Context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqhPUmyrfGI
Without ads/tracking: https://www.yewtu.be/watch?v=fqhPUmyrfGI
BY ACCESSING THIS SITE YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOUTUBE (HEREBY REFERRED TO AS THE “PLATFORM”) HAS THE ABILITY TO FORCE YOU (HEREBY REFERRED TO AS THE “SCHMUCK”) TO AGREE IN PROXY TO ANY ABSURD CONDITION THE PLATFORM DECIDES, AMENDABLE AT ANY TIME WITHOUT NOTICE, AND WITH STIPULATION THAT THE SCHMUCK MAY NEVER EVER CHALLENGE THE PLATFORM IN COURT OR EVEN LOOK AT THE PLATFORM THE WRONG WAY WHILE WALKING BY ONE ANOTHER IN THE HALL, LEST IT HURT THE PLATFORM’S FEELINGS.
By using the service, you agree to the TOS. What you are “rejecting all” to are cookies. Still scummy behavior tho
Considering many internet providers now have bandwidth caps, it is my policy do not allow arbitrary data on my network (aka ads). It’s also my policy that my policy supersedes any arbitrary terms of services. And that any platform accessing my network henceforth retroactively accepts my policy and terms of service.
You could send that in a HTTP header, with the stipulation that the server responding would accept the terms.
“By responding to this request, you implicitly accept my terms and conditions.”
Then don’t use YouTube. Go find another provider giving out content for free.
This is digital sovereign citizen bullshit. You were informed and it’s your call to accept or reject.
The sense of self-entitlement is high on Lemmy
Can’t agree to terms i can’t have read. Can’t have read all the terms because the average day would require tens of hours only to read them, much less understanding them.
https://old.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/kuakx7/how_long_it_takes_to_read_the_tos_of_these/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/03/terms-of-service-online-contracts-fine-print
Ignorance of the law is only a defense if you’re a police officer
They are a contract. Courts have increasingly sided with corporations on making consent be implied and also allowing corporations to pretty much change the terms and conditions at will.
deleted by creator
It would be trivial. Because they don’t need to win. Just bury you in a long drawn out court battle you can’t possibly hope to afford so you drop out. Thankfully individual users are not worth their time
in the context of what yt enforce on their shit, yes they are law
deleted by creator
tbh I don’t care so much, I was just observing the stupidity of the reply :P
TOS is not law lmao
in the context of what yt enforce on their shit, yes.
deleted by creator
I think they’re content with banning you
Ohh soooo scary a ban. A ban from the page that refuses to ban anyone from watching because they’re THAT desperate for engagement. Ohhh so scary a ban that I can easily just bypass anyways ooooooh.
They can feel free to try. In fact I’d prefer that over attempts at guilt tripping me. However it’s also 100% not going to work.
deleted by creator
You can’t agree to it until you visit the website and actually read it. Your logic doesn’t really follow
Edit: for those downvoting here’s an article from the EFF agreeing with me. https://www.eff.org/wp/clicks-bind-ways-users-agree-online-terms-service
However, courts generally do not require that you actually have read the terms, but just that you had reasonable notice and an opportunity to read them.
Nope. Not how it works. You don’t have to agree to anything. You don’t have to read anything. The provider has to inform you, which they do even if you block it.
Edit: here’s the EFF agreeing with me. If you don’t read any of the below then you should still read this. https://www.eff.org/wp/clicks-bind-ways-users-agree-online-terms-service
——-
That’s literally absolutely unequivocally incorrect. I have no clue why you think that but even a cursory glance at Wikipedia would have shown you you’re incorrect. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_service
If you want more information you can go ahead and read up on GDPR or one of the numerous other laws around the world stating exactly the opposite of what you’re saying.
Here’s some links for you.
https://www.contractscounsel.com/t/us/terms-of-service
And if you had actually watched the Louis Rossman video someone linked below, he literally discusses these things.
I’m sorry but you’re just completely wrong.
I don’t believe you’re correct about this. Corporations love your take here, though. They absolutely have entire teams of lawyers that push this narrative as best they can.
The law still allows me to control what appears on my device
At a certain point, the world of the closed internet is going to face the issue of discovery, which is the only reason that they were successful in the first place.
Its really a great time for foss or fedi. It hasn’t been easier to compete with established players (like it is now) in a decade.
Those might be the terms of service they started with but a little “Inspect Element” and editing means I agreed to something else entirely.
Boomer logic +1
But fuck they wouldn’t know how to edit…
I was imagining a computer-literate sovcit trying their buffoonery with websites. Some do exist and probably have a couple decades of being the “smart” one since they know how to program a VCR (at least among their crowd of VCR-recognizing buddies) even though they’ll still call the whole desktop computer a CPU.
They’re dangerous because, like religious nuts or law misinterpreters, it’s another complex subject they can incorporate into hand-wavey explanations you can boil down to “Tech works in mysterious ways”.
I don’t get WHY I have to choose. Default should be reject all. If there is no reject then just accept it. How hard can this be to get on the Internet?
I hate the cookie popup.
You have to choose because they want that data, so they’re gonna make “accept all” the default and “reject all” as hard as legally possible
Think about it like walking into a store, but before you enter you have to agree to the tos and sign. You see how bad that would be to the user experience. Today I believe the store can track you as much as they want to. There is no opt out.
The loyalty card is the cookie
The thing is, too, that remembering your decision to reject all has to be done through a cookie, and they know this and take advantage of that fact! 99.9% of websites only offer a choice that makes you dig through at least one menu, or a choice that makes you have to click the ‘reject all’ button every time the page reloads.
There needs to be a mandate to add an option to “reject all except my decision to reject” that corresponds to a single boolean. It should exist under a standardized id, and if it’s set to true, the site would be required to stop showing you cookie popups. And if the cookie contains anything more than that single boolean and the website it applies to at most, it should be illegal and reportable as such.
Of course, as you mentioned, that would probably be quite difficult to accomplish legally.
You’re allowed to store that decision in a cookie already, it’s considered “necessary” or whatever
… which is why the real solution is, just fucking ban it. Some business models can go to hell. We don’t need to tolerate them… or the people who defend them.
Even paid services do this shit. ‘But how will they make money?’ is a canard.
You can set this exactly like that in firefox
I don’t care about your terms of service. You can attempt to stop me from using an ad-blocker, but there are ways around that.
If you don’t want me using your service the way I want to, then there should be another service that does the same thing. As long as there is no competition to YouTube, I’ll use it the way I want, TOS be damned.
And repeat after me: controlling what appears on YOUR screen that YOU OWN is not illegal and in fact, a basic human right of yours
Edit: lmao on the people intentionally misinterpreting what I said. Dude it’s my device, kindly fuck off if you think anyone gets to tell me what I HAVE to put on there
Your iconic username pops up a lot in such discussions. Thanks for being awesome.
Fr I felt like a celeb responded to me
And imagine to me many of you are celebs :)
I block ads too but do you expect them to host one of the world’s largest collections of data just because?
Repeat after me: I will have the self-awareness to realize that I made the conscious decision to go to a website and incur server costs. I am not entitled to free content. If I don’t agree with how a website recoups costs, I won’t use that website.
It’s not malware vectors. It’s not fake downloads. It’s short interstitials that let you watch things ‘for free.’ Youtube is not a human right. It’s not water. You can do other things.
What happens on my devices and/or inside my home, I decide. If websites don’t like that, block me. I’m OK with that.
Fully agree. Honestly, I’m surprised you haven’t been down voted into nonexistence. People acting like, as you said, YouTube’s some sort of “right” was kinda funny at first but it’s descended into throwing a tantrum for getting caught doing something they shouldn’t have been doing in the first place. Petulant children.
If a corporation needs to steal my time to afford to operate, then they can’t afford to operate.
As someone with a youtube channel and regular uploads … fuck ads. Use uBlock Origin, Adblock Plus or whatever else works to wipe that garbage off the screen.
I’m extra sour about their suuuuuper useful new-ish option for content creators to turn off personalized ads in their channels - something I immediatly agreed to, because I thought it would, … y’now … get rid of the fucking ads.
Nope. All it does is swap “personalized” ads for “unpersonalized” ones, so my followers get the same type of garbage shoved into their faces, just more random. Thanks Youtube, this is exactly what I wanted to achieve. dripping sarcasm, in case it wasn’t obvious
unpersonalized ads are much better for privacy and are less effective at selling stuff which is better for the user.
Even better would have been an option to turn them off entirely =P but that’s what UBlock Origin is for.
Can’t you turn them off? I thought that was the only option if you didn’t reach a thousand subs or something
I have 20k followers and no option to turn off ads except the thing mentioned above, which only swaps ad types. But it might be different for people who have monetized their channels, which I don’t have and never will.
I guess you just have to swear a lot or something.
Or accept that the ads are paying for the service that you use.
I agreed to it because there’s no real competition for content, so they own the market by default. If you don’t hit “I agree” to every last stipulation, data provision, and term you dont have access to the the largest library of information, shitposting, and weaponised opinions since dawn of radio or television.
I don’t agree with it. So adblock stays.
You can reject cookies, not the TOS. You agree to the TOS of services by simply using them.
Not in the EU you don’t
Well, you do. But the EU has a bunch of sanity check laws that make basically all of them non-binding.
Such as any agreement too long for anyone to actually read, being moot.
But YT makes it pretty clear they don’t want you blocking ads, that might actually make that specific part one of the few things that would stand up in court.
Well they can try to sue me for blocking ads. See how that goes
This reminds me of how when reddit closed their API, a select few just went to web scraping it instead lol.
Oh, he’s on odysee? Nice!
And what about Spain with cookies, or Instagram? A lot of places now either force you to accept tracking or pay to stop ads/tracking if you want to access the site.
I thought the directive says that when cookies are denied you cannot deny the service.
Brother doesn’t know the difference between cookies and terms of service. Wild
