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 day 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 day ago
if they haven’t defined it, then legally it is meant in the broadest sense, isn’t it?
Ulrich@feddit.org 1 day 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 day ago
totally clear. and exactly the subject is the broadest: harmful to anyone or anything
sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 day 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 day ago
Okay, I get it. I’m being trolled. Well played, I guess.
sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 day 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.