More like Sonyphus.

Jesus fuckin’ christ, Christofuh, get off the drugs and quit castin’ aspersions! Gabagool.

Reasonable to assume (given this decision to run takes place over like two seconds) that Indy suspects that the boulder could block him in if he ducks under it (spoiler: it would).

Edit: Full scene for anyone who forgot exactly how the sequence plays out. This was a 100% reasonable move by Indy.

deleted by creator

And then wipe off the scissors because they still got this shit all over their cutting edges.

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.

The lack of a leading 0 gives it away (with month–date formatting lending circumstantial evidence).

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.

“I’m afraid it’s been… nine years.”

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”?

“My joints hurt.”