NOT at all a dig. If you don't READ to educate what the terms and conditions are for yourself then you are guilty of falling asleep and have no right to later complain you "didn't know"! For example: unless you own the copyrights to photos or videos once you post them TruthSocial owns the rights to them. You should ALWAYS inform yourself in all matters and not defensively or falsely accuse others of things you are obviously not informed of.
Except you automatically own the copyright of any work you create. Copyrights do not need to be registered. So the only thing truth.social could ever actually own are pictures/words that you take from others and post without permission, and in those cases someone else probably owns the copyright. So truth.social would still not own the copyright. It really just sounds like it is just a legal catchall clause so that SOMEBODY owns the copyright in case there is a legal action.
Clearly your point of view is dangerous it is exactly the kind of liberal mentality that believes in not looking up the info yourself and just believing misinformation or living in ignorance of the fine print.
dude you're making up scenarios in your head. i agree, always read ToS, but the way you worded this post makes it out like truth social has nefarious intentions.
this comes across as a dig at truth social's TOS
NOT at all a dig. If you don't READ to educate what the terms and conditions are for yourself then you are guilty of falling asleep and have no right to later complain you "didn't know"! For example: unless you own the copyrights to photos or videos once you post them TruthSocial owns the rights to them. You should ALWAYS inform yourself in all matters and not defensively or falsely accuse others of things you are obviously not informed of.
Except you automatically own the copyright of any work you create. Copyrights do not need to be registered. So the only thing truth.social could ever actually own are pictures/words that you take from others and post without permission, and in those cases someone else probably owns the copyright. So truth.social would still not own the copyright. It really just sounds like it is just a legal catchall clause so that SOMEBODY owns the copyright in case there is a legal action.
You ended a sentence with a proposition.
Clearly your point of view is dangerous it is exactly the kind of liberal mentality that believes in not looking up the info yourself and just believing misinformation or living in ignorance of the fine print.
dude you're making up scenarios in your head. i agree, always read ToS, but the way you worded this post makes it out like truth social has nefarious intentions.