[wkavey]

I'm pretty sure that first paragraph is false. Until I explicitly agree to a contract, or "terms and conditions", I am not bound by anything. If a site I navigate to embeds content from another website I am not immediately bound by the terms and conditions of that neclsred site, to think otherwise would invite madness.

Not to mention the fact that terms and conditions are not contracts. I don't think they carry the same weight, although someone please correct me on this if I am incorrect.

[kcplate]

Plaintiff: “Judge, when the defendant used my public website, a contract with me was implicitly made”

Judge: “what defendant? There is no one here.”

Plaintiff: “Oh he was anonymous, so I am not sure who it was…”

Judge: “Hmm interesting, so you seem to think an implicit contract exists that you want to enforce with no documentation at all with a party you can’t name, because you are not sure who it is?”

Plaintiff: “Exactly.”

Judge: “Feel free to come back when you aren’t going to waste the court’s time”

[throwwebmaster]

This clear instance of reductio ad absurdum is wholly non-analogous. Factually inaccurate court proceeding depictions and legal misunderstandings aside, for one thing, the non-hypothetical defendant’s identity is well-known in this specific instance.

[kcplate]

Interesting. I would have thought that someone with the ability to craft such a sesquipedalian response would also have been capable of understanding irony.

Also…you missed the word “public”, again.

[throwwebmaster]

While I appreciate your nod to my writing (I have a mutual appreciation, I might add, for your Soliloquising), again, none of the data obtained was public.

[throwwebmaster]

Less speculation and more facts:

https://www.upcounsel.com/are-website-terms-and-conditions-l...

This is heavily supported by Case Law.