Because it's my device. If youtube wants to not send me the video, that's perfectly within their rights. But once they've sent the video, their rights end unless they have a contractual agreement with me personally.
Me. And, I believe, the vast majority of other humans who have given it any thought.
> They don't? Why not?
If you feel that way, you must also believe I have the right to display whatever I want on your devices. Which you naturally agree I do, right? I hope you like very early morning disco...
> it seems obvious that they can say "in exchange for sending you this video you must watch the ads".
People can say whatever they like. Like, I can say "for reading these words, the person behind the insanitybit account owes me $20."
Tell me, just how obligated do you feel to pay that?
If I don't want to view this post I can close the window. I'm on HN, a site with an existing ToS. If HN decided to put ads on display and say "if you want to read you have to abide by a ToS that ensures you don't block our ads" obviously that would be legal.
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the [ToS], didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
- Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (slightly modified by me).
Equivocating sending a GET request with signing/agreeing to a 100 page contract of legalese is about as ridiculous a proposition as the quote I posted depicts, if not more.
holy fucking shit. no. you've been gaslit into this absolutely insane reality friend.
bodily autonomy is basical human right number one, including the right the close your fucking eyes. there's no fucking "contract law" with https requests. if you're playing devil's advocate, well the devil forgetting basic human rights is bad rhetoric
> Well, it seems obvious that they can say "in exchange for sending you this video you must watch the ads".
"you must watch" is bodily autonomy. currently what they can enforce technologically is "you must wait" for these 30 seconds of ads, which I can close my eyes for, or similarly with technology block the domain name they are served from
> > If it were, leaving the room with the television on while ads were playing would also be theft.
> Who says it isn't?
"you must stay" is bodily autonomy. I'm not sure how this is hard to understand
