Exactly, I haven’t read the ToS to see if it is defined or references anything in there. I usually default to the standard definition of a word unless explicitly stated otherwise. For example, Sony changed the definition of purchase to remove any notion of ownership when buying content on their streaming platform.
Ulrich@feddit.org 1 month ago
What? LOL no, not “exactly”. Again the definition is not in question. The question is what the word is referring to.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
if they haven’t defined it, then legally it is meant in the broadest sense, isn’t it?
Ulrich@feddit.org 1 month ago
I don’t know how to be more clear about this. The definition is not in question. It doesn’t matter what sense it’s being used. What matters is the subject of the harm.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
totally clear. and exactly the subject is the broadest: harmful to anyone or anything
sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Just did a cursory search for harm on the YouTube ToS. There is no definition that I saw, but it does say “may cause harm”. So my suspicion that anything could be construed to be harmful to YouTube’s business is likely correct. Quoted sections of the YouTube ToS containing the word “harm” as of 2025-06-06 17:20 GMT.
Ulrich@feddit.org 1 month ago
Okay, I get it. I’m being trolled. Well played, I guess.
sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
I meant in the ToS, but no, troll not my intentions. I thought I was agreeing with you and just expounding on your point.