• smeg@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 days ago

        I don’t have a general opinion, but given that youtube used to be an entirely free service that people put videos on with no expectation of being paid, and then google bought it, made it an effective monopoly, and have slowly turned it into the monetisation monster it is today, I don’t think anyone owes them anything.

        Also you have the right to control what content appears on your device. You are under no obligation to watch an advert just because a megacorp says so. By putting something on the internet (without a login or pay wall) they are making it freely available for anyone to download. That’s how the internet works (for now!)

      • sorghum@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        No, if you need to so far as to have a complicated ToS, then it should be a proper contract complete with signatures on actual paper. Same for any amendments with the option to stay on the original agreement at the time of sale.

        • paraphrand@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          I agree that it should be more like a proper contract and that people should understand it. It’s absurd that we have this structure where it’s implied you read even a single word of a TOS.

          People should be attacking things like this. Not just boasting on social media about clients that hack YouTube.

          • smeg@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            If I had the power to mount a legal challenge against a megacorp, I would. Unfortunately all I have the power to do is share workarounds.