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

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.

dumb take.

lets all become caveman because corporations took control of the entire modern world.

So compliant, such a good boy.

You could send that in a HTTP header, with the stipulation that the server responding would accept the terms.

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.

Ignorance of the law is only a defense if you're a police officer

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.

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".

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 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.

Your iconic username pops up a lot in such discussions. Thanks for being awesome.

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.

Even better would have been an option to turn them off entirely =P but that's what UBlock Origin is for.

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.

Those things will fail. But you know that, don’t you?