TheTechnician27

2

regarding the marketing of the product or the functionality of the product?

The marketing, to which Google is going to obviously and correctly respond that:

A reasonable consumer would not expect that "ad-free" means that creator-submitted sponsored material is not present in the videos, descriptions, etc., which they create.
There's a "Restrictions Apply" link taking you to the ToS, which itself in the "Advertising" section prominently – literally the first word – links directly to a FAQ stating that YouTube Premium has nothing at all to do with blocking sponsored content.
That is to say that the terms and FAQ clarify what a reasonable consumer would already assume.

I'll repeat what I think you already saw in another comment: I'd love to have it shoved in my face when a judge or jury actually buys this (I'd assume plaintiffs would request a jury and the defendants would not) and Flemming et al. see a dime.

4

TheTechnician27 @lemmy.world 2d ago

while.claiming to not care.

I claim not to care to keep up with this after this thread because it's obviously doomed. I do, however, care enough to debunk it when it's shared on Lemmy like it has any chance of success.

I don't understand how you got "emotional" from my last comment where all I did was make a matter-of-fact statement followed by a joke about MrBeast CBT.

7

TheTechnician27 @lemmy.world 2d ago

Can a company market a submarine but then define a submarine as a lamp in their ToS and you'd just be out of luck?

No, because a ToS can't cure an obviously false advertisement, but when looking at what a reasonable consumer would take away from the advertisement, you can see the ToS is clarifying what a reasonable person would already assume – namely that MrBeast, before sending 42 junior high students to fight to the death in a chocolate factory, spending 45 seconds raving about how much he loves to put Hello Kitty-branded capsaicin under his foreskin isn't something that YouTube Premium is going to get rid of.

9

TheTechnician27 @lemmy.world 2d ago

Edit: Oh, I see, you meant in the ToS themselves. But it clearly links directly and unambiguously to the 'features' page right at the start of the section.

11

TheTechnician27 @lemmy.world 2d ago

The lawsuit tries to claim that the terms of service reinforce this, when in reality, they directly contradict this already-bad-faith interpretation of what Google advertises. "Restrictions apply" is extremely normal for any advertisement and is effective in negating claims of false advertising provided they clarify what a reasonable person could plausibly already assume.

and think you're off the hook

Come back to me when Flemming et al. win this lawsuit. Even a token settlement, come back and rub it in my face. I encourage you, because I won't be wasting the time to keep up with this doomed nonsense.

2

TheTechnician27 @lemmy.world 2d ago

Please see my two edits regarding this. YouTube very clearly spells out that these sponsored segments are fair game for YouTube Premium. This lawsuit is utterly frivolous, and I hope it burns for being such a joke that I could debunk it in five minutes.

41

TheTechnician27 @lemmy.world 2d ago

given that advertisements and interruptions appear frequently during streamed content, including those inserted by the creator.

Nah, this is dumb as fuck. No reasonable person reading the ToS would assume the creators themselves are restricted from inserting sponsored segments and that YouTube is somehow liable for removing them. Where would this even end? Would GamersNexus quickly advertising their t-shirts count?

Seems likely to fail unless YouTube themselves are failing not to insert ads on Premium.

—A religious SponsorBlock user

Edit: So looking at the ToS, if we scroll down to section 7, we see the word "features" hyperlinked to. This page then reads:

With YouTube Premium, you can watch millions of videos without interruptions by ads before and during a video. You will also not see third-party banner ads and search ads.

You may still see branding or promotions embedded in the content by the creator, as well as promotional links, shelves and features in and around the content that are added or enabled by the creator. These links, shelves and features could be for their website, merchandise, membership to their channel, event tickets, or other related destinations that they are promoting. Ads or promotions may also appear on Primetime Channels, during live events streamed on YouTube, such as sporting events.

So unless they just changed it in response to this lawsuit, it categorically addresses it even though a reasonable person would likely understand without this disclaimer.

Edit 2: Just to make sure this wasn't changed in resoonse to the suit. Lawsuit was filed July 14, 2026. This was the ToS page on December 30, 2025, which still includes the link to "Features". Looking at an archive captured Christmas 2025, the features page still states:

You may still see branding or promotions embedded in the content by the creator, as well as promotional links, shelves and features in and around the content that are added or enabled by the creator. These links, shelves and features could be for their website, merchandise, membership to their channel, event tickets, or other related destinations that they are promoting. Ads or promotions may also appear during live events streamed on YouTube, such as sporting events.

Frivolous-ass, lying-ass lawsuit.

9

TheTechnician27 @lemmy.world 2d ago

This is a terrible, myopic way to decide who becomes your representative, and I'm honestly sad Lemmy is even upvoting this.

You need a points system, otherwise everyone's going to min–max on the low-hanging fruit. "The most" is too basic a metric, but of course as always, Lemmy doesn't understand the practical realities of politics.

TheTechnician27 @lemmy.world 2d ago

OP, your flight for Kyiv leaves in three hours. Godspeed.

TheTechnician27 @lemmy.world 3d ago

“I have gone to pretrial confinement hearings where somebody is so addicted to meth that they are throwing up on my shoes,” Rashid told the Times. Unlike Davis, she said, “They were allowed into their own hearing.”

Jesus christ.

1

TheTechnician27 @lemmy.world 4d ago

body shame a cat

I know you're saying this in bad faith as a thought-terminating cliché, but for those in the audience: no, that's not what body-shaming is. Nobody is deriding or judging the cat because of his body; they're deriding the actions of the cat's caretaker(s) responsible for keeping the cat healthy and not neglecting him.

The fuck is wrong with people?

Yeah, how dare people want to see pets not being abused. Quit body-shaming my dog just because he's skin-and-bones and it hurts him when he walks. I don't feed him, and you can't criticize that apparently, because really that's shaming him somehow. What do you mean, "I'm maliciously co-opting progressive talking points to justify animal abuse"?

TheTechnician27 @lemmy.world 4d ago

"My joints hurt."

1

TheTechnician27 @lemmy.world 5d ago

How's cavatelli compared to gnocchi, OP?

12

TheTechnician27 @lemmy.world 5d ago

For NA desktop usage, StatCounter lists Linux as:

3.56% in May
6.14% in June
10.61% in July

Lemmy: "Sure, why not."

TheTechnician27 @lemmy.world 6d ago

Perceptron: Seer of Light

[ ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓ 400/400 ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓ ]

3

TheTechnician27 @lemmy.world 7d ago

I understand the justification but just don't think it holds in 2026 unless you're in a worse position than even paycheck-to-paycheck. 50% is solid odds for that reward, there's a difference of two orders of magnitude, those two orders of magnitude are actually meaningful, and $50,000 in 2026 money is "tread water a little more comfortably for a while" money while $10 million – 200x more – is still "invest and go do whatever you want" money.