
> if you ever convince yourself that you actually have rights, you agree to binding arbitration with the firm we pay
> you cannot do anything the company doesn't like
> the company can do literally anything it wants whether you like it or not
> the company is not responsible for anything, ever
> the company makes absolutely no guarantees about literally anything
> you agree to indemnify us in all possible circumstances
I'll save everyone some time. In the year 2025, just assume any for profit corporation is stealing your data and you've waived all your rights as a consumer when you agreed to that ToS unless presented with compelling evidence to the contrary.