Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Who says it isn't?

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.


“But the [ToS] were on display…”

“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).


Did you have a point?


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.


So if Youtube required a sign-in you'd say that they have a right to enforce ads not being blocked?


Probably not legally enforceable, and probably HN’s only recourse would be to block you from viewing.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: