I posted this message in the GI group in response to Grouply’s assertion that they “had lawyers review the Yahoo TOS to make sure we would be ok.”
You have my permission to post this in Ungrouply Behavior. The original is at:
Enron’s chiefs had lawyers, too, who fought hard to defend them. Not to compare Grouply’s tiny place in the world to theirs, or Grouply’s activities to theirs, but the argument that lawyers said it is okay means almost nothing to me.
Case in point:
The Freecycle Network, Inc. (TFN), which also has a lawyer reviewing its practices (a respectable law firm, as I understand it), said repeatedly (including directly to me personally) that it had Yahoo’s okay for their YG message aggregation scheme (“Finder”), until Yahoo publicly pronounced the technique involved to be contrary to their TOS. That came only after an outcry from YG members and moderators, and many complaints filed about it, and even then not before national press media gave attention to the matter. Prior to that, for a long time (more than a year as I recall), the scheme was in place and operating successfully without visible interference from Yahoo. Once Yahoo became convinced that it was a problem, and pronounced on the matter, TFN immediately took its revenue-generating freecyclefinder.org off the web, despite all the prior lawyerly claims made by TFN that it did not violate Yahoo’s TOS, operated with Yahoo’s knowledge, and allegedly even with their consent. Grouply’s similar lawyer-reviewed claim of TOS compliance is unconvincing to me.
In their public statement made recently on third party access issues, so far clearly Yahoo is leaving the matter to the discretion of moderators, advising them to do what they think is best for their groups regarding membership eligibility of YG users connected with or enabling access of third parties.
As a group owner-moderator responsible for working to ensure TOS compliance in and by my group, I find that Grouply subscribers are complicit, whether willfully or not, in at least an end-run around certain provisions of the Yahoo TOS, if not directly violating it. I find that they participate in enabling iGroup, Inc. to abrogate aspects of the spirit and the letter of the Yahoo TOS. I find that Grouply encourages behaviors contrary to my understanding of the spirit of the Yahoo TOS. Access and usage via the Grouply method also infringes on previously established internal policies of my groups.
Therefore, members are not allowed to use the Grouply method to access my groups. There are so few of them, their not being allowed to use their Grouply account to access my group has no effect on the mission effectiveness of my groups anyway, but the presence of just one of them using Grouply does involve significant risks, in my view. Grouply subscribers otherwise eligible for membership are welcome to participate in my groups, just not via the Grouply.com service, or any other like it. Not being allowed to use Grouply does not prevent or inhibit their full participation in the missions of my groups, in well established, reliably convenient ways provided by Yahoo!.