Apply does not always equal affected. Those words do not mean the same thing.
FOR EXAMPLE, here is an excerpt from Instagram's ToS:
We reserve the right to refuse access to the Service to anyone for any reason at any time.
Does that apply to everybody? Yes. Does this automatically happen to everybody? No. That's the difference between "apply" and "affect" in this case.
Tapas' ToS applies to everybody. But not necessarily everybody - if anyone at all - was affected by it. And we won't know if anyone was affected by it unless someone actually steps forward and claims it. So far, no one has. Were you actually, directly affected by this, @NagashiKhan? Outside of a moral standpoint and a "what if" thought process?
Additionally, a lot of these clauses are necessary for legal reasons. Businesses have their own legal representatives for this very reason - so they don't absentmindedly do something that might be considered illegal. Omitting or lying by omission could be classified as one of those things, so online digital services like Facebook, Tapas, Instagram, etc. are legally obligated to mention these things even if they don't affect everybody 100% of the time.
Apologies if I'm still not understanding the question.
Okay, but maybe that's as clear as they can be with us right now. Considering Michael even said:
So we either have to wait for someone who's qualified to speak further on the matter, or just accept the fact that companies can't exactly be 100% transparent all the time. So far, the explanations given so far have been reasonable, even if it's not what you were looking for down to the very last detail. At the very least, have some patience.
Googling legal terms is the same as googling health issues - they don't apply the same way to every single condition. We don't know what kind of legal setup they have with Tapas. Don't assume cancer just because you googled "mole on my butt." It's probably just a mole on your butt If you're really concerned, go see an actual professional (in the case of the hypothetical hyperbole, wait for a qualified staff member to come here and tell us more and/or make an actual official announcement).
Again, sorry if the point of the question is just flying over my head. At this point, why should it matter who was "affected"? No one's stepped forward making such claims, and the clause is gone now, so any chances of anyone being affected are now gone.