5 ms·

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

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]

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]