You do know you can just click the "reject all" button, right?

Context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqhPUmyrfGI
Without ads/tracking: https://www.yewtu.be/watch?v=fqhPUmyrfGI

You're viewing a single thread.

83 comments

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.pcmag.com/news/it-would-take-17-hours-to-read-the-terms-conditions-of-the-13-most-popular
  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
  
  ToS are not law.
  https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/07/court-violating-terms-service-not-crime-bypassing
  
  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.
  
  in the context of what yt enforce on their shit, yes they are law
  
  TOS is not law lmao
  
  in the context of what yt enforce on their shit, yes.
- 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://helpcenter.yola.com/hc/en-us/articles/360011549640-Creating-GDPR-compliant-Terms-and-Conditions-with-a-sample-#h_01HE82BYF85W8SHFW3BFDZQ7DY
  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

83 comments