3 ms·

> this is essentially a rehash of the "what constitutes unauthorized access to unsecured resources?" debate Youtube's Terms of Service[0] specifically say: ``

> this is essentially a rehash of the "what constitutes unauthorized access to unsecured resources?" debate Youtube's Terms of Service[0] specifically say: ``` The following restrictions apply to your use of the Service. You are not allowed to: ... 2. circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage with, or otherwise interfere with any part of the Service (or attempt to do any of these things), including security-related features or features that (a) prevent or restrict the copying or other use of Content or (b) limit the use of the Service or Content; ``` It's not a matter of "disagreeing" on what is allowed or not. If you don't agree with the ToS, you're free to not use the service. Let's not fool ourselves here. 0 - https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms

EMIRELADERO 5y ago
Since at no point in time am I forced to read nor agree to those terms, I don't think they can be used as an argument.
- FabHK 5y ago
  First time you go to YouTube (at least in Europe), it shows a cookie banner containing a link to the ToS. (Try it from a private mode browser window.)
- niij 5y ago
  You're allowed to be ignorant of trespassing statutes too. But you can still be kicked out of someone's business.
  - stevage 5y ago
    That's quite different. In criminal law, ignorance of the law is explicitly not a defence. In contract law, you have to sign up to the contract. One side can not just assert that the other side agreed to some terms unless they can show that this happened.
    - gtirloni 5y ago
      Browserwrap agreements don't require the user to click on anything though.
getcrunk 5y ago
Irrespective of the larger argument; I mean many TOS are unethical and/or shouldn't carry moral weight. If it was one company sure, don't use it. But the majority of companies (web or otherwise) have excessive and dense TOS to which the average person cannot give informed consent to anyways. Let's not fool ourselves here
- gtirloni 5y ago
  > I mean many TOS are unethical and/or shouldn't carry moral weight Surely, some ToS are poorly written. Still, the owners of the service decided that those were the rules they want to play by. If they go against some law in a certain country, I'm sure a court would invalidate them in specific cases. Do you have reason to believe Youtube's ToS is unethical or shouldn't carry moral weight (specially the #2 paragraph I quoted)? > But the majority of companies (web or otherwise) have excessive and dense TOS to which the average person cannot give informed consent to anyways. YT's ToS seems pretty straightforward. Do you think the paragraph I quoted which talked about obstructing the service is written in excessive legalese? Was it unclear somehow?

EMIRELADERO 5y ago

Since at no point in time am I forced to read nor agree to those terms, I don't think they can be used as an argument.

FabHK 5y ago
First time you go to YouTube (at least in Europe), it shows a cookie banner containing a link to the ToS. (Try it from a private mode browser window.)
niij 5y ago
You're allowed to be ignorant of trespassing statutes too. But you can still be kicked out of someone's business.
- stevage 5y ago
  That's quite different. In criminal law, ignorance of the law is explicitly not a defence. In contract law, you have to sign up to the contract. One side can not just assert that the other side agreed to some terms unless they can show that this happened.
  - gtirloni 5y ago
    Browserwrap agreements don't require the user to click on anything though.

getcrunk 5y ago

Irrespective of the larger argument; I mean many TOS are unethical and/or shouldn't carry moral weight. If it was one company sure, don't use it. But the majority of companies (web or otherwise) have excessive and dense TOS to which the average person cannot give informed consent to anyways. Let's not fool ourselves here

gtirloni 5y ago
> I mean many TOS are unethical and/or shouldn't carry moral weight Surely, some ToS are poorly written. Still, the owners of the service decided that those were the rules they want to play by. If they go against some law in a certain country, I'm sure a court would invalidate them in specific cases. Do you have reason to believe Youtube's ToS is unethical or shouldn't carry moral weight (specially the #2 paragraph I quoted)? > But the majority of companies (web or otherwise) have excessive and dense TOS to which the average person cannot give informed consent to anyways. YT's ToS seems pretty straightforward. Do you think the paragraph I quoted which talked about obstructing the service is written in excessive legalese? Was it unclear somehow?