Experimental Youtube "feature" detects and blocks some users of ad blocking browser extensions on Youtube

[Dracarris]

4 hours ago, Giganthrax said:

Adblock users are always going to be a tiny minority. Youtube never has and never will be seriously threatened by people who use adblocks. This is 1000% just Google being greedy and wanting to appease its shareholders.

It's apparently highly channel dependent. On tech enthusiast/tinkerer oriented channels the creator might see 50% of adblock users, some channels with makeup tutorials might only get 5%.. So the former usually anyways use baked-in sponsorships as prime source of income, then premium, then membership/super thanks, then adsense. Last two might be the other way round.

[williamcll]

Remember to get sponsorblock too. Good things don't need advertising.

[Neroon]

On 10/19/2023 at 4:18 PM, SpaceGhostC2C said:

In their current form, they should. 

I get that people dislike or even hate what it has become, but I think people forget that it will always turn out this way. Publicly traded companies have a mandate to maximize profits. No one is gonna run something like YT out of the goodness of their hard. By all means hate capitalism, I know I do, but it won't change a thing.

 

In the end, they offer a service, the deal to use that service is to either pay a fixed amount per month, or pay with your time through watching ads.

If you don't like either, then you can stop using it. But keep using it but bitch about them having a business model and need to disappear, makes you a hypocrite. So either keep using it, whether it be with blockers or not, and accept its existence, or stop using it.

 

Ps you might not give a shit about Google making less, but remember you are also taking away from content creators through blocking ads. By all means you can also not give a shit about that either, but don't point a finger at Google for being 'evil', when you are part of the problem you take issue with, exploiting the creators.

[Mark Kaine]

33 minutes ago, Neroon said:

In the end, they offer a service, the deal to use that service is to either pay a fixed amount per month, or pay with your time through watching ads.

... but that never was the deal...

 

If you (aka yt) wants this to be a deal you need to make it one, *members only*, not publicly available to none members,  all your issues will vanish at this instant.  But before you do that don't tell me there's a "deal" when there is none. 

 

To have a deal you need to have at least two parties agreeing on terms. look it up!  

[Mark Kaine]

7 hours ago, williamcll said:

Remember to get sponsorblock too. Good things don't need advertising.

Last part... well, yes and no... even good things need some sort of advertising, especially nowadays since there's so much bs that's not worth buying or using...

 

And i think i don't really agree with the first part either... imo having a sponsor is a much better way to have some kind of "income", the *deciding factor* here is how its actually implemented.  in other words, this is a "you problem" (figuratively)... if the channel you want to watch has a sponsor you don't agree with, be it the sponsor itself or how its implemented  -- then why the hell are you watching? You *will* support this sponsor and content by pure virtue of watching,  either you use a block or not -- sure you won't be seeing it but yt and the algorithm knows you're watching,  thus promote the channel,  and sponsor...

 

the thing here is there are tons of channels that incorporate their sponsors well, and tbh in the majority i don't mind what or who it is, i know i like the content and I know the channels needs to make money "somehow".... not even necessarily for a living,  but to cover their costs *at least*.

 

Good implementation means, A short, B can be skipped,  or C a combination of those.

 

Doesn't bother me one bit, especially if its short (max 10 seconds) i will not skip it, its a concession im more than willing to do... if its longer I'll probably skip, but that still amounts to the roughly "10 seconds" im willing to endure (out of sheer self interest if im honest, as i *want* to support a channel who's content i enjoy,  no doubt) 

 

And the "funny" thing is there's a gazillion of such channels,  often paired with something like patreon, etc.

actually there's tons of channels that are only monetized through patreon, they don't serve "any" ads as far thats possible (on yt a creator cant just "opt out" of ads as you probably know)

 

here's *one* example of such a video / channel... afaik almost all his videos have a sponsor (but not all) and its completely none distracting,  short, usually fitting, and dare i say, even funny... 

 

And its a very successful channel too afaik (and idk if he gets yt ad money on top of it, i literally do not care, there aren't any ads as far i can see, otherwise i would *never* watch it)

 

 

 

cost probably 10s of thousands dollars to make, yet this takes a complete backseat, in a very none distractive manner (again,  very short, and even fucking funny how he does it) 

 

also mind you, not a channel i watch regularly,  a very good example nonetheless. 

[tikker]

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

To have a deal you need to have at least two parties agreeing on terms. look it up!  

Like the "I agree" button everyone mindlessly clicks on every service without reading what they are agreeing to where you typically agree to use the service as provided to you? Neither you nor YouTube agreed to an ad-free service on a free account because that was never offered to you in the ToS.

[Mark Kaine]

47 minutes ago, tikker said:

Like the "I agree" button everyone mindlessly clicks on every service without reading what they are agreeing to where you typically agree to use the service as provided to you? Neither you nor YouTube agreed to an ad-free service on a free account because that was never offered to you in the ToS.

everyone who's replying to this with a "TOS" didn't understand what i have been saying.  A TOS isnt a binding contract -- there is no "deal".

 

i understand that people might feel like that it is one, but it's technically really not -- you cannot make any deal this way -- it would need to be labeled a contract to begin with.

 

So while a TOS in parts, can be legally binding,  its not a contract and not a "deal".

 

Don't you have to actually sign a contract for something like netflix? Or is all they give you a "TOS" too?

 

 

 

All you did with this answer is confirm to me that yt *really really* doesn't want their users having to sign an actual contract demanding to watch ads "or else" ... because they know exactly on what shakey grounds such a contract would stand... 

 

basically yes they give you a TOS - which would be part of any service agreement,  ie contract,  they just don't give you an actual contract - afaik - so again,  there's no deal , no obligations on either side... just some sort of - none legally bindind - "expectations" 

 

 

as i already said, make it members only , give people actual contracts and the issue (of any sort of legality questions) should just vanish, no?

Don't hide any sort of perceived "contracts" behind a 'TOS' which as you rightly noted, nobody reads anyway.  (in EU this is certainly not how legal contracts work)

 

[Arika]

3 hours ago, Neroon said:

I get that people dislike or even hate what it has become, but I think people forget that it will always turn out this way. Publicly traded companies have a mandate to maximize profits.

[PocketNerd]

On 10/20/2023 at 8:20 AM, CarlBar said:

-snip-

You forgot another reason for TV ads, for live television they’re often used to swap between sets/segments or give the host and crew a short break.

[tikker]

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

everyone who's replying to this with a "TOS" didn't understand what i have been saying.  A TOS isnt a binding contract -- there is no "deal".

 

i understand that people might feel like that it is one, but it's technically really not -- you cannot make any deal this way -- it would need to be labeled a contract to begin with.

 

So while a TOS in parts, can be legally binding,  its not a contract and not a "deal".

Why is it not a deal? What is your definition of a contract? You are offered a service under a set of conditions. 'You can use this service under these conditions' that is the "deal" and these clickwrap agreements, as far as I know, are just as legally binding as any other type of contract if they don't break laws and meet enforceability criteria. You don't have to label it "contract" for it to be a contract. A simple oral agreement "you can have this video game for €50" already constitutes a legally binding contract, albeit one that may prove hard to enforce in practise (in my country at least).  A written version serves to create a physical record and a signature only serves to generate physical proof of you agreeing to it.

 

IANAL and the exact details will likely change depending on the country you are in, but they seem to fall under 'adhesion contracts':

Quote

https://ironcladapp.com/journal/contracts/contract-of-adhesion/

An adhesion contract is a legal agreement that is drafted by one party, but not the other. This means that the party signing the agreement had no chance to bargain for the agreement’s terms. Instead, it is a “take it or leave it” situation. The consumer is presented with a contract, they have a chance to read it, and they must then choose to sign it or not. There is no middle ground. The consumer takes the provisions “as is” or they choose not to agree.

Are clickwrap agreements contracts of adhesion?

Clickwrap agreements are contracts of adhesion. However, they are still enforceable when they are managed correctly. A clickwrap agreement is an online agreement users accept by clicking a button or checking a box that says “I agree.” They don’t get a chance to change or negotiate the terms. They can either agree or choose not to. By definition, this makes clickwrap agreements contracts of adhesion.
 

Are clickwrap agreements legally enforceable?

Laws like the Electronic Signatures Act (ESIGN) and The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) make clickwrap agreements legally enforceable.

In the EU they at least seem valid between businesses: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=083a1d18-8492-41d0-8171-3ee521b67811

 

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

Don't you have to actually sign a contract for something like netflix? Or is all they give you a "TOS" too?

I don't physically sign antyhing for Netflix as it is all digital, so I guess not? What do you see as the contrac there? According to Netflix there is none:

Quote

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/112419
As a Netflix member, you are charged once a month on the date you signed up. There are no contracts, no cancellation fees, and no commitments. You have the freedom to change your plan or cancel online at any time if you decide Netflix isn’t for you.

Although I think they are referring to fixed-term contracts. The contract you enter with Netflix is that you can consume their content as long as you adhere to their ToS and pay them the correct amount for the tier you subscribe to every month you use it.

 

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

All you did with this answer is confirm to me that yt *really really* doesn't want their users having to sign an actual contract demanding to watch ads "or else" ... because they know exactly on what shakey grounds such a contract would stand... 

basically yes they give you a TOS - which would be part of any service agreement,  ie contract,  they just don't give you an actual contract - afaik - so again,  there's no deal , no obligations on either side... just some sort of - none legally bindind - "expectations" 
 

as i already said, make it members only , give people actual contracts and the issue (of any sort of legality questions) should just vanish, no?

Don't hide any sort of perceived "contracts" behind a 'TOS' which as you rightly noted, nobody reads anyway.  (in EU this is certainly not how legal contracts work)

I am not aware of any illegal aspects about not allowing users who don't agree or use ad blockers (the EU has in the past said sites are allowed to use ad block blockers). They have offered you a contract. Is it a fair power balance? Nope. Is it a contract? It seems that way. I think it is much more likely that they don't include it because it might open them up for unfair terms, which indeed would make the agreement invalid by EU rules. Also on one hand it is your fault if you don't read teh terms you are agreeing to.

 

"Nobody reads them anyway" isn't a gotcha either. I you agree to something without reading it that is technically your fault. You can definitely argue that plenty of ToSes and EULAs have gotten extremely out of hand where you can start argueing that it is unreasonable (as has been done I believe?) to expect consumers to read all of the dozens and dozens of pages they sometimes contain. Their enforceability may be questionable most of the time, but they do constitute contracts to my knowledge.

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, tikker said:

Why is it not a deal? What is your definition of a contract? You are offered a service under a set of conditions. 'You can use this service under these conditions' that is the "deal" and these clickwrap agreements, as far as I know, are just as legally binding as any other type of contract if they don't break laws and meet enforceability criteria. You don't have to label it "contract" for it to be a contract. A simple oral agreement "you can have this video game for €50" already constitutes a legally binding contract, albeit one that may prove hard to enforce in practise (in my country at least).  A written version serves to create a physical record and a signature only serves to generate physical proof of you agreeing to it.

 

IANAL and the exact details will likely change depending on the country you are in, but they seem to fall under 'adhesion contracts':

In the EU they at least seem valid between businesses: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=083a1d18-8492-41d0-8171-3ee521b67811

 

I don't physically sign antyhing for Netflix as it is all digital, so I guess not? What do you see as the contrac there? According to Netflix there is none:

Although I think they are referring to fixed-term contracts. The contract you enter with Netflix is that you can consume their content as long as you adhere to their ToS and pay them the correct amount for the tier you subscribe to every month you use it.

 

I am not aware of any illegal aspects about not allowing users who don't agree or use ad blockers (the EU has in the past said sites are allowed to use ad block blockers). They have offered you a contract. Is it a fair power balance? Nope. Is it a contract? It seems that way. I think it is much more likely that they don't include it because it might open them up for unfair terms, which indeed would make the agreement invalid by EU rules. Also on one hand it is your fault if you don't read teh terms you are agreeing to.

 

"Nobody reads them anyway" isn't a gotcha either. I you agree to something without reading it that is technically your fault. You can definitely argue that plenty of ToSes and EULAs have gotten extremely out of hand where you can start argueing that it is unreasonable (as has been done I believe?) to expect consumers to read all of the dozens and dozens of pages they sometimes contain. Their enforceability may be questionable most of the time, but they do constitute contracts to my knowledge.

No offense but in regards to yt this is a load of nonsense,  i have agreed to nothing and i don't have to...

 

in fact i just tried it for your information (not mine, cause i already knew lol) 

 

So google/yt works as follows:

 

A) google cookie notice--> "reject all"

B) yt cookie notice --> "reject all"

 

(funny enough both can't be screenshotted due to "privacy" concerns )

 

Now you can --> freely watch yt and use google to your hearts content,  there's no "TOS" you have to agree to or anything...

 

 

even if there's a "TOS" somewhere (which im sure it is) its not legally binding in any way,  because its not even presented as such to the user, and i already told you hidden tos/agreements/"contracts" are illegal in the EU, precisely because they are hidden,  not obviously visible...

 

 

 

As for netflix, it was a honest question because i couldn't imagine they would be stupid enough to not  to make a binding contract with customers.... but while I take your word for it, I'll still have to investigate this, because I still have a hard time imaging  - because no contract means no obligations,  vocally or digitally or whatever,  it doesn't matter,  you *need* some sort of binding contract if you make some sort of service offer for monetary gains (in the EU) 

 

(looking into it, is a secondary issue anyway tho, was just curious how other services handle this)

 

But for the record, as i just found out,  yt doesn't handle it *at all* (which is kinda cute i gotta admit )

 

 

 

1 hour ago, tikker said:

 They have offered you a contract

... no they did not. and apparently never will, even though im literally begging...

 

 

i never argued use of adblock blockers would be illegal,  so i do not understand this part of the discussion,  btw. 

[Lightwreather]

14 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

So google/yt works as follows:

 

A) google cookie notice--> "reject all"

B) yt cookie notice --> "reject all"

 

(funny enough both can't be screenshotted due to "privacy" concerns )

Not sure where you're getting the "can't be screenshotted" from, it can

Spoiler

ToS is right there in the bottom corner of the screenshot, and is applicable to ALL google services

https://policies.google.com/terms

[Mark Kaine]

34 minutes ago, Lightwreather JfromN said:

ToS is right there in the bottom corner of the screenshot, and is applicable to ALL google services

but... i don't even get to this screen when i just click "reject all"... so im not seeing this tos notice at all...

 

plus, obviously i can use it just fine without agreeing... 

 

its therfore not legally binding,  how could it... i literally don't even see it (and now it becomes less curious *why* i cant screenshot it, that seemed fishy right away ) 

 

ps: some of this i might have seen tbh, but as said you can just click on "reject all" you don't have to agree to anything!  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

 

(and no, i couldn't screenshot it either as said)

 

 

tldr: basically you are making the same false assumption  @tikker made thinking i agreed to something, when decidedly did *not*.  just because there's a TOS somewhere doesn't mean anything to me, this only becomes interesting when i agree to any kind of contract, the tos isn't legally binding just by existing...

 

 

that's like if i tell you talking to me means you agreed to my "tos" (and i will send you a consultation fee,  because OBVIOUSLY you agreed to my "tos" !  )

 

 

1 hour ago, tikker said:

Also on one hand it is your fault if you don't read teh terms you are agreeing to.

all it says is "reject all" (or "agree") and it only mentions cookies , which is not something i associate with any kind of contract,  so i literally never agreed to any terms or contract 

 

(i probably did years ago, when there were different regulations, but not now so lets go with what is currently "offered"?)

[Lightwreather]

31 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

ps: some of this i might have seen tbh, but as said you can just click on "reject all" you don't have to agree to anything!  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

the reject all is only for cookies, not for the ToS

31 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

that's like if i tell you talking to me means you agreed to my "tos" (and i will send you a consultation fee,  because OBVIOUSLY you agreed to my "tos" !  )

I mean, you didn't mention you had a terms of service

[Mark Kaine]

1 minute ago, Lightwreather JfromN said:

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

the reject all is only for cookies, not for the ToS

that's the point... you never have to agree to any tos... why is that difficult to understand?

[Lightwreather]

4 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

that's the point... you never have to agree to any tos... why is that difficult to understand?

It's not that it is difficult to understand, it's that in general if you use a service you are in effect agreeing to its terms. I mean, you wouldn't go into a restaurant, eat there and refuse to pay saying at no point you agreed that you would pay. By entering the restaurant and ordering something, you've entered into a agreement that the restaurant provides you with food (the "service"), while you pay a certain (often predetermined) amount for said service.
And I say this as someone who has hackintoshed multiple times in the past, ie. breaking Apple's ToS for macOS

[Mark Kaine]

14 minutes ago, Lightwreather JfromN said:

It's not that it is difficult to understand, it's that in general if you use a service you are in effect agreeing to its terms. I mean, you wouldn't go into a restaurant, eat there and refuse to pay saying at no point you agreed that you would pay. By entering the restaurant and ordering something, you've entered into a agreement that the restaurant provides you with food (the "service"), while you pay a certain (often predetermined) amount for said service.
And I say this as someone who has hackintoshed multiple times in the past, ie. breaking Apple's ToS for macOS

while this is true in your example,  i don't think its true for internet services...  if it was any kind of website you visit could ask you to pay their fees afterwards,  because you -obviously- agreed to their terms... 

 

no, on the internet,  you typically have to click on "i agree" and it needs to be layed out in a certain way too, not hidden or anything. 

 

youtube is even more murky , because they don't directly ask for money, they ask for you to watch - potentially malicious - ads. 

 

So again,  i don't believe you legally have a contract with yt or google just by simply using their site or services.  there needs to be certain conditions and i don't believe those are fulfilled... heck, unlike other such services you don't even need an account,  its all way too wishy-washy for it to be legally binding,  imho.

 

ie. there's no contract simply, neither physical or otherwise,  (unless you decidedly agreed to one, in which case, happy ad watching,  i guess!) 

[tikker]

2 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

No offense but in regards to yt this is a load of nonsense,  i have agreed to nothing and i don't have to...

 

in fact i just tried it for your information (not mine, cause i already knew lol) 

 

So google/yt works as follows:

 

A) google cookie notice--> "reject all"

B) yt cookie notice --> "reject all"

 

(funny enough both can't be screenshotted due to "privacy" concerns )

 

Now you can --> freely watch yt and use google to your hearts content,  there's no "TOS" you have to agree to or anything...

The reject is for cookies, not the ToS. I can see the ToS linked directly above the cookie agree buttons on my phone. Those kind of agreements might still beenforceable, but it is probabaly much harder at that point. Here is one document about such silent agreements from a data collection perspective:

Quote

https://ec.europa.eu/justice/contract/files/expert_groups/unfair_contract_terms_en.pdf
Some contracts include clauses that imply a tacit agreement on the terms and conditions upon use of the service (See in annex, example 2-a).  Browse-wrap agreements are per se not prohibited under EU consumer law. However, it is necessary to consider that in the digital environment, when the mere use implies the collection and processing of personal data, such agreements might not comply with the requirements of data protection legislation. Additionally, the acceptance of the terms and conditions by the mere use of the website might not allow consumers to become aware of the legal consequences of entering into a binding agreement. This is unfair under the Annex I point i) of the Unfair Contract terms Directive:

 

Quote

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/practical-guidance-journal/b/pa/posts/contract-drafting-concerns-beware-browsewrap

From a contract law perspective, there is little controversy surrounding clickwrap agreements. They are akin to signing a traditional pen and ink contract.

The problem lies with browsewrap-type agreements, in which contractual terms of use are hyperlinked and presented on aseparate page of the website, and the user is not required to click a button to manifest his or her assent.

Browsewrap-hyperlinked terms are frequently held to be unenforceable, but they will be enforced if the user (1) has actual or constructive notice of them and (2) manifests assent to them.

So it is still enforceable if done correctly, but YouTube will have to make a stronger case that you have had a realistic chance of noticing that there are ToS. If you have a Google account, you will have checked an "I accept" box for the ToS and have thus accepted a legally binding contract assuming the terms are fine. If not, then you are in the above vague scenario.

2 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

even if there's a "TOS" somewhere (which im sure it is) its not legally binding in any way,  because its not even presented as such to the user, and i already told you hidden tos/agreements/"contracts" are illegal in the EU, precisely because they are hidden,  not obviously visible...

Browsewrap agreements are not illegal in the EU as by the above linked document and @Lightwreather JfromN's screenshot shows that they not hidden from you and are linked at pretty much the same place as the buttons you are forced to scroll down to to agree or reject cookies. It's a small font, but I think you will have a hard(er) time argueing that they were completely hidden. On the desktop you either get the same pop-up, or you scroll down in the side bar, but you will have had the pop up first at some point. Browsewrap is questioned, however, and has been suggested to be considered unfair as in an EU parlement document here.

2 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

As for netflix, it was a honest question because i couldn't imagine they would be stupid enough to not  to make a binding contract with customers.... but while I take your word for it, I'll still have to investigate this, because I still have a hard time imaging  - because no contract means no obligations,  vocally or digitally or whatever,  it doesn't matter,  you *need* some sort of binding contract if you make some sort of service offer for monetary gains (in the EU) 

 

(looking into it, is a secondary issue anyway tho, was just curious how other services handle this)

 

But for the record, as i just found out,  yt doesn't handle it *at all* (which is kinda cute i gotta admit )

Well that comes down to my first question: what do you consider a contract? Based on an EU court case an "I agree" confirmation seems valid: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=164356&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=251717

Quote

Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the method of accepting the general terms and conditions of a contract for sale by ‘click-wrapping’, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, concluded by electronic means, which contains an agreement conferring jurisdiction, constitutes a communication by electronic means which provides a durable record of the agreement, within the meaning of that provision, where that method makes it possible to print and save the text of those terms and conditions before the conclusion of the contract.

For Netflix when you register an account, click the relevant "I agree" checkboxes and enter your payment in formation you enter a legally binding contract for using their streaming service. I don't remember the last service I used, legit or shady, that lets you sign up without agreeing, so you can't pull the "I never agreed to anyting" card.

2 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

i never argued use of adblock blockers would be illegal,  so i do not understand this part of the discussion,  btw. 

I thought it was applicable for this thread since that EU piece touched on the topic of the thread (you are allowed to install an adblocker, YT is allowed to check for it) and since legality of things came in the mix.

2 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

that's like if i tell you talking to me means you agreed to my "tos" (and i will send you a consultation fee,  because OBVIOUSLY you agreed to my "tos" !  )

If you say that at the start and have them available to read that may be fine. If you say it only at the end it probably invalidates the contract on the basis of being unfair due ot withheld information.

2 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

but... i don't even get to this screen when i just click "reject all"... so im not seeing this tos notice at all...

 

plus, obviously i can use it just fine without agreeing... 

 

its therfore not legally binding,  how could it... i literally don't even see it (and now it becomes less curious *why* i cant screenshot it, that seemed fishy right away ) 

 

ps: some of this i might have seen tbh, but as said you can just click on "reject all" you don't have to agree to anything!  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

 

(and no, i couldn't screenshot it either as said)

I guess you are on your phone in incognito mode? Firefox on android has blocked screenshots there for quite a while now in my experience. Nothing fishy about it. I'm not sure what you mean with "I don't even get tot his screen", because that screenshot is the cookie reject screen, and the ToS are linked on the same one. There is no avoiding them. You can definitely make an argument for unfairness, as they are tucked away towards the bottom, but the links are there and the cookie reject button forces you to scroll down to that area.

 

The bolded part is what the EU parlement document also discusses. The terms can be considered unfair since it is unclear when the terms enter effect (like including an agreement in a sealed product that you have to open first to be able to read them). However, you cannot use it without agreeing, because you have to agree or disagree with the cookies and are thus presented with a link to the ToS. You'll have to argue that they take an unfair amount of effort to find and that you had no good way of knowing the ToS existed. That's why clickwrap agreements are fine and the implicit browsewrap ones are scrutinised.

2 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

all it says is "reject all" (or "agree") and it only mentions cookies , which is not something i associate with any kind of contract,  so i literally never agreed to any terms or contract 

But the law does in principle. Otherwise YouTube could just say "Oh you reject cookies? Well I don't associate that with any kind of contract so I'm going to use cookies and gather your data anyway". (it probably does that already, but that's besides the point)

 

[IkeaGnome]

21 minutes ago, tikker said:

Well that comes down to my first question: what do you consider a contract? Based on an EU court case an "I agree" confirmation seems valid: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=164356&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=251717

You don't even have to click "I agree" in some places of the world for "contracts"

Farmer fined $61,000 for using thumbs-up emoji - BBC News

[Mark Kaine]

56 minutes ago, tikker said:

? Based on an EU court case an "I agree" confirmation seems valid:

well, yes, as long you also get proper access to other things like tos, etc...

 

 

but as you said and quoted yourself,  merely using a website shouldn't necessarily mean you entered a contract  *especially* not if you don't even need an account for the usage... 

 

and there's no scrolling (even if it was that seems irrelevant)  simply clicking "i do not agree" shouldn't and will not count as a "service agreement" aka "contract" which is also why a "cookie notice" simply cannot substitute a contract, its just not the same thing.

 

on the same grounds one could argue that the "tos" is hidden,  because who would expect that to be in a "cookies" notice lol...

 

 

as said,  i just don't see how it's a legally binding contract if all you do is basically say "no"....  this is literally the opposite of what consumer protection laws are for... and youtube also never says "directly" you have to watch ads or something... simply their whole business model is not sustainable and in its current form probably not even legal not to mention "enforceable".

 

 

 

ps: i do agree though,  obviously,  these things need better regulations,  in youtubes case that means first and foremost they need to be seen as broadcasters, directly responsible for the content they're broadcasting daily... no lalala land wishy washy we aren't broadcasters nonsense,  i don't see how youtube would not have to adhere to the same standards as conventional tv... 

 

and  *then* lets talk about monetization in a legal and fair way (as said, they would probably need to make it members only, including mandatory age check and all the nice stuff )

 

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

14 hours ago, Neroon said:

I get that people dislike or even hate what it has become, but I think people forget that it will always turn out this way. Publicly traded companies have a mandate to maximize profits. No one is gonna run something like YT out of the goodness of their hard. By all means hate capitalism, I know I do, but it won't change a thing.

It has nothing to do with being publicly traded companies or hating capitalism, at all. It has everything to do with market structure and antitrust regulation. It is not a novel situation, it is not anything that hasn't been solved in the past, and it isn't anything that has remained unchecked in other sectors either. If you're interested, I'll leave a brief sketch of the situation at the end of the post.

 

14 hours ago, Neroon said:

In the end, they offer a service,

No, they offer multiple services to multiple parties, and that's at the heart of the problem.

14 hours ago, Neroon said:

the deal to use that service is to either pay a fixed amount per month, or pay with your time through watching ads.

This is the old "the price is ads" ridiculous argument all over again. Now imagine saying "pay with dollars". How many dollars? How often? ".... the price is dollars". 10 dollars a month is a price. "We'll let you know" is not.

Not to mention the forever unanswered question about whether it's actually about watching ads, since people without ad blockers may actually not watch them either. The "price is ads" basically equates going to the bathroom during commercial breaks as piracy (or "breach of contract" if you will).

 

14 hours ago, Neroon said:

If you don't like either, then you can stop using it.

Or use it and don't watch the ads. Or use it and also use an adblocker. Or use it and don't use an adblocker and watch the ads. What you like, what you know to be better, and what you do are separate things. You may not like paying taxes yet comply with tax laws and even vote for governments that plan to increase them because you find it to be the overall better option.

 

14 hours ago, Neroon said:

But keep using it but bitch about them having a business model and need to disappear, makes you a hypocrite. So either keep using it, whether it be with blockers or not, and accept its existence, or stop using it.

I should ignore this but I guess the bear can't avoid the honeypot. No, there's nothing hypocrite about stating a fact about the inefficient and uncompetitive structure of a market. By your definition of hypocrisy, anyone stating that their local ISP is an unnecessary monopoly or that airlines collude to increase airfares should not advocate for proper legislation / enforcement, unless they're unplugged from the internet and never board a plane.

 

14 hours ago, Neroon said:

Ps you might not give a shit about Google making less, but remember you are also taking away from content creators through blocking ads. By all means you can also not give a shit about that either, but don't point a finger at Google for being 'evil', when you are part of the problem you take issue with, exploiting the creators.

Actually, you are taking from the creators by defending a business model that is not designed in their favor. Of course, to see that you would need to stop spewing nonsense about the messenger and actually take the time to understand the message, i.e., how vertical integration, which is not a necessary evil in this market, works against having a competitive environment and efficient allocations.

 

 

Now, for anyone interested in discussing the topic instead of people, here's the gist of it:

 

Spoiler

1. There are multiple agents:
   • Creators. They produce the actual videos. Under current copyright laws, that inherently gives them a degree of market power (they're monopolists of their content), which should grant (some of) them rents. They (could) operate in a similar environment as professional athletes.
   • Viewers: they watch the content.
   • Hosts: they provide the cloud storage for the videos (and the CDN to make streaming operational).
   • Platforms: they provide software to viewers so that they can search, browse, and play the videos. This can take the form of apps or websites.
   • Advertisers: they want people to consume their shit stuff. We're going to simplify and assume that the advertiser has an ad ready to go.
   • Ad brokers: marketing agencies advising advertisers on where to place its ads.
2. There are multiple markets:
   • The platform market: demand by viewers, supply by platforms
   • The content market: demand by viewers, supply by creators
   • The hosting market: demand by creators, supply by hosts
   • The ad market: demand by advertisers, supply by creators
   • The marketing market: demand by advertisers, supply by ad brokers

By now you may find yourself wondering why this doesn't sound like what we have today. The answer is simple: the current model is that a number of vertically integrated companies, most noticeably Google, are simultaneously acting as Host, Platform and Ad brokers. This integration collapses several markets into one, bypassing other agentes along the way, by means of fragmentation. Fragmentation creates artificial economies of network that aren't really there in the non-vertically integrated case: creators need to be where the viewers are and the viewers need to be where the creators are, but only due to vertical integration and lack of interoperability. It's an issue not far removed from the key elements of net neutrality: imagine a world where every browser, or every ISP, had a specific set of websites available, and if a website wanted to be present in several browsers/ISPs it had to clone and reupload itself separately to each of them, while internet users needed multiple browsers/ISP to reach all websites of their interest: that would quickly collapse into a single monopolistic browser/ISP. However, such monopoly would not arise from technological constraints or minimum efficient scale arguments, but purely out of the self-imposed fragmentation.

 

If anyone is actually interested, we could discuss more in depth how it all plays out, but the bottom line is: yes, hosting and distribution is expensive; yes, someone has to pay for it; no, that doesn't equate Google/Youtube, Amazon/Twitch etc. automatically; and yes, we may land in the bad equilibrium without adequate regulation (as we could have landed in so many other examples, and as it still may happen in currently well functioning markets if we don't enshrine net neutrality).

 

[tikker]

12 hours ago, IkeaGnome said:

You don't even have to click "I agree" in some places of the world for "contracts"

Farmer fined $61,000 for using thumbs-up emoji - BBC News

Gotta be careful with the "agree" reaction fo the forum, you'll never know what might happen.

11 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

on the same grounds one could argue that the "tos" is hidden,  because who would expect that to be in a "cookies" notice lol...

You are forced to see the cookie pop up, so in that regard it's not exactly hidden.

11 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

as said,  i just don't see how it's a legally binding contract if all you do is basically say "no"....  this is literally the opposite of what consumer protection laws are for... and youtube also never says "directly" you have to watch ads or something... simply their whole business model is not sustainable and in its current form probably not even legal not to mention "enforceable".

 

ps: i do agree though,  obviously,  these things need better regulations,  in youtubes case that means first and foremost they need to be seen as broadcasters, directly responsible for the content they're broadcasting daily... no lalala land wishy washy we aren't broadcasters nonsense,  i don't see how youtube would not have to adhere to the same standards as conventional tv...

Verbal agreements, click wraps etc. can all be legally binding. The important thing is to create physical and traceable evidence of the agreement to get them to an actual enforceable point. I fully agree that the internet space needs a revision of agreements thought, as indeed all this implicit stuff is just too confusing benefiting only the companies.

[Neroon]

On 10/21/2023 at 2:31 PM, Mark Kaine said:

... but that never was the deal...

 

If you (aka yt) wants this to be a deal you need to make it one, *members only*, not publicly available to none members,  all your issues will vanish at this instant.  But before you do that don't tell me there's a "deal" when there is none. 

 

To have a deal you need to have at least two parties agreeing on terms. look it up!  

That's a severe oversimplication of the law and what a deal is.

 

First of all getting ads or none at all, is not something that just happens, that's a choice.

Second, you are fully aware that ads are the way YT makes money.

Third, not knowing because it wasn't explicitly stated is a poor defense that doesn't hold up a lot of the time.

 

Everywhere you go there are rules, if you enter a store, you agree to their policies or get denied access or worse. Now you may not know all rules when you enter, but when you are made aware, and you choose to stay and don't explicitly reject them, you defacto accept them. In this case of YT there is no wiggle room, no opportunity to discuss the rules, you either accept them defacto by using their platform, or you leave. That's the deal. 

 

Oh and don't try to defend this with 'EU' law, I'm from there myself, it works that way here. Why? Well the biggest issue of a TOS is that they are generally not legally binding here. Reason is because it's unreasonable to assume that people will read pages of legal text to play for example a game. However customers are still expected to have some common sense. Who decides that? A judge.

 

And since again, you know they are not allowed, you are rejecting the deal to visit the site, yet you keep using it. You are not morally right here, nor legally.

Let's call it what it really is. Hypocrisy. 

 

 

[TetraSky]

Earlier today, videos wouldn't even load for me. It would show 0:00 / 0:00 on the timestamps and a black screen.

Disabled ublock. It worked (with ads). Reactivated it, black screen again.

Purged ublock's cache, now it works again (no ads).

It seems to truly be a game of cat and mouse now. Whether youtube can update faster than the adblockers...

[Mark Kaine]

33 minutes ago, Neroon said:

Let's call it what it really is. Nonsense. 

Fixed! 

 

i have explained my standpoint thoroughly and just repeating "what the deal" is, isn't gonna change it, because there's simply *no deal* 

 

i do not have a contract with google and you can't make me.

 

 

additionally i have proposed giving the users a "choice" between ads and upright paying, without explicitly saying it is most likely not a legal way to conduct business.