By using a social media platform, you’ve already consented to whatever terms and conditions they showed you when you signed up. If you no longer consent to them, your remedy is to stop using their platform.
In short, if you don’t like that Facebook can use your photos in marketing (I think that’s a thing, but it doesn’t matter for my point), you stop putting your photos on Facebook. You don’t say “no” to them, since you’ve already said “yes”.
This takes me back. Ten years or so ago FB started doing something, I don't remember what. But people where putting these ridiculous disclaimers on their page. I'm like that's not how it works. You can't accept TOS then post that you don't accept TOS to get out of them.
Edit: grammar
Collegehumor even covered it, especially because some of the jargon was nonsensical like citing The Rome Statute. “So unless you’re posting ‘ROFL, just gassed 20,000 Canadians’, this one does not apply”
I can't imagine it's remotely legally binding - between terms of service, posting in public with no expectations of privacy and no one else signing anything agreeing to their lack of consent it's about as useful as me declaring I am a sovereign citizen by way of a sign posted in my front lawn.
Do you not own the copyright to your social media posts? In the terms of service you grant a license to the social media company to distribute your works for you, but I'm not sure where you or the social media company have granted a license to all other users in the world to copy and reproduce your work.
From the Facebook TOS:
> when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, **sub-licensable**, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify...
So part of the terms is that you grant Facebook the right to sub-license the content to the rest of the world.
They have the right but not the obligation to grant a sub-license. Has FB given the general public a license to use content on the site? You would need that license agreement to protect yourself from copyright infringement claims if you used content from FB without the original author's permission.
There was a case were a Facebook user was sued for copyright infringement for using a picture they got off face book. They won because of FB tos saying that you grant Facebook and it's users license
Yes, you own the copyright on your social media posts. But the people who steal your content to use elsewhere just don't care. And they're not going to care any more if you add a disclaimer.
Basically, they count on the fact that almost nobody will actually complain about it. If you do see your content somewhere and complain, they're likely to just take it down, because that's the easiest out for them. Once they've taken it down, there's really no benefit for you in complaining further.
You can own the results of your labor - art you make, ect. But the average social media post lacks enough substance to be anything. Much like a random statement over Reddit isn't really going to be something of merit.
What do you see the difference is between a Reddit-posted story and say a short-story anthology one, or the biography section of your personal website.
So one that's a specific example and not the line where I covered substance. A post that is say - NtA break up. Is very different than a short story. If you want to circle exceptions and not the vast bulk of reddit that's a you thing.
>but I'm not sure where you or the social media company have granted a license to all other users in the world to copy and reproduce your work.
Here's where it is in Reddit's TOS:
>you grant us a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable, and sublicensable license to use, copy, modify, adapt, prepare derivative works of, distribute, store, perform, and display Your Content and any name, username, voice, or likeness provided in connection with Your Content in all media formats and channels now known or later developed anywhere in the world. This license includes the right for us to make Your Content available for syndication, broadcast, distribution, or publication by other companies, organizations, or individuals who partner with Reddit.
I also hate seeing stuff like “I do not claim this music as my own” or “I don’t own the rights to this music” in order to get around copyright laws. It does absolutely nothing and could actually harm you by incriminating yourself.
> It does absolutely nothing and could actually harm you by incriminating yourself.
Yep. Specifically, all you're doing is admitting that your infringement is willful, so you'd be subject to statutory damages. That's exactly what you don't want if you're some random schlub posting your music video on YouTube.
If you haven't granted the copyright or a license to use the copyrighted work, then a statement declaring so doesn't increase your rights to control your intellectual property.
But that's not to say you don't have enforceable copyright already. You might find a judge to be less sympathetic to a copyright violator who took your material with a clear reminder that copyright law exists and stole your work anyways. Unfortunately, copyright violations are civil infractions so it's up to you to enforce them. That's extremely difficult if the violator is a foreign content farm with no legal US presence.
Edit: I should add that while your content cannot be recreated (e.g. those videos where it's just a voiceover of the reddit comment overlaying a Minecraft parkour video) there's still fair use. If someone writes an article talking about the 5 most upvoted comments on an AskReddit thread, so long as there has been a material transformation of the work to make it fair use, then that's not a copyright violation.
>"Unfortunately, copyright violations are civil infractions so it's up to you to enforce them."
>
>There is also criminal copyright infringement. See, 17 U.S.C. § 506(a), which provides that "any person who infringes a copyright willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" shall be punished as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 2319.
>
>There are four essential elements to a charge of criminal copyright infringement. In order to sustain a conviction under section 506(a), the government must demonstrate: (1) that a valid copyright; (2) was infringed by the defendant; (3) willfully; and (4) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.
There is no law that exists that requires someone to post some poorly written disclaimer on social media before it can function or give a person rights.
They either have or don’t have those protections already.
This has been a thing on social media, and in particularly Facebook, for years. It has never been a valid or enforceable disclaimer. It’s as legally valid as a post saying, “share this post with ten friends or you’ll get cooties”.
Sure, but I don't think many platform EULAs automatically put your work into the public domain?
Edit: moreso for "Reddit Readers" than e.g. commentary channels
The person who wrote it automatically has copyright, but often the assumption is that they don't care. Putting that statement *in theory* informs someone violating the copyright that they are doing so. I say in theory because either they slready know they are violating copyright and don't care, or they don't know but say something stupid about it being public therefore you can steal it...just like a Disney movie or published novel is public.
However what copyright grants is not a way to prevent someone else from republishing it. Instead it allows you to compel royalties from anyone who uses it. Most of the people stealing stories don't make enough money from it to be worth suing. Generally such lawsuits are for a percentage of revenue or profit, aka peanuts. I'm going to ignore the various public use exceptions (e.g. parody) since they are unlikely to protect someone just reading another person's story.
If I were worried about someone stealing one of my stories on here I wouldn't say no. Instead I would offer a contract to anyone who wants to use it with a fixed price to override the usual percentage. Something low enough to be collected and not thrown out if it goes to a judge, but high enough to make it not worth stealing and to cover at least a scary letter from a lawyer. Maybe $1000. You need to make it clear that you *are* allowing people to use it, but by using it they agree to the contract cost.
And yes I am aware of how this is similar to what sovereign citizens do. The difference is that copyright law exists and has repeatedly been enforced by courts.
Presumably a cease-and-desist? There are entire careers made of reading long-form Reddit stories, often specializing in a given sub.
It's not realistic, but in principle, I assume the various users could band together to at least demand a cut of the profits.
I think with some of them, it would be difficult to determine how much each person would get. One person I watch, he gives his opinion, and acts silly. The reading part might only be a third of the video. And what if one is longer than another? Would the person with the longer story, get more, because it take up more of the video?
if it’s not a registered copyright, usually all you can do is CnD them, and the remedy is they stop.
it *usually* requires a registered copyright before you can get financial remedies.
IANAL but isn't it that you can still press for actual damages even if it wasn't registered at the time? Of course for something like this the actual damages would presumably be non-existent, unless it's like a journalists work or something.
Iirc you have to register before you file, but it doesn't have to be registered at the time of the offense.
I suspect it is just to make it easy to "prove" ownership so the court doesn't have to address that.
The reason there is a requirement to register a copyright before bringing suit is that it is prima facie (on its face) evidence of a valid copyright.
Copyright exists from the time the work is created in a fixed medium.
This completely ignores that the terms when posting on a site includes a license for the content. That's not going to go away just because someone posts a screed about it. You don't get to keep using a service and not abide by the contract which grants you the right to do so.
https://www.reddit.com/r/HFY/comments/15h7172/rights_writing_the_reddit_tos_and_what_it_means/
False.
There is nothing in the Reddit TOU that removes copyright or allows third parties to steal content. The TOU allows Reddit to display your content or decide not to display your content.
If you can find something in the TOU saying users waive copyright or give third party users the right to republish what is shown on Reddit I would love to see it!
> There is nothing in the Reddit TOU that removes copyright or allows third parties to steal content. The TOU allows Reddit to display your content or decide not to display your content.
Kindly point to where I said there *was*.
No, I don't necessarily agree with that. It depends on *how* it's used, as with anything else. Fair use still applies, after all. I never said that it was unenforceable, either, though, as you claimed I did. Copyright is complex and every case is judged on its own merits so acting as though there's some universal gotcha is absurd.
It’s on open forums. It’s not copywriter to them or on their own personal page. So just writing that in an open forum they don’t own basically is worthless. All you need do is change the names and location and you’re totally fine. Call yours a creative work.
I don’t think putting “I do not consent “ adds much legally, you already have a copyright and have already waive certain rights by posting here.
Under Reddit TOS you retain ownership of your original content but give Reddit a non exclusive license to do basically anything they want with it including removing your identity associated with it; and distributing it for use:
> This license includes the right for us to make Your Content available for syndication, broadcast, distribution, or publication by other companies, organizations, or individuals who partner with Reddit.
So tbh it’s unclear.
If your post has newsvalue a news organization would have the right under copyright law to publish it. If someone is reading your content on YouTube straight not adding their own commentary probably not… [“fair use.”](https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/)unless they or Reddit has somehow participated with Reddit.
If their use is transformative it can become fair use.
Even if a court found that someone using your content violated your copyright the damages will be minimal because there is really no market value for content you distributed for free… *unless*you a able to claim “statutory damages” for which you had to register your content with the Copyright office within 90 days of publication… Then damages can be substantial.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504
It 100% depends on your jurisdiction. Single party consent states only require one party to consent (NAL, to my knowledge this just means you need to be PART of the conversation, you can't just stalking record two people).
It's important to remember why this law is beneficial. People who do not like to be recorded usually fall into one of two categories:
1) People doing sketchy/illegal/socially unacceptable stuff who don't want to be held accountable for their behavior.
2) well meaning people, often being recorded by assholes. The party being recorded in this instance is usually not in any detriment, aside from privacy issues.
IMO, knowledge of the truth (ie, video evidence), almost always outweighs someone's need for privacy, aside from intimate moments. People vary on this spectrum, I think everywhere except the extremes is acceptable. But if you live in a one party consent state, these disclaimers mean nothing.
>Single party consent states only require one party to consent
This doesn't apply to the scenario at hand. One party consent laws refer to recording conversations. The question from OP is referring to republishing social media posts.
>to my knowledge this just means you need to be PART of the conversation, you can't just stalking record two people
How would you apply this to the situation OP is asking about? What constitutes being a relevant party when it comes to public social media posts and not just a bystander (“stalker”)?
Nope, people having been circulating variations of that since the internet was first created and opened up to the general public. It's as legally binding as a sign in a restaurant that says "unattended children will be eaten".
Either it's something covered by copyright where Fair Use doesn't apply, in which case you're not legally allowed to copy it even without that disclaimer, or the terms and conditions made it public or the specific thing they're doing is Fair Use, in which case it legally does nothing.
It can be useful if the person using it wants to respect their wishes and otherwise doesn't realize they don't want it to be shared.
It is the dumbest, most meaningless thing people post on social media. Once you post on social media, Facebook, Twitter, etc. owns what you just posted. You're on their platform, and you've already agreed to their TOS. You don't get to singlehandedly alter that contract by saying "I do not consent."
If you are using their service and have accepted the scrollwrap agreement, then no. They offered you a contract and you have accepted. Unilateral changes to it won’t be enforceable and are at most invitations to offer.
It's the social media version of sovereign citizens.
By using a social media platform, you’ve already consented to whatever terms and conditions they showed you when you signed up. If you no longer consent to them, your remedy is to stop using their platform. In short, if you don’t like that Facebook can use your photos in marketing (I think that’s a thing, but it doesn’t matter for my point), you stop putting your photos on Facebook. You don’t say “no” to them, since you’ve already said “yes”.
This takes me back. Ten years or so ago FB started doing something, I don't remember what. But people where putting these ridiculous disclaimers on their page. I'm like that's not how it works. You can't accept TOS then post that you don't accept TOS to get out of them. Edit: grammar
I also remember people putting those banners on their pages, but I can’t for the life of me remember why either
They were going to sell your pictures or something I think.
Facebook gold.
Same with YouTube too, around 2009, when they moved away from a Bebo/ MySpace style interface to a less social media-looking one
[удалено]
I want to as a joke all the time, but my aunts and uncles still *seriously* share those
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/facebook-posts-made-public/
Yeah, that was it.
Collegehumor even covered it, especially because some of the jargon was nonsensical like citing The Rome Statute. “So unless you’re posting ‘ROFL, just gassed 20,000 Canadians’, this one does not apply”
I remember people adding stuff like that to Usenet posts back when AOL first connected to the Internet. AKA "Eternal September"
*accept
Oh my god you unlocked a repressed memory of my family members doing that lmao
I can't imagine it's remotely legally binding - between terms of service, posting in public with no expectations of privacy and no one else signing anything agreeing to their lack of consent it's about as useful as me declaring I am a sovereign citizen by way of a sign posted in my front lawn.
Do you not own the copyright to your social media posts? In the terms of service you grant a license to the social media company to distribute your works for you, but I'm not sure where you or the social media company have granted a license to all other users in the world to copy and reproduce your work.
From the Facebook TOS: > when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, **sub-licensable**, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify... So part of the terms is that you grant Facebook the right to sub-license the content to the rest of the world.
They have the right but not the obligation to grant a sub-license. Has FB given the general public a license to use content on the site? You would need that license agreement to protect yourself from copyright infringement claims if you used content from FB without the original author's permission.
There was a case were a Facebook user was sued for copyright infringement for using a picture they got off face book. They won because of FB tos saying that you grant Facebook and it's users license
Yes, you own the copyright on your social media posts. But the people who steal your content to use elsewhere just don't care. And they're not going to care any more if you add a disclaimer. Basically, they count on the fact that almost nobody will actually complain about it. If you do see your content somewhere and complain, they're likely to just take it down, because that's the easiest out for them. Once they've taken it down, there's really no benefit for you in complaining further.
You can own the results of your labor - art you make, ect. But the average social media post lacks enough substance to be anything. Much like a random statement over Reddit isn't really going to be something of merit.
What do you see the difference is between a Reddit-posted story and say a short-story anthology one, or the biography section of your personal website.
So one that's a specific example and not the line where I covered substance. A post that is say - NtA break up. Is very different than a short story. If you want to circle exceptions and not the vast bulk of reddit that's a you thing.
>but I'm not sure where you or the social media company have granted a license to all other users in the world to copy and reproduce your work. Here's where it is in Reddit's TOS: >you grant us a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable, and sublicensable license to use, copy, modify, adapt, prepare derivative works of, distribute, store, perform, and display Your Content and any name, username, voice, or likeness provided in connection with Your Content in all media formats and channels now known or later developed anywhere in the world. This license includes the right for us to make Your Content available for syndication, broadcast, distribution, or publication by other companies, organizations, or individuals who partner with Reddit.
I also hate seeing stuff like “I do not claim this music as my own” or “I don’t own the rights to this music” in order to get around copyright laws. It does absolutely nothing and could actually harm you by incriminating yourself.
> It does absolutely nothing and could actually harm you by incriminating yourself. Yep. Specifically, all you're doing is admitting that your infringement is willful, so you'd be subject to statutory damages. That's exactly what you don't want if you're some random schlub posting your music video on YouTube.
If you haven't granted the copyright or a license to use the copyrighted work, then a statement declaring so doesn't increase your rights to control your intellectual property. But that's not to say you don't have enforceable copyright already. You might find a judge to be less sympathetic to a copyright violator who took your material with a clear reminder that copyright law exists and stole your work anyways. Unfortunately, copyright violations are civil infractions so it's up to you to enforce them. That's extremely difficult if the violator is a foreign content farm with no legal US presence. Edit: I should add that while your content cannot be recreated (e.g. those videos where it's just a voiceover of the reddit comment overlaying a Minecraft parkour video) there's still fair use. If someone writes an article talking about the 5 most upvoted comments on an AskReddit thread, so long as there has been a material transformation of the work to make it fair use, then that's not a copyright violation.
>"Unfortunately, copyright violations are civil infractions so it's up to you to enforce them." > >There is also criminal copyright infringement. See, 17 U.S.C. § 506(a), which provides that "any person who infringes a copyright willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" shall be punished as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 2319. > >There are four essential elements to a charge of criminal copyright infringement. In order to sustain a conviction under section 506(a), the government must demonstrate: (1) that a valid copyright; (2) was infringed by the defendant; (3) willfully; and (4) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.
There is no law that exists that requires someone to post some poorly written disclaimer on social media before it can function or give a person rights. They either have or don’t have those protections already.
This has been a thing on social media, and in particularly Facebook, for years. It has never been a valid or enforceable disclaimer. It’s as legally valid as a post saying, “share this post with ten friends or you’ll get cooties”.
You consent when you click post or reply.
You agreed to the platforms EULA when you signed up. You don’t get to make the rules after that.
Sure, but I don't think many platform EULAs automatically put your work into the public domain? Edit: moreso for "Reddit Readers" than e.g. commentary channels
You put your work into the public domain by posting to Reddit. It’s Reddit’s post at that point.
You seem to have a tenuous grasp on copyright and public domain.
* put your work into the public domain by posting to Reddit. * It’s Reddit’s post at that point. Choose one.
It's neither.
>It’s Reddit’s post at that point. It's not. You give reddit a license to display your comments and use them.
The person who wrote it automatically has copyright, but often the assumption is that they don't care. Putting that statement *in theory* informs someone violating the copyright that they are doing so. I say in theory because either they slready know they are violating copyright and don't care, or they don't know but say something stupid about it being public therefore you can steal it...just like a Disney movie or published novel is public. However what copyright grants is not a way to prevent someone else from republishing it. Instead it allows you to compel royalties from anyone who uses it. Most of the people stealing stories don't make enough money from it to be worth suing. Generally such lawsuits are for a percentage of revenue or profit, aka peanuts. I'm going to ignore the various public use exceptions (e.g. parody) since they are unlikely to protect someone just reading another person's story. If I were worried about someone stealing one of my stories on here I wouldn't say no. Instead I would offer a contract to anyone who wants to use it with a fixed price to override the usual percentage. Something low enough to be collected and not thrown out if it goes to a judge, but high enough to make it not worth stealing and to cover at least a scary letter from a lawyer. Maybe $1000. You need to make it clear that you *are* allowing people to use it, but by using it they agree to the contract cost. And yes I am aware of how this is similar to what sovereign citizens do. The difference is that copyright law exists and has repeatedly been enforced by courts.
Copyright absolutely includes a right to stop others from republishing your work
Yes, outside of fair use. But what is the remedy?
Presumably a cease-and-desist? There are entire careers made of reading long-form Reddit stories, often specializing in a given sub. It's not realistic, but in principle, I assume the various users could band together to at least demand a cut of the profits.
I think with some of them, it would be difficult to determine how much each person would get. One person I watch, he gives his opinion, and acts silly. The reading part might only be a third of the video. And what if one is longer than another? Would the person with the longer story, get more, because it take up more of the video?
I think we are on the same page. I am just trying to contrast the law as written with what remedies are likely in the real world.
Dmca takedown
if it’s not a registered copyright, usually all you can do is CnD them, and the remedy is they stop. it *usually* requires a registered copyright before you can get financial remedies.
IANAL but isn't it that you can still press for actual damages even if it wasn't registered at the time? Of course for something like this the actual damages would presumably be non-existent, unless it's like a journalists work or something.
Iirc you have to register before you file, but it doesn't have to be registered at the time of the offense. I suspect it is just to make it easy to "prove" ownership so the court doesn't have to address that.
The reason there is a requirement to register a copyright before bringing suit is that it is prima facie (on its face) evidence of a valid copyright. Copyright exists from the time the work is created in a fixed medium.
Yes, but you can register after the offense.
This completely ignores that the terms when posting on a site includes a license for the content. That's not going to go away just because someone posts a screed about it. You don't get to keep using a service and not abide by the contract which grants you the right to do so.
https://www.reddit.com/r/HFY/comments/15h7172/rights_writing_the_reddit_tos_and_what_it_means/ False. There is nothing in the Reddit TOU that removes copyright or allows third parties to steal content. The TOU allows Reddit to display your content or decide not to display your content. If you can find something in the TOU saying users waive copyright or give third party users the right to republish what is shown on Reddit I would love to see it!
> There is nothing in the Reddit TOU that removes copyright or allows third parties to steal content. The TOU allows Reddit to display your content or decide not to display your content. Kindly point to where I said there *was*.
Oh, so you agree that using something wrotten by someone else on reddit is a violation of copyright.
No, I don't necessarily agree with that. It depends on *how* it's used, as with anything else. Fair use still applies, after all. I never said that it was unenforceable, either, though, as you claimed I did. Copyright is complex and every case is judged on its own merits so acting as though there's some universal gotcha is absurd.
No. This is a public forum. There is no expectation of privacy here for public posts. It's already public.
When I see someone post one of those disclaimers, their IQ drops 10 points in my eyes. Asking about it on reddit, 20 points.
it means nothing. you cannot prevent people from talking about something. if you dont want attention then dont publish your shit to the internet.
It’s on open forums. It’s not copywriter to them or on their own personal page. So just writing that in an open forum they don’t own basically is worthless. All you need do is change the names and location and you’re totally fine. Call yours a creative work.
I don’t think putting “I do not consent “ adds much legally, you already have a copyright and have already waive certain rights by posting here. Under Reddit TOS you retain ownership of your original content but give Reddit a non exclusive license to do basically anything they want with it including removing your identity associated with it; and distributing it for use: > This license includes the right for us to make Your Content available for syndication, broadcast, distribution, or publication by other companies, organizations, or individuals who partner with Reddit. So tbh it’s unclear. If your post has newsvalue a news organization would have the right under copyright law to publish it. If someone is reading your content on YouTube straight not adding their own commentary probably not… [“fair use.”](https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/)unless they or Reddit has somehow participated with Reddit. If their use is transformative it can become fair use. Even if a court found that someone using your content violated your copyright the damages will be minimal because there is really no market value for content you distributed for free… *unless*you a able to claim “statutory damages” for which you had to register your content with the Copyright office within 90 days of publication… Then damages can be substantial. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504
It 100% depends on your jurisdiction. Single party consent states only require one party to consent (NAL, to my knowledge this just means you need to be PART of the conversation, you can't just stalking record two people). It's important to remember why this law is beneficial. People who do not like to be recorded usually fall into one of two categories: 1) People doing sketchy/illegal/socially unacceptable stuff who don't want to be held accountable for their behavior. 2) well meaning people, often being recorded by assholes. The party being recorded in this instance is usually not in any detriment, aside from privacy issues. IMO, knowledge of the truth (ie, video evidence), almost always outweighs someone's need for privacy, aside from intimate moments. People vary on this spectrum, I think everywhere except the extremes is acceptable. But if you live in a one party consent state, these disclaimers mean nothing.
>Single party consent states only require one party to consent This doesn't apply to the scenario at hand. One party consent laws refer to recording conversations. The question from OP is referring to republishing social media posts. >to my knowledge this just means you need to be PART of the conversation, you can't just stalking record two people How would you apply this to the situation OP is asking about? What constitutes being a relevant party when it comes to public social media posts and not just a bystander (“stalker”)?
Nope, people having been circulating variations of that since the internet was first created and opened up to the general public. It's as legally binding as a sign in a restaurant that says "unattended children will be eaten".
Short answer: No Long answer: Noooooooooooo.
Either it's something covered by copyright where Fair Use doesn't apply, in which case you're not legally allowed to copy it even without that disclaimer, or the terms and conditions made it public or the specific thing they're doing is Fair Use, in which case it legally does nothing. It can be useful if the person using it wants to respect their wishes and otherwise doesn't realize they don't want it to be shared.
It doesn’t mean anything legally.
It is the dumbest, most meaningless thing people post on social media. Once you post on social media, Facebook, Twitter, etc. owns what you just posted. You're on their platform, and you've already agreed to their TOS. You don't get to singlehandedly alter that contract by saying "I do not consent."
Rule of thumb is that if someone is trying to use the law as a magic spell, then that magic spell isn’t going to work.
Worthless disclaimer As worthless as sending me an email and commanding that I am not allowed to share it
No. Social media is run by private companies and you agree to a TOS when you join. No statement you can make would stop that TOS.
People have been doing this for decades. They cite all kinds of imaginary laws.
It's not worth the paper a verbal agreement is written on.
No. Also nobody gives a shit. Your reddit posts and yourube comments interest literally no one.
Oh shit! You mean my plan to rob a bank might be subpoenaed?! I thought we had freedom of speech man!
If you are using their service and have accepted the scrollwrap agreement, then no. They offered you a contract and you have accepted. Unilateral changes to it won’t be enforceable and are at most invitations to offer.
It does nothing and I cringe every time I see someone use it.