How many more times is Lemmy going to recycle this shitty Futurism ragebait article about a stupid marketing gimmick?

Vote now on your phones/pervert glasses.

Well lookie-lookie who ain’t got a cookie.

Get 'em, boys.

I hate that I’m defending Google here

So do I; believe me, I went into this hoping Google had badly fucked up, which is why I was admittedly miffed enough to write that comment and to try to prove myself wrong in the edit. Very “that was just a bunch of cheap walk cycles!” energy; I wanted the lost episode.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Looks like a template from this merchant on Amazon (“F.YSW”, or what seems like keyboard mash).

For NA desktop usage, StatCounter lists Linux as:

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

Lemmy: “Sure, why not.”

Congrats, Sharon!!

That’s Bayerische Motoren Wankers AG to you.

Why did they make her look like she’s about to terminate the waiter at Chili’s who brought her soggy fries?

Futurism’s are particularly egregious. It exists to get clicks, and I mean in a way that clearly none of its writers give a single shit.

This headline and story in particular are okay enough, but in general, Futurism will take scraps and turn it into “[x person/business/industry our readerbase doesn’t like] is literally shitting its pants and DYING”.

If you know about this and continue to pay for it given viable alternatives, yes, you knowingly, willingly are. They wrote a whole spiel justifying it, so I’m going to point it out.

Flamman reports that [Berntsson’s] was the largest single private donation to any Swedish party in 2025, and on its own represented 72 percent of the [neo-Nazi] party’s income for the year.

Sorry, someone who’s knowingly funding the neo-Nazi party in Sweden – not because they have no other choice but because they don’t fucking care – doesn’t get a vote on what is and isn’t woke moralizing authoritarianism.

Fuck crypto shills. Fuck neo-Nazis. And fuck you, you whiny little Nazi-funding bitch.

“Reeee, a community vote that says we shouldn’t spend community-donated money hosting pump-and-dump projects that exist to put money in the hands of the wealthy far-right while destroying the environment is authoritarianism!!1 You should be forced to host my trash at your own expense; stop trying to control me, woke moralists! Stop caring about things and help me destroy the world!”

Is there no git hosting service left that isn’t pushing censorship and fascism? I think I should just start self-hosting at this point.

Aw, is someone sad that a nonprofit won’t spend their own money to host shitty pump-and-dump tools destroying the environment? Little pissbaby need a minute to compose themself?

Edit: By the way, speaking of fascism, OP…

Edit 2: Just want to say I find it immensely funny that the two people in this thread bitching about this democratic decision and calling it “fascist” and “authoritarian”, respectively, have posted an image of Germany captioned “The aggressor nation?” and knowingly, intentionally continue to fund neo-Nazis in Sweden.

It’s always projection from the “woke moralists!!” crowd.