Suppose John is in China. While he doesn’t understand any Chinese, he wants a cup of coffee, so he enters the nearest coffee shop and points toward a coffee pot. The barista pours some coffee into a paper cup, hands it to John, then asks (in Chinese) “may I charge you double the price for this cup of coffee?” John, understanding nothing of what’s been asked, nods his head to expedite the process of getting his coffee. Has John consented to being charged double the regular price for his coffee?
We think not, but maybe you disagree. Suppose rather than asking to overcharge him, the barista asks if he can violently take possession of John’s heart. It seems clear that John has not consented to that. You might say that John ought not to have nodded his head in agreement, that he acted carelessly, maybe he even did something wrong, but that’s not the point. His nodding or saying ‘yes’ does not, by itself, entail that he has consented to whatever has been asked.
I would argue that, in the majority of cases, users of social media platforms likewise have not consented to the relevant ‘terms of service’ (TOS). The length (consider not only the relevant text but the embedded links) and opaque legalese supports the analogy to John in the relevant ways. This calls into question many current practices including the use of personal data, the extraction of further data never explicitly provided, the monitoring of surfing and purchasing patterns, and researching connections between emotional states and behavior, all in order to better generate profits. We think these worries can be eliminated, or at the very least reduced, by making it easier for users to become truly informed regarding the relevant TOS.