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.

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.”

On the one hand

heh

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

The 'Za-wraiths?

They’re just closure-minded.

For NA desktop usage, StatCounter lists Linux as:

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

Lemmy: “Sure, why not.”

Perceptron: Seer of Light

[ ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓ 400/400 ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓ ]

I understand the justification but just don’t think it holds in 2026 unless you’re in a worse position than even paycheck-to-paycheck. 50% is solid odds for that reward, there’s a difference of two orders of magnitude, those two orders of magnitude are actually meaningful, and $50,000 in 2026 money is “tread water a little more comfortably for a while” money while $10 million – 200x more – is still “invest and go do whatever you want” money.

Congrats, Sharon!!

Wait, what? That seems so trivial. As a sanity check (and assuming I’m reading this right): unless you’re utterly destitute or you’re ground floor on some insane, foolproof investment opportunity but have no spare capital, you literally always go for the expected $5 million, right?

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?

If you couldn’t make bunk

I made small but meaningful contributions to a reasonably well-known project still used by millions of people.

Maybe don’t assume I made bunk just because I have an iota of humility to acknowledge that a hard fork of a modern web browser announced by someone on Mastodon who spent a collective five hours patching main is a pipedream.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tantamount

My point if you didn’t get it is that this has basically the same effect as expressing strong disagreement – inasmuch as it’s extremely likely this won’t see any meaningful usage or development and will quickly fizzle out.

Source: worked two years on a FOSS project vastly less important, complex, dangerous, and time-sensitive than a web browser.

Source 2: Obviousness.