4 ms·

This is such a wildly first-amendment-forward take I couldn’t even begin to understand how you could construct a principled argument against it.

• idle_zealot 2y ago
  The argument against it is that by visiting a site you are initiating an exchange as determined by the site operator. In the case of YT, you are watching a video you want to, and must in return watch ads or pay for a premium subscription. The technical details, according to this argument, are invisible to most people and therefore irrelevant. This is, of course, a stance that only makes sense to someone without a real sense of ownership over their computing devices, i.e. to someone who views computers as appliances that are used to consume services.
  • iopq 2y ago
    I didn't sign a contract, so any exchange youtube perceives from my visit is their own hallucination because I didn't agree to their terms.
    • raizer88 2y ago
      Pretty sure today you can't visit YouTube without accepting a ToS.
      • iopq 2y ago
        Or else what? I didn't accept anything when I went to youtube.com Can you force me to keep to an agreement I didn't agree to?
      • DEADMINCE 2y ago
        Sure you can; I do it every day.
      • p_l 2y ago
        If the page content included the content that was supposed to be behind paywall, but you didn't agree to any ToS because you never had seen the paywall, how far in the forest does the pained cry of IP lawyer carry?
      • mvdtnz 2y ago
        Of course you can.