3 ms·

I will not be pretending that. I am _asserting_ it. I made no such agreement with YouTube. I am very confused why you think I did

by baumy 10mo ago

tailrecursion 10mo ago
I agree with this. There was no meeting of the minds, no contract. But, the terms in the Google account probably include something about the terms for viewing youtube videos.
- JAlexoid 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - jemmyw 10mo ago
    > You know that when a public pace of business has "No dogs" sign and you enter it, that you entered into a contract with that business You are incorrect about that, which probably invalidates your other arguments. A condition of entry is not a contract. If you disobey the condition of entry then you have not broken a contract, and nothing changes between you and the business owner. They can ask you to leave and they can trespass you if you do not, but importantly, they can do those things for any reason they like, whether you obey the conditions of entry or not. It is not a contract by law, nor does it meet the definition of a contract. Similarly, YouTube can retract their website from public view, or attempt to block you specifically. But you have not entered into a contract with them by viewing the site.
    - JAlexoid 10mo ago
      [flagged]
      - ImPostingOnHN 10mo ago
        If you bring a dog in, you cannot be sued for any sort of tort relating to breach of contract. At most, you could be asked to leave, trespassed if you refuse, and sued for damages if the dog broke something or someone. Please don't attack others, and in general, it's not a good idea to use terms like Dunning-Kruger when you are incorrect. Ad blocking is not piracy under any statuatory or case law, period.
      - jemmyw 10mo ago
        As far as I can find, in the US and the UK, conditions of entry to a business are considered an implied license and not an implied contract because there's no mutual intent to form a binding legal agreement. A business can revoke the license and trespass you, but they cannot sue you for breach of contract. A unilateral contract requires some kind of "promise accepted through performance" I note that this does appear to be different under Australian law, if that is where you're from, although it's still not a unilateral contract.
JAlexoid 10mo ago
Are you going to lie that you didn't know that the videos are shown to you in exchange for ads? Entering into a contract doesn't necessarily require you to sign a document. Quite a few contracts that we make every day require no formal acceptance, like entering a shop.
- baumy 10mo ago
  No, I'm going to state the truth that I never agreed to be shown ads, and you are extremely weird for lying and claiming that I did. Google wants to show me ads. I don't want to see them. I demonstrated this by blocking them. Google continues to show me videos anyway. Clearly they're ok with the arrangement. They are free to present me with written terms, or gate all their videos behind a login, but they choose not to do so. You are either very confused or playing stupid for some reason that I don't understand, but it isn't amusing or cute. This will probably earn me a dang warning but I don't really care - you are full of shit. You're making claims all over this thread that you've literally just made up.
  - HDThoreaun 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - baumy 10mo ago
      This is juvenile nonsense. I can point directly to the law in whatever jurisdiction you care to name that makes doing what you describe illegal. You cannot point to anything that makes it illegal to view videos on a publicly accessible website without watching the ads that usually play before them.
      - HDThoreaun 10mo ago
        This is how I feel about claiming that stealing from YouTube isn’t actually stealing. Juvenile nonsense. That’s why I came up with a nonsense counter argument

I will not be pretending that. I am _asserting_ it. I made no such agreement with YouTube. I am very confused why you think I did

by baumy 10mo ago

I will not be pretending that. I am _asserting_ it. I made no such agreement with YouTube. I am very confused why you think I did

tailrecursion 10mo ago

I agree with this. There was no meeting of the minds, no contract. But, the terms in the Google account probably include something about the terms for viewing youtube videos.

JAlexoid 10mo ago
[flagged]
- jemmyw 10mo ago
  > You know that when a public pace of business has "No dogs" sign and you enter it, that you entered into a contract with that business You are incorrect about that, which probably invalidates your other arguments. A condition of entry is not a contract. If you disobey the condition of entry then you have not broken a contract, and nothing changes between you and the business owner. They can ask you to leave and they can trespass you if you do not, but importantly, they can do those things for any reason they like, whether you obey the conditions of entry or not. It is not a contract by law, nor does it meet the definition of a contract. Similarly, YouTube can retract their website from public view, or attempt to block you specifically. But you have not entered into a contract with them by viewing the site.
  - JAlexoid 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - ImPostingOnHN 10mo ago
      If you bring a dog in, you cannot be sued for any sort of tort relating to breach of contract. At most, you could be asked to leave, trespassed if you refuse, and sued for damages if the dog broke something or someone. Please don't attack others, and in general, it's not a good idea to use terms like Dunning-Kruger when you are incorrect. Ad blocking is not piracy under any statuatory or case law, period.
    - jemmyw 10mo ago
      As far as I can find, in the US and the UK, conditions of entry to a business are considered an implied license and not an implied contract because there's no mutual intent to form a binding legal agreement. A business can revoke the license and trespass you, but they cannot sue you for breach of contract. A unilateral contract requires some kind of "promise accepted through performance" I note that this does appear to be different under Australian law, if that is where you're from, although it's still not a unilateral contract.

JAlexoid 10mo ago

Are you going to lie that you didn't know that the videos are shown to you in exchange for ads? Entering into a contract doesn't necessarily require you to sign a document. Quite a few contracts that we make every day require no formal acceptance, like entering a shop.

baumy 10mo ago
No, I'm going to state the truth that I never agreed to be shown ads, and you are extremely weird for lying and claiming that I did. Google wants to show me ads. I don't want to see them. I demonstrated this by blocking them. Google continues to show me videos anyway. Clearly they're ok with the arrangement. They are free to present me with written terms, or gate all their videos behind a login, but they choose not to do so. You are either very confused or playing stupid for some reason that I don't understand, but it isn't amusing or cute. This will probably earn me a dang warning but I don't really care - you are full of shit. You're making claims all over this thread that you've literally just made up.
- HDThoreaun 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - baumy 10mo ago
    This is juvenile nonsense. I can point directly to the law in whatever jurisdiction you care to name that makes doing what you describe illegal. You cannot point to anything that makes it illegal to view videos on a publicly accessible website without watching the ads that usually play before them.
    - HDThoreaun 10mo ago
      This is how I feel about claiming that stealing from YouTube isn’t actually stealing. Juvenile nonsense. That’s why I came up with a nonsense counter argument