this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2025
930 points (98.9% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

41057 readers
951 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...


7. Content should match the theme of this community.


-Content should be Mildly infuriating.

-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mvirts@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

Lol too bad they only wrote it in English

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 1 points 45 minutes ago

This is a real thing?

[–] thrawn@lemmy.world 23 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Vital Proteins got bought out by Nestle and almost immediately turned to shit iirc

[–] Tail11@lemmy.world 5 points 8 hours ago

I didn't know this—time to shop for a new collagen supplement.

[–] MacStache@sopuli.xyz 89 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Isn't that an illegally forced agreement? I mean, the consumer already bought the product and is forced to enter an agreement after the fact? At least it feels like it would be illegal.

It's the same with software, sure, but somehow I've been brainwashed into thinking it's ok because it's a digital product/I only agree to a license of said product.

[–] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.zip 45 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (2 children)

If this is in the US you are 1 year away before companies can run Squid Games, "illegally forced agreement" is a thing of the past

[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 minutes ago

awesome, I hope the hunger games are only a few decades away

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 11 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Squid Game at least honor the votes to end the game, IRL they'll just cancel elections lmfao.

[–] BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago

Well they do hide their own guy amongst the players who can influence the vote

[–] Tetragrade@leminal.space 61 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (3 children)

By reading this comment, you agree to be bound eternally in thrall to me, and wear a maid dress for my amusement.

[–] answersplease77@lemmy.world 14 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Ugh damn it man. okay pm me your address

[–] Tetragrade@leminal.space -1 points 6 hours ago (2 children)
[–] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 hours ago

I'm sorry, the contract has already been signed.

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 hours ago

everyone's all for enthralling randos on the internet, but as soon as they ask A/S/L suddenly its gone to far

[–] RoyaltyInTraining@lemmy.world 21 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

So when do I get the dress?

[–] Tetragrade@leminal.space 10 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Post a PO box and I'll send it over.

[–] seralth@lemmy.world 23 points 14 hours ago

Jokes on you I'm into that shit

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago

They’re bringing back Prima Nocta.

[–] hakunawazo@lemmy.world 49 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Time to use the box cutter and open it from the bottom.

[–] sunbytes@lemmy.world 12 points 12 hours ago

Yeah they really slipped up by saying "and" using it, as opposed to "or".

I'm going to gnaw into it like a little rat.

[–] catty@lemmy.world 7 points 15 hours ago (1 children)
[–] vxx@lemmy.world 8 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Delevoping liver issues, that's what it is.

aka Protein powder

[–] Zetta@mander.xyz 9 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

This got me curious because I've never heard of this, atleast according to this study it does not cause liver issues if you use it properly, aka you exercise and don't just drink it casually.

"The results showed that when whey protein is used in an uninformed manner and without exercising, adverse effects on the liver may occur by increasing the apoptotic signal in the short term and increasing inflammatory markers and hepatotoxicity in the long term." - link

[–] vxx@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Yes, that's the reason, not that it's generally bad. I shouldve clarified.

It's way too easy to take too much. Most people just take their whole daily dose or more with those drinks and forgetting that they get protein from the regular food as well. Most people don't even know how much protein their body is able to process in a day.

Add too much magnesium to it and your blood tests will show how bad it is for you, and your doctor will get mad at you.

We don't need this unless youre doing Sport all day long.

[–] SonOfAntenora@lemmy.world 114 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Mandatory arbitration agreement for a protein shake or whatever it is. First it may not be enforceable. Second it makes me think that this product is not fit for consumption.

[–] S0ck@lemmy.world 6 points 17 hours ago

I wonder if we're not fucking ourselves.

"Not enforceable" may have been a thing of the past, with the way technology has developed. We may be approaching a point where terms & conditions ARE enforceable.

[–] buttnugget@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago

I honestly think it’s just a ridiculous ploy and that the product is fine. We need a proper regulatory system instead of this junk. I do think it’s unenforceable though.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 86 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

No way this is legally binding. It amounts to a bait and switch. A product was purchased and provided without agreement to any further terms. Then they sneak in supposed terms after the fact based upon the action of opening the product. That is a change in agreement made without any consideration for the purchaser. That's not generally allowed in contact law.

Furthermore, I really doubt that they can get away with the argument that the act of opening a product can constitute any amount of conscious agreement to some writing on a package. If for no other reason than that this is (afaik) a novel way to attempt to coerce agreement such that nobody would expect such an agreement to be part of the opening process and likely won't notice it.

And it's not accessible for every person who may be using this product even if they do notice the words. Are you a non-English speaker? Farsighted? Blind? Illiterate? Would you have any way to even be aware that those words are terms that somehow binding you to an agreement by virtue of your opening the thing you just bought? Would you have any reason to even suspect that that is the case?

Also, they'll undoubtedly claim that the fact that you have the opened product means that you agreed to the terms, but that is also not the case. Your mom opened it for you and wrapped it as a gift? You bought it secondhand? The packaging was torn open when it shipped to you and you never had any reason to see this text in the first place? It was misprinted? Any of those things and more would mean you never agreed to anything. And they have no way to prove any of those things weren't the case.

Just stupid. I have zero doubt that any number of lawyers would love take this to court and get that payday.

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 8 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

It actually does have legal precident. You know how you can't read or accept the EULA for software until after you purchase it?

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 16 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

They get away with stuff like that when they have sold you a "license" to their software, rather than something you gave actually purchased outright. It is argued that a license is a an agreement to access a software product, rather than ownership of it, and putting an EULA in between your license purchase or changing it later doesn't affect your purchase because you continue to hold the license even if you choose not to agree to the terms necessary to use it. It's a bit different for a physical item that you have actual ownership over, not a license to use it (pending agreement).

I also find all of that to be loophole bullshit that should be fixed, but that's a separate issue.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

If they can change their EULA at any time without consent for something you already purchased that should enable the option for a full refund if declined.

Accept the new license or refund.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Ah! That's one of the worst parts of the internet, and they've figured out a way to make it real.

At least they mention the arbitration upfront, I guess.

[–] zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world 373 points 1 day ago (12 children)

It says you're bound by "opening and using" the product, rather than "opening or using". Have someone else open it for you. Then neither of you have done both.

[–] naught101@lemmy.world 241 points 1 day ago

Thus is the kind of legalistic bullshit interpretation I can get right behind

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 72 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

There's an easy solution: keep buying it, break the seal to get to the message, then return it. Have your friends do the same, at the same store. Pretty soon that product will be gone and you can move on to the next store.

If the store starts to bitch about it, you can claim that you wanted to see if the statement had been removed.

[–] Part4@infosec.pub 52 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Is there a bigger red flag than a message on it saying 'if you break this seal you can't sue us!'

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 221 points 1 day ago (7 children)

This is Vital Proteins brilliant response to being taken to court over heavy metal and "foreign materials" contamination in their products.

[–] PostaL@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago

I'm sure they definitely didn’t think removing all those pesky "foreign materials" and next-gen metals from they products...

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 70 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Forced Arbitration should be illegal everywhere.

[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 5 points 17 hours ago
[–] Allero@lemmy.today 93 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Add to this the fact they try to enforce mandatory arbitration - a thing that shouldn't ever exist to begin with, in any jurisdiction, and is actually unenforceable in many.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›