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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
By using the service, you agree to the TOS. What you are “rejecting all” to are cookies. Still scummy behavior tho
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.
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.
mmh, why exactly are you so passionate about a thing which for sure does not matter to me, but it seems neither to you? :)
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
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.”