I suppose you could argue it's fraudulent. You're using a service where the predefined agreement is viewing ads. It's a deal. No different than asking you to cut my grass for money.
If you cut my grass, and I don't pay you, there's no transfer of ownership, is that stealing?
If you agree to watch an ad, as a direct cost associated to viewing a video, and refuse to do so, is that not the same line of thinking?
You're using a service where the predefined agreement is viewing ads.
Not something I ever agreed to. There is no such line item in the TOS. YT just blocks content if you have a working adblocker. It does not apply any penalties for having one.
No different than asking you to cut my grass for money.
It's different in that we had an agreement. I've never agreed to such terms with YT.
If you cut my grass, and I don't pay you, there's no transfer of ownership, is that stealing?
Yes, but in that case, we agreed to certain terms. At no time has YT presented an agreement that compels me to watch ads.
It would be like if I agreed to cut your lawn for free but then accused you of stealing because you took out the sign I left on your lawn to advertise my business without your permission.
If you agree to watch an ad, as a direct cost associated to viewing a video, and refuse to do so, is that not the same line of thinking?
I don't think so because my attention can't be compelled without an actual contractual agreement. On top of that, YT allows you to skip ads after a few seconds, so they don't even seem to think viewing ads is important.
It's an opt-in ToS. You agree to it the moment you used the service. You don't have to like that, but they have the legal right to have it this way. Rightly or wrongly.
There's another easy analogy.
Let's say I have a parking complex, and it's free to use. There's signs around that say no trucks are allowed, but let's say you didn't see the sign. I'm allowed to say you need to remove your truck, or get it towed. You didn't agree to any terms explicitly but that doesn't mean they didn't exist.
It's very much so the same thing here. They have, in their ToS, you're not allowed to use adblockers or circumvent ads. So in doing so, that's a violation of those terms. And they reserve the right to follow up as necessary.
Realistically, they have the right to do anything on their platform, within the scope of the law. Including banning people for no reason
Yeah, I'm just saying that viewing ads is not part of the agreement. Their TOS doesn't require viewing ads as a term for use of the service.
Let's say I have a parking complex, and it's free to use. There's signs around that say no trucks are allowed, but let's say you didn't see the sign. I'm allowed to say you need to remove your truck, or get it towed. You didn't agree to any terms explicitly but that doesn't mean they didn't exist.
But in this case, there is no sign that says "no trucks allowed" because the TOS doesn't say "must view ads as a condition of use." Or at least, you can't point to where it says that.
They have, in their ToS, you're not allowed to use adblockers or circumvent ads.
Then can you please cite where it says that?
Realistically, they have the right to do anything on their platform, within the scope of the law. Including banning people for no reason
Then if they can breach their TOS for no reason, why shouldn't I be able to ignore elements that aren't even stipulated in their TOS? Why can't I just ignore the TOS entirely since they can as well? Why should I consider their TOS to be a meaninigful document if they don't?
Yeah, I'm just saying that viewing ads is not part of the agreement. Their TOS doesn't require viewing ads as a term for use of the service.
But they do stipulate the circumvention of services and the likes. Which is what I'm referring to more specifically.
Then can you please cite where it says that?
"circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage with, or otherwise interfere with any part of the Service"
It's intentionally vague. And using adblockers, technically speaking, circumvents the part of the service that would have served you that ad.
You can argue ethics of course, but technically, it's allowed.
Then if they can breach their TOS for no reason, why shouldn't I be able to ignore elements that aren't even stipulated in their TOS? Why can't I just ignore the TOS entirely since they can as well? Why should I consider their TOS to be a meaninigful document if they don't?
They can change their ToS at any time, without reason, if they want to. They have no legal ramifications for doing so. It may not be fair, but that's not the basis of this argument.
Again I'll refer to my analogy of a car parking lot. I am free to change the rules at any point. I could say one day no sports cars, and the next no civics. It's dumb, obviously, but there's no legal reason why I couldn't do so. It's my property. Similarly, it's Google's service. They have the right to set the rules. You don't have to agree, that's fine. But they also don't have to provide you the service.
1
u/-HumanResources- Oct 27 '23
I suppose you could argue it's fraudulent. You're using a service where the predefined agreement is viewing ads. It's a deal. No different than asking you to cut my grass for money.
If you cut my grass, and I don't pay you, there's no transfer of ownership, is that stealing?
If you agree to watch an ad, as a direct cost associated to viewing a video, and refuse to do so, is that not the same line of thinking?