this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
584 points (92.7% liked)

memes

15678 readers
3013 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 133 points 1 year ago (20 children)

BY ACCESSING THIS SITE YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOUTUBE (HEREBY REFERRED TO AS THE "PLATFORM") HAS THE ABILITY TO FORCE YOU (HEREBY REFERRED TO AS THE "SCHMUCK") TO AGREE IN PROXY TO ANY ABSURD CONDITION THE PLATFORM DECIDES, AMENDABLE AT ANY TIME WITHOUT NOTICE, AND WITH STIPULATION THAT THE SCHMUCK MAY NEVER EVER CHALLENGE THE PLATFORM IN COURT OR EVEN LOOK AT THE PLATFORM THE WRONG WAY WHILE WALKING BY ONE ANOTHER IN THE HALL, LEST IT HURT THE PLATFORM'S FEELINGS.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] blender2142@lemmynsfw.com 81 points 1 year ago (7 children)

By using the service, you agree to the TOS. What you are "rejecting all" to are cookies. Still scummy behavior tho

[–] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Considering many internet providers now have bandwidth caps, it is my policy do not allow arbitrary data on my network (aka ads). It's also my policy that my policy supersedes any arbitrary terms of services. And that any platform accessing my network henceforth retroactively accepts my policy and terms of service.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago

At a certain point, the world of the closed internet is going to face the issue of discovery, which is the only reason that they were successful in the first place.

Its really a great time for foss or fedi. It hasn't been easier to compete with established players (like it is now) in a decade.

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Those might be the terms of service they started with but a little "Inspect Element" and editing means I agreed to something else entirely.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Mio@feddit.nu 34 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't get WHY I have to choose. Default should be reject all. If there is no reject then just accept it. How hard can this be to get on the Internet?

I hate the cookie popup.

[–] Lightfire228@pawb.social 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You have to choose because they want that data, so they're gonna make "accept all" the default and "reject all" as hard as legally possible

[–] Mio@feddit.nu 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Think about it like walking into a store, but before you enter you have to agree to the tos and sign. You see how bad that would be to the user experience. Today I believe the store can track you as much as they want to. There is no opt out.

[–] psud@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

The loyalty card is the cookie

[–] Ashelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The thing is, too, that remembering your decision to reject all has to be done through a cookie, and they know this and take advantage of that fact! 99.9% of websites only offer a choice that makes you dig through at least one menu, or a choice that makes you have to click the 'reject all' button every time the page reloads.

There needs to be a mandate to add an option to "reject all except my decision to reject" that corresponds to a single boolean. It should exist under a standardized id, and if it's set to true, the site would be required to stop showing you cookie popups. And if the cookie contains anything more than that single boolean and the website it applies to at most, it should be illegal and reportable as such.

Of course, as you mentioned, that would probably be quite difficult to accomplish legally.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You're allowed to store that decision in a cookie already, it's considered "necessary" or whatever

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] justlookingfordragon@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As someone with a youtube channel and regular uploads ... fuck ads. Use uBlock Origin, Adblock Plus or whatever else works to wipe that garbage off the screen.

I'm extra sour about their suuuuuper useful new-ish option for content creators to turn off personalized ads in their channels - something I immediatly agreed to, because I thought it would, ... y'now ... get rid of the fucking ads.

Nope. All it does is swap "personalized" ads for "unpersonalized" ones, so my followers get the same type of garbage shoved into their faces, just more random. Thanks Youtube, this is exactly what I wanted to achieve. dripping sarcasm, in case it wasn't obvious

[–] lud@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

unpersonalized ads are much better for privacy and are less effective at selling stuff which is better for the user.

[–] justlookingfordragon@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Even better would have been an option to turn them off entirely =P but that's what UBlock Origin is for.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Can't you turn them off? I thought that was the only option if you didn't reach a thousand subs or something

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Exusia@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

I agreed to it because there's no real competition for content, so they own the market by default. If you don't hit "I agree" to every last stipulation, data provision, and term you dont have access to the the largest library of information, shitposting, and weaponised opinions since dawn of radio or television.

I don't agree with it. So adblock stays.

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can reject cookies, not the TOS. You agree to the TOS of services by simply using them.

[–] Sheeple@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, you do. But the EU has a bunch of sanity check laws that make basically all of them non-binding.

Such as any agreement too long for anyone to actually read, being moot.

But YT makes it pretty clear they don't want you blocking ads, that might actually make that specific part one of the few things that would stand up in court.

[–] Sheeple@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Well they can try to sue me for blocking ads. See how that goes

[–] mlg@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This reminds me of how when reddit closed their API, a select few just went to web scraping it instead lol.

[–] GilgameshCatBeard@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

Many others just stopped using Reddit alltogether. But Stockholm syndrome is a bitch when it comes to YouTube. So everyone will continue to whine about how shitty YouTube is whilst not bothering to do what is necessary to correct it-

[–] Krafting@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] renzev@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Oh, he's on odysee? Nice!

[–] LemmyRefugee@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And what about Spain with cookies, or Instagram? A lot of places now either force you to accept tracking or pay to stop ads/tracking if you want to access the site.

[–] InFerNo@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

I thought the directive says that when cookies are denied you cannot deny the service.

[–] olmium@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Brother doesn't know the difference between cookies and terms of service. Wild

load more comments
view more: next ›