How do Streamberry’s terms and conditions work?
In the opening episode of Black Mirror's sixth season, 'Joan is Awful', viewers are thrust into a nightmarish narrative where a woman’s private life becomes fodder for a popular streaming show, almost in real-time. The shocking turn of events revolves around a central, harrowing question: How did Joan not read the terms and conditions of the Streamberry service more carefully?
As observers of this dystopian reality, we might be tempted to lay the blame on Joan herself. However, a closer look at this scenario - and the real-world practices it echoes - reveals a much more intricate issue. It forces us to confront a world where tech companies have extensive power over their users, a power sanctioned by legal user agreements that are often opaque, labyrinthine, and unscrupulous.
To begin with, we need to understand that the culture of 'agreeing' to Terms and Conditions (T&C) without thorough comprehension is not a peculiarity of Joan's character but a universal phenomenon. In a fast-paced digital age where convenience trumps caution, people regularly sign away their rights and privacy without a second thought. A study conducted by Deloitte in 2017 found that 91% of people do not read terms and conditions before accepting them. Thus, Joan's choice (or lack thereof) to agree to Streamberry's T&C reflects the behaviors of the majority of online users.
Digging deeper, the structure and language of these legal agreements are intentionally daunting, filled with legalese, and often extremely long. The New York Times, for instance, reported in 2012 that the iTunes terms and conditions would take an average person 30 minutes to read through. For many people, including Joan, the time and effort required to read, let alone comprehend these documents, is simply unrealistic. This effectively discourages individuals from fully understanding what they are consenting to.
It's also worth noting that the repercussions Joan faces for agreeing to Streamberry's T&C are extreme and, at present, not grounded in reality. Still, the episode cleverly raises the issue of how companies can use these agreements to exploit personal data, breach privacy, and manipulate user experiences. While Streamberry's actions are exaggerated for dramatic effect, they point to legitimate concerns about data usage, privacy invasion, and the potential for exploitation in the digital age.
Interestingly, the law has often grappled with the enforceability of T&Cs, particularly when they appear to be unfair or deceptive. However, the consensus in many jurisdictions is that as long as companies make these agreements available and receive user consent, they are generally legally binding. This has led to calls for greater transparency, readability, and fairness in digital user agreements.
The Streamberry storyline also suggests the potential for AI and advanced technologies to further blur these boundaries. For instance, the use of AI-generated imagery, as in the case of the Salma Hayek's 'digital likeness', represents an emerging field of legal and ethical uncertainty. These technologies add additional layers of complexity to user agreements, including issues related to consent, exploitation, and representation.
Ultimately, 'Joan Is Awful' is a cautionary tale about the importance of understanding the implications of the seemingly mundane act of accepting digital user agreements. It reminds us of the urgent need for policy intervention, digital literacy, and corporate responsibility in framing and enforcing these agreements. While we may not live in the world of Black Mirror, 'Joan Is Awful' forces us to confront our own digital realities and the responsibilities we each hold in navigating them.
