[judge2020]

> You are not allowed to:

> access, reproduce, download, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, alter, modify or otherwise use any part of the Service or any Content except: (a) as expressly authorized by the Service; or (b) with prior written permission from YouTube and, if applicable, the respective rights holders;

> circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage with, or otherwise interfere with any part of the Service (or attempt to do any of these things), including security-related features or features that (a) prevent or restrict the copying or other use of Content or (b) limit the use of the Service or Content;

[earthling8118]

Tell me where this shows up in the process of watching a YouTube video. On a fresh device I can navigate to their page, select a video, and watch it. Never in that chain of events is this agreed upon.

[judge2020]

> Your use of the Service is subject to these terms, the YouTube Community Guidelines and the Policy, Safety and Copyright Policies which may be updated from time to time (together, this "Agreement").

> Please read this Agreement carefully and make sure you understand it.

> If you do not understand the Agreement, or do not accept any part of it, then you may not use the Service.

Even if it's not binding, it illustrates what Google intends to do (stop providing the service via an anti-adblocker script) if you do not follow their TOS.

[AlexandrB]

I wonder if the reverse would also work. If my browser's source code included a "TOS" that "by uploading content to and executing code on my machine you give me a permanent and irrevocable right to view/read the content using any software of my choosing" would that bind Google as well? Wouldn't that illustrate my intent in accessing Google's services just as a EULA I never get to read illustrates theirs?

[genocidicbunny]

Right. If they get to push a TOS on me, I get to push one on them.

I want Google to pay my rent for the next decade, and Sundar has to offer a naked lapdance at the Pink Poodle every time they send me an ad I did not explicitly request to be shown.

[chriswarbo]

> it illustrates what Google intends to do (stop providing the service via an anti-adblocker script) if you do not follow their TOS.

Yes. They have complete discretion over what 'list of "things" and their URLs required to render a page' they decide to send any particular user agent (modulo copyright infringement, hate speech laws, etc.). There is no requirement that HTTP connections to 'youtube.com' should receive video data; or even HTML; or even that anything's listening on that port.

[ohgodplsno]

Cool story, illegal in my country. Also, the popup is blocked, so I don't even get to agree to it or not.

It doesn't matter what Google intends to do. Only what I do in response. TOS are not legally binding, they're a bunch of crap.

[squirtlebonflow]

So if I can't read, but I watch YouTube videos, am I agreeing to a contract?

Contracts are only valid if signed.

[trifurcate]

From some Tor exit nodes (not all!), YouTube does present a modal to make you agree to the ToS before you are allowed to interact with the page. Probably some localities actually legally require you to do this, and so Alphabet complies.

[mcpackieh]

They can wave that EULA around all they want but I'm not going to sign it. And even if I signed it, I wouldn't honor it. Why should I play fair with corporations, particularly corporations the likes of google?

[fluoridation]

That would appear to be describing attempting to hijack or interfere with the YouTube servers. Someone instructing a program on their computer to do something other than what the operators of the Service thought it would do has no bearing on the Service's ability to continue operating or on the availability of the Content.