• null@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I googled it and looks like you were wrong.

    Edit: also lol at “This isn’t reddit, I can spout whatever crap I want without backing it up”

    • wildginger
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      “the law doesnt support this when push comes to shove, judges do not side with it”

      “Source?”

      “If you care you can find it yourself, this is a comment section”

      “RRRREEEEEEEEEEEEE”

      Lol ok bud

      • null@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Hey look, another comment with nothing even close to a defense.

        Let’s replay this to see why what you’re saying is such obvious bullshit, shall we?

        First you claimed that one has a “fundamental right” to access digital content they’ve “purchased” (licensed conditionally). There is no such fundamental right. You’re flat-out wrong there. Go ahead, Google it.

        But let’s give you a little wiggle room and assume you just didn’t know what a fundamental right is. What you’re saying is that if you violate the terms of service by engaging in cheating, harassment, or sexual harassment, and the platform bans you, thereby removing your access to that content, a judge would rule against the platform and have them reinstate your access in almost every case.

        First of all, the shift from “fundamental right” to “often” and “usually” is a pretty transparent move on your part. But that aside, you’re still just talking out of your ass. Of course there are cases where terms and conditions have been deemed to be unenforceable. But certainly not “most of the time” and definitely not in cases of obvious malicious activity.

        Cute little reply though.

        • wildginger
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Its not a defense because this isnt a debate? Im not the judge, and you arent either. I dont care what you believe, because your belief doesnt change the law.

          If you care, you can google it bud. You dont need me to find this for you.

          But you clearly dont care about facts, you want to play gotcha. Poorly, but youre obviously only trying to make this a debate you can win.

          Its not a debate, honey. Its sad you think it is.

          • null@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Lmao, I just laid out all the facts. But sure, keep telling yourself that I just don’t care about them.

            I did Google it, bud. There’s nothing out there that confirms what you’re saying.

            But obviously it would kill you to admit it, so I’ll let you double-down, make another last dismissive, empty comment to grab the last word and feel good about yourself.

            Edit: Look at that. Right on cue.

            • wildginger
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Facts? Oh, source?

              E: no source? Lol so youre full of shit, by your own admission