4 ms·

Your website is a guest in my house, which is to say, my machine, and I will do with it what I please. If the ad industry hadn't turned out to be predatory and

by kibwen 3y ago

Your website is a guest in my house, which is to say, my machine, and I will do with it what I please. If the ad industry hadn't turned out to be predatory and malicious, I'd be just as apathetic to watching ads today as an adult as I used to be as a child. Google has nobody but themselves to blame for pissing in the pot and telling us to drink up. You'd have to be a fool to allow ads on your machine in the modern era.

tjpnz 3y ago
Whoever came up with that copy must be a complete megalomaniac.
genocidicbunny 3y ago
I've recently been wondering how viable is it for me to send a ToS in a request header that basically says something along the lines of "If your server chooses to respond to this request with a non-error HTTP code and content, it constitutes your acceptance of these terms. These terms say you owe me $10 per ad you attempt to show to me."
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  It’s entirely viable to send, but said contract would be entirely invalid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds
  - genocidicbunny 3y ago
    My headcanon is that this is no different than most ToS on websites, and if those hold up to legal scrutiny, so should this. Either both are valid or neither are.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      They are largely invalid too, which is why no one catches CFAA charges for accessing YouTube in violation of their terms.
    - tzs 3y ago
      It depends on how the website handles its TOS. See this article [1] for information on how a website can make its TOS legally binding. [1] https://www.upcounsel.com/are-website-terms-and-conditions-legally-binding https://www.upcounsel.com/are-website-terms-and-conditions-l...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- drsopp 3y ago
  Or perhaps a kind of standardized reverse EULA that you store in your browser. If the webpage doesn't support it, the page won't load.
  - genocidicbunny 3y ago
    Nah, no standardized EULA -- if they're going to have us accept freeform ToS, the same should apply in reverse.
- LinuxBender 3y ago
  I've never signed a contract with Alphabet or Youtube. Maybe because I don't log into Youtube? I'm still waiting for people to follow my AUP/ToS. [1] I will never know if they are in compliance. [Edit] I suppose ironically Youtube have a myriad of instructional videos on how to follow my AUP/ToS. [2] [1] - https://bender.ohblog.net/#AUP-ToS https://bender.ohblog.net/#AUP-ToS [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuTSLp8BCwo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuTSLp8BCwo [video][3 mins][tutorial]
onion2k 3y ago
Yes, but that works both ways. My website works the way I code it to work, and if that means I detect adblockers and display a different page to you if you're running one then that's the website you visited and you have no recourse other than to accept that's how I want it to work. You can't have things both ways. You have to accept that the cost of seeing content is to see ads. You should have no expectation that you can block ads and see content.
- maxerickson 3y ago
  Or you know, try to evade the detection. Like you can say that is unethical or immoral or whatever, but it is certainly a form of recourse.
- genocidicbunny 3y ago
  I agree, but that leads further to the argument that I then have the right to modify the code that is running on my machine as I wish, which includes removing protections you put in place to make it not work when I do something you don't like. The cat-and-mouse game continues...
  - henriquez 3y ago
    It’s an impasse not a cat-and-mouse game. Sure you have the right to modify any code that Google’s server serves to your machine, but if Google’s server decides to not serve you videos, for any reason, then that’s where your game ends. It’s likely that there are server side checks for a whole tangled mess of client cookies and XHR pings across a hundred different subdomains, and you’re not going to trick them into thinking you’re watching ads when you aren’t.
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      > and you’re not going to trick them into thinking you’re watching ads when you aren’t. Trivial. https://adnauseam.io/ https://adnauseam.io/
    - genocidicbunny 3y ago
currency 3y ago
I have no problem with sponsored YouTube videos where the host inserts a quick ad. If it's too long I can fast forward through it. I'm at the point though where if I want to watch a YT video I'll download it.
astrobe_ 3y ago
> Your website is a guest in my house, which is to say, my machine, and I will do with it what I please. If only - but sorry, nope. Both for websites and software, the provider provides a service under conditions (or license) backed up by IP laws. This is what allows Windows to behave as if your PC was their property. Your only option to keep being a master in your house is to not let in vampires.

by kibwen 3y ago

tjpnz 3y ago

Whoever came up with that copy must be a complete megalomaniac.

genocidicbunny 3y ago

I've recently been wondering how viable is it for me to send a ToS in a request header that basically says something along the lines of "If your server chooses to respond to this request with a non-error HTTP code and content, it constitutes your acceptance of these terms. These terms say you owe me $10 per ad you attempt to show to me."

ceejayoz 3y ago
It’s entirely viable to send, but said contract would be entirely invalid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds
- genocidicbunny 3y ago
  My headcanon is that this is no different than most ToS on websites, and if those hold up to legal scrutiny, so should this. Either both are valid or neither are.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    They are largely invalid too, which is why no one catches CFAA charges for accessing YouTube in violation of their terms.
  - tzs 3y ago
    It depends on how the website handles its TOS. See this article [1] for information on how a website can make its TOS legally binding. [1] https://www.upcounsel.com/are-website-terms-and-conditions-legally-binding https://www.upcounsel.com/are-website-terms-and-conditions-l...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
drsopp 3y ago
Or perhaps a kind of standardized reverse EULA that you store in your browser. If the webpage doesn't support it, the page won't load.
- genocidicbunny 3y ago
  Nah, no standardized EULA -- if they're going to have us accept freeform ToS, the same should apply in reverse.
LinuxBender 3y ago
I've never signed a contract with Alphabet or Youtube. Maybe because I don't log into Youtube? I'm still waiting for people to follow my AUP/ToS. [1] I will never know if they are in compliance. [Edit] I suppose ironically Youtube have a myriad of instructional videos on how to follow my AUP/ToS. [2] [1] - https://bender.ohblog.net/#AUP-ToS https://bender.ohblog.net/#AUP-ToS [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuTSLp8BCwo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuTSLp8BCwo [video][3 mins][tutorial]

onion2k 3y ago

Yes, but that works both ways. My website works the way I code it to work, and if that means I detect adblockers and display a different page to you if you're running one then that's the website you visited and you have no recourse other than to accept that's how I want it to work. You can't have things both ways. You have to accept that the cost of seeing content is to see ads. You should have no expectation that you can block ads and see content.

maxerickson 3y ago
Or you know, try to evade the detection. Like you can say that is unethical or immoral or whatever, but it is certainly a form of recourse.
genocidicbunny 3y ago
I agree, but that leads further to the argument that I then have the right to modify the code that is running on my machine as I wish, which includes removing protections you put in place to make it not work when I do something you don't like. The cat-and-mouse game continues...
- henriquez 3y ago
  It’s an impasse not a cat-and-mouse game. Sure you have the right to modify any code that Google’s server serves to your machine, but if Google’s server decides to not serve you videos, for any reason, then that’s where your game ends. It’s likely that there are server side checks for a whole tangled mess of client cookies and XHR pings across a hundred different subdomains, and you’re not going to trick them into thinking you’re watching ads when you aren’t.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    > and you’re not going to trick them into thinking you’re watching ads when you aren’t. Trivial. https://adnauseam.io/ https://adnauseam.io/
  - genocidicbunny 3y ago

currency 3y ago

I have no problem with sponsored YouTube videos where the host inserts a quick ad. If it's too long I can fast forward through it. I'm at the point though where if I want to watch a YT video I'll download it.

astrobe_ 3y ago

> Your website is a guest in my house, which is to say, my machine, and I will do with it what I please. If only - but sorry, nope. Both for websites and software, the provider provides a service under conditions (or license) backed up by IP laws. This is what allows Windows to behave as if your PC was their property. Your only option to keep being a master in your house is to not let in vampires.