Your mom will live on through the aeons to tell of my bones.

I agree, which is why I made the other two points. Nothing about your concern was evidently grounded in reality; Jordanlund outright not moderating here anymore was the cherry on top.

• This isn’t even vaguely against the rules.
• Jordanlund isn’t a moderator here.
• Even if they were, I seriously doubt they would take issue with, let alone remove, this.

This is so out-of-left-field that I’m completely baffled.

Oh yeah? Well Russia found a copy of The Sims 3 in a Ukrainian Neptune missile, so now they’re even!

This kind of bad-faith argument is proof positive for the conjecture that, if left unmoderated, every community on an English-speaking social media website will eventually be consumed by US politics.

This clearly isn’t a science meme in the same way one about how badly the war in Iran is going isn’t about the engineering behind ballistic missiles.

You can use this bastard logic to warp basically any political meme into whatever you want it to be for any community.

Empathy is more complex than that, and it’s influenced by a lot of factors, including environmental. Psychopaths are thought to have a physical brain condition that prevents them from feeling the social emotions, but sociopaths simply have a greatly diminished capacity for them.

What they weren’t telling you is that it’s one study from the 1990s in rats, then in another comment they just throw in “granted it’s in rats” like that doesn’t make all the difference in the world.

Yes, because it’s a single study on rats from the 1990s. When we’re talking about the health effects in humans and you show up talking about a “direct link to cancer”, any reasonable reader – because again, “humans aren’t rats” – would believe you’re talking about a direct link to cancer in humans.

“Alcohol has been directly linked to literally being dissolved alive.”

“Really?”

“Well in bacteria, yes.”

You know, generally it’s implied you mean “in humans” when we’re talking about… the health effects in humans.

“People aren’t rats”, to quote a “no-fucking-shit” passage from the article that I hope is obvious to you too.

They’re wrong. Please see my comment. There are potential other problems with dyes (the main one that’s more concerning is risk of ADHD), but their statement about cancer is horseshit – not because it’s impossible they cause cancer but because “directly linked and have been for years” is not supported by science in 2026.

Good for you for looking out for your kid. ❤️

This is misinformation. The evidence is so tenuous that the link may as well not exist. Other problems perhaps, but not this one – at least it’s certainly not well-studied enough to go throwing around “directly linked to cancer and have been for years.”

Please have some level of compunction about throwing serious medical claims around.

Categorically, yes, but that doesn’t change the US needing to get these dyes out of its foods yesterday. Within the health catastrophe Trump, RFK Jr., their followers, etc. are creating, I’ll gladly take and ride this one point we can apparently all agree on that these dyes serve no good purpose and need to go.

Edit: And I wouldn’t even stipulate “if you eat it regularly”. It’s enriched with a token amount of Vitamins and minerals of course, but that’s practically a participation trophy for cereals (seriously, the micronutrient profile is fucking pathetic); everything else about it is utter trash, and it’s terrible for you from the jump.

Edit 2: That said, the comment below about cancer link is misinformation in that the science currently does not support said link.

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.

I mean it’s the cameras’ job to keep track of criminals, right? So it’s not my job anymore to give a shit about where they went or what they looked like, surely.

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.