[mayank]

> They need to reword this. Whoever wrote it is a liability

Sounds like it’s been written specifically to avoid liability.

[MingFengLiu]

I'm sure it was lawyers. It's always lawyers.

[cqqxo4zV46cp]

Yes, lawyers do tend to have a part to play in writing things that present a legally binding commitment being made by an organisation. Developers really can’t throw stones from their glass houses here. How many of you have a pre-canned spiel explaining why the complexities of whichever codebase you spend your days on are ACTUALLY necessary, and are certainly NOT the result of over-engineering? Thought so.

[re-return]

Sure lawyers wrote it but I'd bet a lot there's a product or business person standing behind the lawyer saying - "we want to do this but don't be so obvious about it because we don't want to scare users away". And so lawyers would love to be very upfront about what is happening because that's the best way to avoid liability. However, that conflicts with what the business wants, and because the lawyer will still refuse to write anything that's patently inaccurate, you end up with a weasel word salad that is ambiguous and unhelpful.