this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
640 points (92.9% liked)

memes

10450 readers
4039 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Stovetop 151 points 10 months ago (20 children)

BY ACCESSING THIS SITE YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOUTUBE (HEREBY REFERRED TO AS THE "PLATFORM") HAS THE ABILITY TO FORCE YOU (HEREBY REFERRED TO AS THE "SCHMUCK") TO AGREE IN PROXY TO ANY ABSURD CONDITION THE PLATFORM DECIDES, AMENDABLE AT ANY TIME WITHOUT NOTICE, AND WITH STIPULATION THAT THE SCHMUCK MAY NEVER EVER CHALLENGE THE PLATFORM IN COURT OR EVEN LOOK AT THE PLATFORM THE WRONG WAY WHILE WALKING BY ONE ANOTHER IN THE HALL, LEST IT HURT THE PLATFORM'S FEELINGS.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] [email protected] 87 points 10 months ago (8 children)

By using the service, you agree to the TOS. What you are "rejecting all" to are cookies. Still scummy behavior tho

[–] CaptPretentious 39 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Considering many internet providers now have bandwidth caps, it is my policy do not allow arbitrary data on my network (aka ads). It's also my policy that my policy supersedes any arbitrary terms of services. And that any platform accessing my network henceforth retroactively accepts my policy and terms of service.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You could send that in a HTTP header, with the stipulation that the server responding would accept the terms.

[–] phoneymouse 6 points 10 months ago

“By responding to this request, you implicitly accept my terms and conditions.”

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (14 children)
load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] TropicalDingdong 45 points 10 months ago

At a certain point, the world of the closed internet is going to face the issue of discovery, which is the only reason that they were successful in the first place.

Its really a great time for foss or fedi. It hasn't been easier to compete with established players (like it is now) in a decade.

[–] betterdeadthanreddit 41 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Those might be the terms of service they started with but a little "Inspect Element" and editing means I agreed to something else entirely.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I don't get WHY I have to choose. Default should be reject all. If there is no reject then just accept it. How hard can this be to get on the Internet?

I hate the cookie popup.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You have to choose because they want that data, so they're gonna make "accept all" the default and "reject all" as hard as legally possible

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Think about it like walking into a store, but before you enter you have to agree to the tos and sign. You see how bad that would be to the user experience. Today I believe the store can track you as much as they want to. There is no opt out.

[–] psud 7 points 10 months ago

The loyalty card is the cookie

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The thing is, too, that remembering your decision to reject all has to be done through a cookie, and they know this and take advantage of that fact! 99.9% of websites only offer a choice that makes you dig through at least one menu, or a choice that makes you have to click the 'reject all' button every time the page reloads.

There needs to be a mandate to add an option to "reject all except my decision to reject" that corresponds to a single boolean. It should exist under a standardized id, and if it's set to true, the site would be required to stop showing you cookie popups. And if the cookie contains anything more than that single boolean and the website it applies to at most, it should be illegal and reportable as such.

Of course, as you mentioned, that would probably be quite difficult to accomplish legally.

[–] Feathercrown 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You're allowed to store that decision in a cookie already, it's considered "necessary" or whatever

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't care about your terms of service. You can attempt to stop me from using an ad-blocker, but there are ways around that.

If you don't want me using your service the way I want to, then there should be another service that does the same thing. As long as there is no competition to YouTube, I'll use it the way I want, TOS be damned.

[–] Sheeple 29 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

And repeat after me: controlling what appears on YOUR screen that YOU OWN is not illegal and in fact, a basic human right of yours

Edit: lmao on the people intentionally misinterpreting what I said. Dude it's my device, kindly fuck off if you think anyone gets to tell me what I HAVE to put on there

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Your iconic username pops up a lot in such discussions. Thanks for being awesome.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Fr I felt like a celeb responded to me

[–] Sheeple 2 points 10 months ago

And imagine to me many of you are celebs :)

[–] MyDearWatson616 5 points 10 months ago

I block ads too but do you expect them to host one of the world's largest collections of data just because?

[–] mhague 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Repeat after me: I will have the self-awareness to realize that I made the conscious decision to go to a website and incur server costs. I am not entitled to free content. If I don't agree with how a website recoups costs, I won't use that website.

It's not malware vectors. It's not fake downloads. It's short interstitials that let you watch things 'for free.' Youtube is not a human right. It's not water. You can do other things.

[–] CurlyMoustache 5 points 10 months ago

What happens on my devices and/or inside my home, I decide. If websites don't like that, block me. I'm OK with that.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] justlookingfordragon 25 points 10 months ago (1 children)

As someone with a youtube channel and regular uploads ... fuck ads. Use uBlock Origin, Adblock Plus or whatever else works to wipe that garbage off the screen.

I'm extra sour about their suuuuuper useful new-ish option for content creators to turn off personalized ads in their channels - something I immediatly agreed to, because I thought it would, ... y'now ... get rid of the fucking ads.

Nope. All it does is swap "personalized" ads for "unpersonalized" ones, so my followers get the same type of garbage shoved into their faces, just more random. Thanks Youtube, this is exactly what I wanted to achieve. dripping sarcasm, in case it wasn't obvious

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (4 children)

unpersonalized ads are much better for privacy and are less effective at selling stuff which is better for the user.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Exusia 22 points 10 months ago

I agreed to it because there's no real competition for content, so they own the market by default. If you don't hit "I agree" to every last stipulation, data provision, and term you dont have access to the the largest library of information, shitposting, and weaponised opinions since dawn of radio or television.

I don't agree with it. So adblock stays.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You can reject cookies, not the TOS. You agree to the TOS of services by simply using them.

[–] Sheeple 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well, you do. But the EU has a bunch of sanity check laws that make basically all of them non-binding.

Such as any agreement too long for anyone to actually read, being moot.

But YT makes it pretty clear they don't want you blocking ads, that might actually make that specific part one of the few things that would stand up in court.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mlg 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This reminds me of how when reddit closed their API, a select few just went to web scraping it instead lol.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Many others just stopped using Reddit alltogether. But Stockholm syndrome is a bitch when it comes to YouTube. So everyone will continue to whine about how shitty YouTube is whilst not bothering to do what is necessary to correct it-

[–] Krafting 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] renzev 7 points 10 months ago

Oh, he's on odysee? Nice!

[–] LemmyRefugee 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And what about Spain with cookies, or Instagram? A lot of places now either force you to accept tracking or pay to stop ads/tracking if you want to access the site.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

I thought the directive says that when cookies are denied you cannot deny the service.

load more comments
view more: next ›