zlacker

>>chrono+(OP)
This is a nice statement, but the TOS is the important part, not what this marketing piece says.

> You agree to grant and hereby grant Zoom a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable, and transferable license and all other rights required or necessary to redistribute, publish, import, access, use, store, transmit, review, disclose, preserve, extract, modify, reproduce, share, use, display, copy, distribute, translate, transcribe, create derivative works, and process Customer Content and to perform all acts with respect to the Customer Content.

> (ii) for the purpose of product and service development, marketing, analytics, quality assurance, machine learning, artificial intelligence, training, testing, improvement of the Services, Software, or Zoom’s other products, services, and software, or any combination thereof

>>berbec+Vp
Yeah, if the TOS says one thing, and a blogpost pinky-promises another, only one of those two actually counts as far as I'm concerned.

>>Imnimo+LZ
I actually consider the act of doublespeak potentially insinuating ill intent.

What you and what you say need to be consistent to preserve user trust and then being inconsistent shows mismanagement by senior leadership or even potentially intent to deceive or spin the situation while still implementing the policy. It’s the PR classic do one thing say another.

Edit: Oh, and then this hits almost at the same time…

https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/zoom-return-to-office-an...

>>happyt+5i1
This doublespeak should result in huge fines, but there's lobbying instead

>>dietr1+yZ1
And corrupt officials that accept the lobbying, which is the bad bit.

>>robert+762
"It's not corruption, it's lobbying", the "it's not a bug, it's a feature" of politics.