Lurker > SKARDAVNELNATE

adjl posted...

they're just going to stop you from using their service

And that's why YouTube alternatives are a good thing.

The guy who lead insurrection

Ray Epps as speaker of the house would be pretty hilarious.

adjl posted...

If you choose not to go looking for them to understand what you're agreeing to, that's on you, and you're still just as subject to them as anyone else.

It sounds like we're talking about contract law at this point so let's see what I can find on that.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract

A contract is an agreement between parties, creating mutual obligations that are enforceable by law. The basic elements required for the agreement to be a legally enforceable contract are: mutual assent, expressed by a valid offer and acceptance; adequate consideration; capacity; and legality.

Mutual assent refers to an agreement by all parties to a contract. Mutual assent is an essential element in the formation of a valid contract. Under modern contract law, mutual assent must be proven objectively.

Consideration is a promise, performance, or forbearance bargained by a promisor in exchange for their promise. Consideration is the main element of a contract. Without consideration by both parties, a contract cannot be enforceable.

This is enough for me to conclude that watching a video is not enough to prove objectively that I agreed to enter into a contract with YouTube. And I am under no contractual obligation to keep a promise of not using adblock. If anything the continued use of adblack is evidence of a lack of mutual assent.

I'll be here until they finally axe my account for expression my political beliefs.

I didn't like it when they changed George Washington's hair. I like the new portrait of him even less.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Lol fox is nowhere near the center

The tactics Fox uses are indistinguishable from any other news network. It's not a matter of 2 sides of the same coin. It's the same side of the coin.

adjl posted...

No, they got punished for committing defamation, by being sued by the company they defamed. Anyone that is harmed by fraudulent, defamatory news coverage can do the same, regardless of who's publishing it or where they fall on the political spectrum.

This is the Dominion case, isn't it?
Was it proven that what was said was false?
Did they lose business because of what was said?
What I recall is that Fox settled out of court before going to trial. Which just further demonstrates to me that Fox never meant to oppose the center.

Zareth posted...

Oh look SKARD posting both-sides bullshit again

No, I'm saying that Fox News is on the same side as every other news network. A comment I've heard a few times is that other networks tell you what they want you to think and Fox tells you what you are allowed to think. If other news networks are the center then Fox is on the fringe of it. Fox gets punished and discredited for not going along with the center but they ever go so far as to oppose it. They serve as an example and nothing more.

adjl posted...

You tacitly agree to them by choosing to watch something, whether you actually read them or not.

That was neither understood nor implied. I never agreed to the condition that by watching a video I was agreeing to any conditions.

adjl posted...

you can absolutely be negatively punished as far as Youtube's service delivery has the power to (which pretty much just extends to "no videos for you").

That's why I look if the creators are on bitchute.

It depends. The existence of zoos shows that predators don't need to hunt if food is regularly provided to them.
On the other hand large snakes will plot how it can eat their handler even if well fed.

KingDavid posted...

Why the hell does anyone take Fox News seriosuly after they got caught lying!?

The same can be said about any news network. How does anyone believe anything they are told?

I don't have a YouTube account. I never agreed to anything. I'm not subject to YouTube's terms of service.

Might have to go further back for cavemen. 25,000 years ago people were building huts out of rocks and mammoth bones.

adjl posted...

If you gradually makes somebody's environment worse, they're more likely to not notice/mind than if it happens suddenly.

I would still expect people reach a breaking point. Maybe by being gradual you put off getting there. Or they don't break at the same point they would have if it were sudden. But I do not expect that they would get so accustomed to it that they don't realize they're boiling. They'll still be aware that it's the way things are going before it gets that far.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

It's not as effective as the "boiling frog"

Why do people keep leaving out the part where the frog is lobotomized first?

ParanoidObsessive posted...

NoScript isn't an adblocker, but it technically blocks a lot of ads. It might be an effective compromise for you.

If that's the case I use part of the 20 million to fund development a new program called adbrick.

I don't know who a single person in the video is.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I saw a video say that bitch was arrested for robbery and a second time for assault. Not sure why youtube won't ban her, she is clearly a violent person and had violent intentions.

Did she upload a video of committing the robbery or the assault? I disapprove of YouTube banning users for thing that were done off-site.

I don't think 20 million USD is enough to stop using the internet completely. Without adblock I would not have the forbearance to look at a web page.

Which one is Worker and which one is Parasite?

I've been looking to see if creators are on bitchute. Youtube keeps age restricting things for silly reasons. I can find the exact same video somewhere else and don't see anything about it that would set it appart from other videos made by the same person.

Zareth posted...

I get a popup from youtube and I click okay and it works fine

I refresh the page and it doesn't pop up again on that video.

Oddly I only get this popup on one computer that I regularly use. It's configured the same as the other 3 so I don't know what causes it.

Can I get clarification on the Kent / Dent confusion? And which of them was the 3rd Two-Face?

ParanoidObsessive posted...

If you really want to blow your mind...

Wait a minute...

Harvey Kent, not Harvey Dent?
George Blake was the third impostor of Two-Face, but also Sloane continued on as the third Two-Face.
But then George Blake used as reference a newspaper photograph of Dent from a reversed negative. Dent, not Kent again.

I don't understand what impact changing the month has on selecting the clips.

faramir77 posted...

The real miracle is that Jesus had 12 close friends in his 30s

Not sure how close they were. One betrayed him. Another denounced him the next morning. After his death two of them walked with him and talked about the times they shared without realizing it was him. Some of them were probably hanging out just because he could turn water into wine, had an endless supply of fish, sometimes when he catches a fish it has money, things like that.