Nostr Web Client

I have no contract with websites on the Internet like YouTube. Despite their intent, unless they get a signed contract from me that stipulates that I will follow their rules, then their rules do not apply to me. Their website is under no obligation to serve me content, and if it serves it to me, that cannot be my fault. Things that say "by using this website you agree...blah blah blah" are IMHO null and void; I do not believe that browsing a website establishes a contract.

Whether my opinion is legally correct or not isn't really very interesting to me because this isn't going to be challenged in court. It is more of a moral justification for ad blocking.

Vitor Pamplona 11mo ago

Fairy tales we create to convince ourselves we are doing good

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Mike Dilger ☑️ 11mo ago

https://www.termsfeed.com/faq/is-by-accessing-the-site-you-accept-the-terms-of-service-legally-binding/

For terms and conditions to be legally binding, they must meet the elements that create a legally binding contract, including mutual manifestation of assent, which means both parties must agree to the terms. Additionally, the terms should be clearly presented and accessible, not buried in the website footer, as courts have found this to be insufficient for legal binding.

Both parties must demonstrate their intention to be legally bound.

I believe, however, that if a website makes clear to the user that certain content may only be accessed according to their Terms and Conditions, and the user understands this, at that point they may not access the content without agreeing to said terms and conditions.

By the way, https://www.youtube.com/t/terms does not forbid ad blocking.