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.
Or you can just not use the product. It’s what I do. And it works wonders.
so smart
That’s not so easy when it’s something you already paid for and then they lay unacceptable terms on you and if you don’t agree they get your money and you don’t even get to use it.
Buyer beware. Sunken cost is not a viable reason to continue getting fucked by a company.
I mean, look at how bad it is:
People are meaninglessly downvoting me because I’m suggesting they not use a service made by a company that notoriously and provenly has fucked them over for years.
This is Stockholm syndrome. They defend the very thing that abuses them.
So compliant, such a good boy.
Wait. Let me get this straight…
You’re saying that I’m a “compliment good boy” for not putting up with the bullshit antics of a major corporation and deciding to not use their shit product?
Meanwhile, Lemmy is nearly bursting at the seams with little kids whining about how “bootlickers” stick up for and defend major corporations.
Is today some sort of Opposite Day?
WTF is wrong with this place?
Well while you’re choosing not to lick the boot that steps on you the rest of us are choosing to wear the the boot by ignoring the wishes of capitalist whores and exploiting their services that are bought and paid for as evidenced by a profit margin.
ROFL! Good luck with that. They’re bigger and better than anything you can try.
Your only effective weapon is your ability to not use their services. But you can’t do that, can you?
And they know that. Because they know you.
Lol I’m using their services for free without ads, how am I not taking advantage?
Do what you wish, but whining about something while still using it is foolish.
dumb take.
lets all become caveman because corporations took control of the entire modern world.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I block ads too but do you expect them to host one of the world’s largest collections of data just because?
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”.
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.
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.
Oh, he’s on odysee? Nice!
This reminds me of how when reddit closed their API, a select few just went to web scraping it instead lol.
Many others just stopped using Reddit alltogether. But Stockholm syndrome is a bitch when it comes to YouTube. So everyone will continue to whine about how shitty YouTube is whilst not bothering to do what is necessary to correct it-
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 can set this exactly like that in firefox
Brother doesn’t know the difference between cookies and terms of service. Wild
When seeing all the anti-YouTube memes, and reading all the anti-YouTube posts, I can’t help but wonder why we didn’t get one single wave of these memes and posts, and then silence on the subject.
And then I remember.
It’s because people don’t want to do the thing that makes change. Which is- STOP USING THE PLATFORM.
Whining about a thing while continuing to support said thing is essentially Stockholm syndrome.
Get help.
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.
