Cohost
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This article is a stub. Please help us out by adding more content. |
| Website | |
|---|---|
| Name: | Cohost |
| Owner/Maintainer: | anti software software club |
| Dates: | 2022- |
| Type: | Social media |
| Fandom: | N/A |
| URL: | https://cohost.org |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
Cohost is a multimedia micro-blogging platform with social networking features operated by anti software software club. It first launched to the public on June 28, 2022,[1] at which point fans from a variety of fandoms began to migrate from Twitter and, to a lesser extent, Tumblr.
History
Fan Use
This article or section needs expansion. |
Fandoms Active on Cohost
- Friends at the Table - Cast members of Friends at the Table were included among Cohost's alpha testers and the full cast is active on the platform, inspiring numerous fans of the podcast to create accounts on Cohost immediately following its public launch.
- ???
Controversies
TOS
In November 2022, fan and Dreamwidth co-founder rahaeli posted a viral Twitter thread strongly critiquing Cohost's Terms of Service and warning users away from the website until such time as the TOS had been radically changed.[2]
Rahaeli's critiques of the TOS, which she described as abusive and coercive,[3] included its binding arbitration clause:
Right up front, 🚩in paragraph 2:
THESE TERMS INCLUDE A CLASS ACTION WAIVER AND AN ARBITRATION PROVISION THAT GOVERNS ANY DISPUTES BETWEEN YOU AND ASSC.
A class action waiver for a social product is not as abusive as it is for physical products, but it is a flat no-go for me and it should be for you too. A binding arbitration clause for a social service with subsequent terms in this TOS is fucknuts.
Clauses prohibiting misinformation:
🚩 "By using the Services or features thereof, you represent and warrant that (i) any information you submit to us is truthful and accurate--"
Have you ever made a post about something that turned out to be wrong, because your source was wrong or you misunderstood it?
That's grounds for suspension under this TOS.
🚩 "(ii) you will maintain the accuracy of that information--"
It's also grounds for suspension if you discover that a post you made 8 years ago was mistaken and you don't immediately update it.
Several clauses that made no sense in context and/or were impossible to comply with:
🚩 "You further agree not to copy, reverse engineer, translate, port, modify or make derivative works of any portion of the Services."
This is literally impossible to comply with. Visiting the website "copies" the Services to your browser cache.tweet by @rahaeli
🚩 "and (iii) your use of the Services and its features does not violate any applicable law, rule or regulation."
It is literally impossible for anyone to know this conclusively at any given time. Your post could violate some obscure federal regulations you've never heard of!tweet by @rahaeli
This is the Terms of Service of a hosting provider and/or SaaS platform that they copied and dropped in here and it makes LITERALLY NO SENSE. Like. I can squint at this and see that maybe they mean, if you sell content to people on their platform, you can't also keep that content in any kind of other repository or use any other platform other than theirs to distribute it? But that second sentence has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on literally any of the way anyone could use their site and its presence there means they have NO FUCKING CLUE.
Multiple clauses prohibiting almost all fanworks:
🚩🚩🚩 "You may not post User Content that infringes others' intellectual property or proprietary rights."
I will die on the bill that fanworks are not *automatically* an IP violation, but as written, this clause prevents almost every form of fanwork that is not parody.tweet by @rahaeli
🚩 "You must own all rights, title, and interest, including all intellectual property rights, in and to, the User Content you make available on the Services."
Again, that's the second ban on most fanworks.tweet by @rahaeli
As well as clauses prohibiting any kind of commercial use[4] or requiring users to pay Cohost's taxes for that use,[5] prohibiting anyone from linking to any Cohost post ever,[6] and restricting the names or usernames that users may choose to represent themselves (about which rahaeli made reference to the Nymwars).[7][8][9]
References
- ^ Credits. Cohost.org. Retrieved Oct 23, 2023. (Archived 2023-02-02)
- ^ @rahaeli (Nov 5, 2022). Okay, people keep asking "but what even does that MEAN (it means "we have no idea what we're doing") so let's do this: why Cohost's Terms of Service are terrible and abusive and you should not agree to them unless they are radically changed (Tweet). (Archived 2022-12-08)
- ^ @rahaeli (Nov 5, 2022). (But even then, the judgement of a business that goes live with this flaming dumpster fire of a ToS is incompatible with the nice marketing things they're saying and the legally binding one is the abusive and coercive one) (Tweet).
- ^ @rahaeli (Nov 5, 2022). Are you an author? Do you sell the physical proceeds of a hobby, such as cross-stitch or knitting? Do you link to your Etsy, or hell, an eBay auction, from time to time? Perfume decant circles? Mention that book you just published? This clause prevents all of those. (Tweet).
- ^ @rahaeli (Nov 5, 2022). Okay, look. Some of these terms have been fixable with small tweaks. This? This clause says that if you have ever made any paid content available on the site, and someone paid you for it, Cohost can legally come after you for EVERY BIT OF TAX *THEY* PAID ON THAT MONEY. (Tweet)
- ^ @rahaeli (Nov 5, 2022). I am being glib here but this clause really does make it a ToS violation to link to any Cohost post, period. Or even vaguely discuss it! That's "disclosing" it! Again: they want this clause there to protect the content people make paid DLC. (Tweet)
- ^ @rahaeli (Nov 5, 2022). 5. 🚩 "(ii) register only once using a single username" Probably the least egregious red flag from all this, but it prevents people from having, say, a main blog and a fandom blog. (Tweet)
- ^ @rahaeli (Nov 5, 2022). 🚩 "(b) register under the name of another person;" Sloppy drafting: this is written so vaguely it implies any Jane Smith past the first is technically in violation, because that's "the name of another person". It needs a "that is not also your own", and then-- & --we get into the tough question of "what is a name and what counts as *your* name, which is. Well. We had a whole fight in 2009 about it, look up the nymwars. (Tweets).
- ^ @rahaeli (Nov 5, 2022). 🚩🚩🚩 "(d) choose a username for the purposes of deceiving or misleading our users and/or us as to your true identity" This clause literally prevents pseudonyms. I cannot, by this TOS, register as "rahaeli" as that is not my "true identity" (see also: nymwars). (Tweet)