Or are you going to pretend that there's no agreement between you and YouTube that you're going to watch ads in exchange for the free content?

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... right? And it doesn't matter if you noticed it or not.

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.

It's literally a legal contract, under contract law. It's called a unilateral contract.

I didn't expect a Dunning-Kruger effect on NH, but here we are.

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.

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.

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.

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.

also did the grocery store start out as a free food store similarly to youtube? and then just expect people pay despite not enforcing it?

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.

You claim we're stealing.

In Texas, theft is a crime per Sec. 31.03:

> THEFT. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.

Please link the law, and jurisdiction, that is broken when I view a YouTube video and don't view the ad.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.31.htm#31....

Nobody disagrees with you that YouTube wants us to view ads.

Hah! Someone after my own heart. Well, since we're not talking law, let's get into it!

First of all, all profit is theft. Your boss and shareholders are only able to make money because they steal margin from your labor.

In this case, Youtube may be providing a platform, but what it gets in return is far more than it gives back to creators. Creators have no rights when it comes to Youtube - I can list many who were nixxed from Youtube because they violated a specific subset of neoliberal, puritanical "ethics." For example, Youtube will delist or demonetize videos that have too many swear words in them, or videos that discuss things that aren't illegal but Youtube doesn't like, such as adblockers or emulation software.

This is unethical. Youtube has no value outside of its creators. Yet it has total say over what kinds of content creators are allowed to make, and it sets the prices for creators, keeping the lion's share for itself. That is theft.

Youtube abuses its users as well, cramming features we don't want down our throats, like "Shorts" (puke) and increasingly longer ads. I know for a fact not enough revenue is going to the creators because they still need to seek external sponsorship, resulting in double-ads: youtube ones, and then sponsored portions of videos. Youtube also constantly enshittifies the UI. And, despite its puritanical neoliberal ethics, it does basically nothing about the extensive racist content on its platform (any video featuring black people doing just about anything will have years-old comments on it with racist content). And don't even get me started on the freakshow that is Youtube Kids. Just search "Elsagate."

Youtube feeds into the demonstrably mentally unhealthy attention economy and engages in dark pattern UX.

Youtube is undergoing platform enshittification, making things worse for its creators and users in order to extract as much profit as possible. It's not illegal, but it's certainly unethical. Given their shittiness, it's completely reasonable to leverage tooling to block their shitty ads. And don't pretend like this harms creators in any meaningful way. If I buy one t-shirt from a creator I like (which I do, frequently), I've given them more revenue per head than if I watched every single one of their videos, start to finish, one hundred times, with no ad blocking.

I was under the impression we were communicating, which I was genuinely interested in doing with you. Thank you for letting me know that wasn't the case.

I haven't read your comment and won't be replying to the content of it. I hope you have a good weekend!

This applies double, when you knowingly circumvent the agreement that "you're not aware of"

Next time I’ll instead pay someone to watch the videos on my behalf and then summarize me the videos sans-ads.

Will you also sumi?

I would love to be educated: when did I enter into an agreement with YouTube that I must watch ads to use their website?

YouTube is sueing me for damages. Their claim: I used their website but didn't watch the ads. (Maybe I used an ad blocker. Maybe I turned off my monitor and unplugged the speakers when the ads played. Maybe I walked away and let the ad play in a different room). What evidence do they submit in court to demonstrate I violated an agreement?

You've made quite a few comments across this thread, as have others that support your position. Not even within the YouTube TOS has anyone pointed out a contractual obligation to view ads. Not to mention YouTube doesn't require you to agree to their TOS to view videos.

With this in mind, it's perfectly understandable that someone could browse YouTube without any comprehension of something you seem totally confident on. I'm not being goofy here, I understand that YouTube wants me to view ads, I just genuinely am not aware of any contractual obligation to do so if I view videos.

Did I? Can you tell me where I made this deal? I navigated to YouTube.com, I don't see a contract, I don't see a place to sign or a hand to shake. Where is this bilateral agreement?

I think what you meant to say was, YouTube really very much wants me to watch their ads, and I don't care to, so I won't.

If your counter is that then YouTube will shut down, I say, oh well, I've already archived all the videos I care about, and someone else will replace them, or not, and either way life will go on.

That's quite literally what we call piracy.

I don't know if you're making some edge case argument without elaborating, or if you're just being ridiculous.

I'm serious. Show me in the Youtube Terms of Service where it says that blocking ads is against the contract. I've looked. Carefully. There is no such language there.

Item 2 of "Permissions and Restrictions" says you aren't allowed to "circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage with, or otherwise interfere with any part of the Service (or attempt to do any of these things), including security-related features or features that (a) prevent or restrict the copying or other use of Content or (b) limit the use of the Service or Content;"

where "content" is earlier defined as basically anything Google/YT sends you (which would include the ad).

A quick google search also takes you to a pretty straightforward statement from Google/YT: "When you block YouTube ads, you violate YouTube’s Terms of Service."

[TOS]: https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#c3e2907ca8

[Help Center]: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14129599?hl=en#:~:...

Content on the Service The content on the Service includes videos, audio (for example music and other sounds), graphics, photos, text (such as comments and scripts), branding (including trade names, trademarks, service marks, or logos), interactive features, software, metrics, and other materials whether provided by you, YouTube or a third-party (collectively, "Content”).

Where is advertising defined as "Content"? (EDIT: For clarity, this paragraph is my own words; the previous paragraph was the quote from the ToS).

Further, there's the "Our Service" paragraph:

"The Service allows you to discover, watch and share videos and other content, provides a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others across the globe, and acts as a distribution platform for original content creators and advertisers large and small."

The service acts as a distribution platform for "original content creators and advertisers", two different categories. There's content (made by content creators) and there's what advertisers produce.

If Youtube wanted to define advertising as part of the Content (capital letter because in legal matters, definitions in the contract matter, and that's the term that they defined), they had plenty of opportunity to do so.

The statement by Google that blocking ads is a violation of their ToS is, of course, their opinion. But what ultimately would matter in a lawsuit is the contract. And nowhere in the contract do they state that advertising is part of the Content.

Their best argument in a lawsuit would be that adblocking is "circumventing" part of the Service, because they have defined being a distribution platform for advertisers as being part of their Service. But considering that the actual function of adblocking is simply not making HTTP requests, it would be hard for them to make that hold up in court against a skilled lawyer.

I've looked at it, and I came to the conclusion that the "advertising is part of the Content" argument does not hold up to the actual terms of service, and that the "adblocking is circumventing the Service" part does not hold up either: to say that something running on my browser, that makes no attempt to change their code and only skips certain HTTP requests, counts as "circumventing" features is a stretch. It's the best argument, so thank you for making it. But it's just not strong enough to hold up to the "If Youtube wanted to explain that adblocking was a violation of the ToS, they had plenty of opportunity to lay that out in detail in plain English (well, lawyerese) in the ToS itself" argument which any skilled lawyer would present in court.

So I'll grant that it's possible to read "adblocking is a violation of the ToS" in the terms, if you peer at the penumbras and emanations of the wording. But at no point did they take the opportunity to lay it out in clear language. And statements from a spokesman are, legally speaking, worthless; only the language of the contract matters in a court case.

P.S. I've upvoted you, since you've actually taken a real look at the Terms of Service, unlike the guy making that grocery store analogy.

There's a legal obligation not to steal, of course, and if you want to call that a contract I can't stop you. But if you're claiming there's an implicit contract to buy something when you walk into a store, you're wrong.

Now, if I was walking into the store all the time just to stand around not buying anything, that would be trespassing, and if they asked me to leave their property I'd be obligated to follow their wishes. But if I'm walking in in order to buy some bananas, but they're nearly out of bananas and the ones they have left all look bad, then I'm perfectly within my rights to walk out without buying anything.

In what way are you claiming that the grocery store analogy holds to adblocking on Youtube?

Deaf and blind people are allowed to enter despite their inability to see and hear adverts and jingles.

Fully able people with headphones that avoid looking at ads are not ejected.

You have a very weak position here that isn't advanced by this analogy.

What is the thing that compels you to watch ads on a service like Youtube? There's nothing in the law; if there is anything, it would be spelled out in the Youtube terms of service: https://www.youtube.com/t/terms

Can you find it for me? I've looked. Many times. It isn't there.

This is true even when that free sample has "rules" like "not for adults" on a jar of cookies.

Grocery stores often purposely price things below cost to get you in the door. If you go to your local grocer, buy a hundred subsidized Turkeys and nothing else, you have again committed no crime or moral violation even though you have explicitly cost the company money and they wanted you to buy other things.

Terrestrial FM radio and TV broadcasts have existed for decades and both provide ample case law. You are just wrong, and Google knew that when they bought Youtube.

Google also regularly reduces the ad pay out to Creators and increases their own take. Google can fuck off.