Hacker News Reader

Comment by genocidicbunny | Hacker News Reader

I've recently been wondering how viable is it for me to send a ToS in a request header that basically says something along the lines of "If your server chooses to respond to this request with a non-error HTTP code and content, it constitutes your acceptance of these terms. These terms say you owe me $10 per ad you attempt to show to me."

View on HN

It’s entirely viable to send, but said contract would be entirely invalid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds

My headcanon is that this is no different than most ToS on websites, and if those hold up to legal scrutiny, so should this. Either both are valid or neither are.

They are largely invalid too, which is why no one catches CFAA charges for accessing YouTube in violation of their terms.

It depends on how the website handles its TOS. See this article [1] for information on how a website can make its TOS legally binding.

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

I've never signed a contract with Alphabet or Youtube. Maybe because I don't log into Youtube? I'm still waiting for people to follow my AUP/ToS. [1] I will never know if they are in compliance.

[Edit] I suppose ironically Youtube have a myriad of instructional videos on how to follow my AUP/ToS. [2]

[1] - https://bender.ohblog.net/#AUP-ToS

[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuTSLp8BCwo [video][3 mins][tutorial]

Or perhaps a kind of standardized reverse EULA that you store in your browser. If the webpage doesn't support it, the page won't load.

Nah, no standardized EULA -- if they're going to have us accept freeform ToS, the same should apply in reverse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com