codubee wrote:

pippy2011eight wrote:

codubee wrote:

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

I did not know that it's run locally. That being said, will the new AI be ran locally? Even if it is, training is expensive.

Yes it is expensive. Who said we're doing that?

wait, I'm confused, how do you make an AI without training?

Because that's not what we're doing!

codubee is a represntative of the Scratch foundation according to their profile, and due to their role in the recent pages of this topic, they must be really apart of the Scratch foundation, the ones incharge of the TOS, meaning they are telling the truth.

Combine this with my last post, and everything makes sense.

This entire boycott mess was caused by mis info the Scratch Foundation barley cared to clear, and left us to figure out the truth over time, also hidden within these scrambled debates.


However, I have a bunch of questions, regarding the previous information we've had, like “our lines in the sand”, and codubee should take responsibility for answering them (on my profile or here).

codubee wrote:

pippy2011eight wrote:

codubee wrote:

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

codubee wrote:

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

It been stated that Scratch is not self-sustaining, if this is true, then why add AI? AI is expensive, whether your training it yourself or using a third-party tool. I don't see why Scratch needs AI, especially with so many people saying that they don't want it.

Do you know that the Scratch Lab object detection features are all run in browser by downloading a local model? Did you know that face sensing is also based on running a local model, precisely to avoid having anyone's face uploaded outside of your computer? The primary expense in that is how long it takes to download them. Is that AI expensive?

I did not know that it's run locally. That being said, will the new AI be ran locally? Even if it is, training is expensive.

Yes it is expensive. Who said we're doing that?

wait, I'm confused, how do you make an AI without training?

Because that's not what we're doing!

oh, okay

codubee wrote:

(#3179)

Exascerbescence wrote:

codubee wrote:

source
No they (referring to @scratchcode1_2_3 and @Exascerbescence) aren't. They are cooking up a bunch made up nonsense out of thin air.

Nonsense, you say?

Here are my sources for every post I’ve made since @codubee joined the discussion

Post 1

Exascerbescence wrote:

pippy2011eight wrote:

Guys! Codubee also commented this:

codubee wrote:

We haven't fully worked out how AI will be part of Scratch yet, so when you say, “add AI” what exactly do you mean? Because we don't even know exactly what that will mean yet…

king

How can anyone pretend the CLA is being handled carefully?

The moderators weren’t told about the extremely controversial TOS change, and not even the director of technology actually knows what the AI will look like a full year after it was announced. How are we meant to think Scratch hasn’t left behind its values for greed when it has left behind its own employees?

For “the moderators weren’t told about the extremely controversial TOS change,”
source

cheddargirl wrote:

mingo-gag wrote:

Some Moderators didn't even know about this update.

This was closed because it was flamey here.so let's not start a flame war again.

More like… all the moderators. I just happened to quite horribly, terribly, woefully, incredibly quite unlucky in this particular instance to have been cursed with handling the report ticket about the flame war comments. (O_o)

Speaking of which, sometimes we see forum reports that are not really reports but comments that really should be posted in a Suggestions thread or submitted via the “Feedback” link on the foundation website. Particularly, when it comes to a decision that has more ramifications (switch from Scratch 2.0 to 3.0, putting a cap on comment chains in studios, and in this case AI), those not-a-report-but-a-suggestion-ticket flood the queue a lot, which makes it harder for moderators to get to tickets that need more urgent attention. I'll still do my due diligence to forward a copy of those reports before moving on to the next ticket, but the moderation queue does need to be clear, I don't think people want to have non-moderation reports to slow down moderators from handling tickets that require more immediate moderator attention (like someone sharing personal info or inappropriate comments).

For “A full year after it was announced”
2024 Annual Report speaking about 4.0

Post 2:

Exascerbescence wrote:

codubee wrote:

-haruto-- wrote:

ok but why people saying that this ai will deprive kids of their debugging like i saw that and what mean you

I have no idea dude.

Exascerbescence about 50 pages ago wrote:

I did once get addicted to AI when I was a much more vulnerable person and I think the people who support AI should know what that’s like before they make their decision.

You lose all of your energy, you no longer have any will to create or do things, you stop researching and pursuing inspiration and ideas and thinking deeply and trying to understand the world around you, because why not just ask the AI? You lose the ability to fact-check and become gullible and eventually you stop having the energy to just go for a walk. This is not exaggeration, this is personal experience and I only got out of it because I knew the AI (or rather, the company behind it) was there to take all of my time and control me.

How in the world are young children supposed to navigate this? I do realize that Scratch is a non-profit, but you still quite directly risk exposing young children to these other intentionally controlling AIs. I have seen grown adults who allow themselves to get controlled by this sort of hyperconvenience and not even take a moment to question it. There are 7 year olds here. I fear that including an AI here would not just be annoying and saddening but could quietly ruin lives.

This is an anecdote so I can’t really cite a source for it, I’m only including it here for completion and because I don’t think @codubee saw it

I do agree with @codubee’s assertion that, when excluding arguments related to the AI, the arguments against the membership are weak and the membership was the best way for sustainability. However when combined with the context of an upcoming AI (which will no doubt be very expensive) this falls apart. How is this working towards sustainability when you are simultaneously doing something extremely unsustainable?

Thank you, @codubee, for taking your time to read the posts here and respond, it is great that someone who might actually be able to do something about this is now listening to us

Please stop spreading misinformation. A single moderator's words were misinterpreted and it is false that the moderators were not informed about the ToS.

Also, this is literally what we are doing and why we haven't deployed any AI tooling yet. How do we present these tools in a way that they help. And we _always_ listen, but we can't always respond openly with what we are doing behind the scenes.

I hope everyone who reads this, if you haven't caught on to this yet, there has been a _dramatic_/world changing shift in the last 3 months alone. The entire software development industry in the midst of changing how programming is performed that is fundamentally different than what has happened over the last 60 years. I have lots of software engineering/systems admin/SRE friends who are making the move from their decades long practices to new ones based on using tools like Claude/copilot/… You are witnessing a seismic shift that shows it isn't “just hype” and “slop”. Another friend I've know for 30 years, who isn't a “engineer” or programmer, and yet, recently created a customized health tracking IOS custom app that she spec'd out and built using Claude.

*think about that*

A > 50 year old person, who has experience with web technologies such as css/html, but no other programming experience built a customized IOS app for herself and now runs it on her own phone. It took her a day to have that app running, and she's been tweaking it since then, but stopped after one week. Why? _because it was what she wanted and didn't need to do more on it at that point_

These tools are moving incredibly fast, and we don't want to jump unthinkingly into using them, but it would be ridiculous for us to ignore it and not explore how we might be able to present these tools in a Scratchy way. We anticipated this happening and we've been planning and developing as our resources allow.

okay. okay. what?

First of all, why are you speaking in markdown? We're in the forums, it uses DjangoBB, not markdown

Second, why are you getting defensive? I feel like accusing people of simply spreading lies and misinformation isn't a great way to support your argument. There's better ways to form a coherent argument than pointing fingers and yelling accusations with 0 evidence. Saying you're working on things isn't the same thing as telling us what you're working on, so it's hard to believe.

Last, that's not an accomplishment. It's not a flex. It's not an indication of a great thing. You're acting like the fact that she vibe coded an app using Claude Code is something to celebrate. In reality, this is the use case where AI is literally the worst, and is the strongest argument for this suggestion, which you just added to. I would be fine with AI if it taught kids rather than spit out a project or at least a majority of the project. You can argue this issue already exists with the remix culture, in which kids can make games based off entire engines, like generic platformers. And that's true, but using AI is just a different way of doing the same thing that remixing did. If you're taking someone's remixed code and just smushing stuff on top without trying to understand the code, that's terrible coding practice. And this is a site where kids learn to code. It's Imagine, Program, Share! If it had been a “teach-your-kids-to-vibe-code-at-5” website from the start, then that's a different story. I'm not saying remix culture is bad. It's a great way to learn new things and building on top of them. What about frameworks? You don't have to know how the framework itself works, but you have to know why the code you made within the framework works. Scratch is a block-based “framework” for JavaScript, really. JavaScript itself is built on C, and the C compiler was originally built in assembly before it was rebuilt in C (bootstrapped). Assembly wasn't a thing for a long time either, as computers weren't powerful enough to have assemblers. People had to manually write down binary opcodes and type them into computers. I'm sure that you know that and what follows though, so I won't bore you with the history of programming languages. The point is, if you're writing JavaScript, you don't need to know how the V8 JIT compiler works, but you need to know at least how the JavaScript code works. Why does this do what it does? What does the function do?

The biggest difference with AI from remixing the project is that, when you remix a project, you don't tell the project what you want to change in English (or any other language for that matter). You have to know how the code works. You know what you want, and you know the steps to form that into reality using the blocks. If something you added broke the original code in someplace else, you have to go and check why that broke it and how it was related. It's the thrill of programming. With AI, it's a lot more “personalized” since you can pretty much tell it exactly what to do and it will do just that*.

One argument I've seen spreading around to condone AI is that mathematics didn't die when calculators were introduced. And that's kind of obvious. It allowed mathematicians to do better things that they could've never done before. They could make new formulas and theorems, and calculate expensive, repetitive algorithms significantly faster than doing it manually. But this is completely different. Mathematics didn't die with calculators because mathematics is more than numbers. It involves the logic for the theorems and formulas. It involves the practicality and the problem-solving skills needed to know where to put something together and they fit like puzzle pieces. This still needs thinking that calculators can't do.

In this case, the argument is that AI is the tool. Like the calculator, it can help us get work done faster and create things better. But that's not even remotely close how you and the big AI corporations are pushing it. They want people to think it can replace programmers. That is the illusion of LLMs. When you prompt something to the AI, it completely bypasses the logic needed for the program. And computers are quite literally all about logic. CPUs are literally stones with hundreds of millions to hundreds of billions of… logic gates. The point of making something is that you understand the logic behind how it works. The only way it's acceptable is that if you already know how to do it, but would rather automate it forever.

The other thing is that vibe coding (or not just coding, but rather anything in which AI is completely involved) is addictive. It's not a personal problem (even though it kinda is), but more of a… biological one. Our brains already use about 20% of our daily energy. For that reason, the brain likes being lazy. It doesn't like doing complex logical things which require multi-step reasoning and mental involvement. So it tries to find shortcuts. Most of the time it's actually kind of useful, since you can memorize stuff like multiplication and get 7 * 3 = 21 in an instant instead of doing repeated addition manually. Even addition itself is a very heavy memory-based task when you know how to do it, because you won't count up to the number you're adding. It's essentially a really good lookup table that knows how to piece things together. With AI, however, the shortcut is too big. You see the AI create something cool* in hours when it would take your days or weeks, and all you see is a final “polished” result. But now, you just skipped all the thinking. This is a massive shortcut that gives your brain a massive dopamine boost because you feel like you “created” something but didn't have to do much work, which reinforces the behavior. In this case, you get addicted to not thinking. You offload your thinking to an AI and blindly trust it because your brain doesn't want to wake up the prefrontal cortex for it. Then, there's an inevitable point where the AI will mess up and create a bug that when you ask for it to fix, it can't fix it. Then you start panicking because you've never seen the actual code before, and if you don't even know the language (which in this case, html and css aren't programming languages, although CSS is turing complete but it's still not a programming language), it's even worse since you don't know how to fix it. All you see is a wall of gibberish. Like trying to read a foreign language you've never seen before. Since you never bothered learning it, you just… well, can't do it. Then you spiral down a path of frustration as the AI messes up even more, then its context starts getting full so it either starts glitching even more, or compacting information in a way that takes away important details and now it doesn't know details. You try creating a new chat to start a fresh session to fix it, but now it doesn't know anything, and it looks at maybe 10 files in the codebase at most, which leads to redundant functions that already existed in another file, code that doesn't integrate well with other functions because it's never seen what the actual function looks like, only the way it's used, which doesn't really tell you anything. Then, there's the massive problem with AI-generated comments, is that, they explain what the code does, but not why. And that's completely useless. If you need to know what the code does, you can just read it. Especially with modern languages, they're abstracted enough so you can read them with some logic and it fares out pretty well, making the comment very redundant. If a human wrote it, it will most likely add a reason why, such as compatibility shims or a function that just “needs to be there”.

How do I know all this? Well, it's because for almost a year, I fell into the same illusion of vibe coding. It was harder than real coding. Every time I asked it to change something, I just blindly accepted it even though I knew the code wouldn't be nearly as… “good” as it needs to be, then run it, and be frustrated because of just how terrible AI is at huge codebases, which is where most code is. You might argue that “well, all she did was write a small iOS app, so it doesn't really matter” but that's not really true. Of course AI is good for writing small apps. Half the time, the code for those apps either already exists so it just regurgitates it, or it's simple enough that it can just do it. But nowhere in a practical scenario will you have a codebase that small that is actually usable and not just some cool tech demo to show off the “capabilities” of AI. I kept getting mad at the AI because it just kept doing things wrong, then when I asked it to “pls fix” it did them even worse, and eventually it made me so mad I was almost going to cry tears of rage, as it feels like the AI is being an incoherent little annoying ragebaiter. Then I would try to fix it myself, but I realized I don't know what the AI did, I don't know how to fix it, and it would leave me feeling worse since I would think to myself, “I suck at this. I can't code. I relied on an AI to do everything for me and now I've forgotten how to code.” It made me almost cry. I felt ashamed of myself, vibe coding. I ended up just reverting what the AI did, because I didn't know what it had done, and my brain was already far too addicted to not thinking to just start thinking again and do it myself or fix it myself. It was a black box. I couldn't read the code. I'd feel better doing it myself. And it was so much better.

For your information, yes, I used the “revolutionary” tools that created a “seismic shift” on software development, GitHub Copilot. But I felt so much better when I used it without having to vibe code. I felt so good knowing that for once, I actually knew what I was doing and how the code worked. I refreshed myself with a new start by starting making a CLI tool in pure C++, even if someone else had beat me to the punch. But I kept going, because this made me re-realize the sheer joy and thrill of coding myself. The learning, the going to stackoverflow and google, and random forums with code that's from 2005 that still work in the big ‘26. Because coding should never die. We created computers and we need to have the skills to keep controlling them as they become better. Offloading that to another thing we created ourselves by using data we don’t even know what is since we just took a bunch of stuff and slammed them into a text-prediction model and called it AI. And that doesn't mean I stopped using Copilot either. Copilot helped me a lot along the way by making the CI. It helps me to refactor some things that I could've done myself but they are just repetitive and simple enough to let Copilot do it, and me just review that it did exactly what I wanted by actually looking at the code and not just hoping that the compile version works, then give the error back to it and say “pls fix no mistakes”. For example, it helped me in adding some ansi escape codes to my std::cout's since I don't memorize my ansi color codes (yet). It helped me wrap like 30 lines in the same if statement, which I could've done myself but the AI took seconds. That's how it was meant to be used. It's not a replacement for thinking and letting people who don't know how to code use it.

If you would've wanted to implement AI in a “Scratchy” way, you need to look beyond the horizon and think outside the black box that an LLM. You need to think of ways that an LLM can become an accurate tutor, and not show people how to fix things, but nudge them towards hints or techniques to do it better in the future. To prepare kids for the real world of programming, which is starting to be reawakened as companies realize AI-written code is absolute garbage and is clearly wrecking their product, scrambling to hire the thousands of people that they laid off in favor of an AI. If anything, fixing AI-written code could be a real job as AI becomes more prominent in the field and it lands on the hands of people who frankly don't know what they are doing and don't intend to actually learn. Because there's always going to be people who prioritize seeing fancy results and cutting corners than appreciating the effort in the small details of AI assisted, but human written code. Any tool can fall into the wrong hands. And you, the Scratch Team, your job should be to make that clear on the future generation that our society will depend on. Leadership is important, but you shouldn't be able to lead people (or in this case, AI) into doing something you don't know how to do, or at least haven't even tried to do. Obviously, part of being a leader in a team is that members of the team are specialized in what they do and are better in skills you can't do. But knowing the process behind the scenes will always make you appreciate the hours of effort that go behind a real product even if you only see it for a few seconds. I'm not a composer, but this nice user called @PauloPlayzVA makes some nice music for my projects. And I can't be more grateful to him in a way I can express with words. I understand the effort that goes into making the music in FL studio because I've tried making music myself and it's pretty dang hard, especially getting music theory right and all. However, once you realize just how much effort and details go into making a song, you'll instantly appreciate things way better because now you know what it took to make them. And if you don't know, you can take things for granted because you see the final result only. AI can also screw up the final result, since there can be hidden vulnerabilities and bugs that you can't see at a glance. But with a well-written API, you take that for granted, and you shouldn't, since there was a lot of thought and effort behind it.

I hope you read every word in this. Thank you.

Wait.. WAS EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN SAID BEOFRE MISINFORMATION.
At this point, close the topic

ChristianScratcher1 wrote:

codubee wrote:

pippy2011eight wrote:

codubee wrote:

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

wait, I'm confused, how do you make an AI without training?

Because that's not what we're doing!

Terms of Service Announcement wrote:

We also want to assure you that right now, we are not training any AI models on Scratchers’ data.

Soooooo what exactly is the AI going to be training on?

We aren't training AI anything.

Magudragon wrote:

Someone really needs to close this topic and bump my post as the final one.
Or better, ST can do an announcement clearing this controversial misinfo.

So to summarrize:

Is Scratch trying to implement a Creative Learning assistant?
No, at least not yet


When will it happen?
Presumably only if the community is incredibly onboard (loud buzzer sound), since it is very costly


If not, why was the TOS changed?
Because Ai from other corporations (ChatGPT, whatever else) can still train off the website in different ways.



Should I still quit?
Only if the AI controversey wasn't the main reason

…so this entire forum was just people freaking out over nothing?

StarFutureFox wrote:

Alright then..? Soooo, all the glitches in Scratch are unfixable? I don't really understand what all that's supposed to mean, but even if every single glitch you can find on Scratch is unfixable, there are almost definitley still other things to do that are far better with less backlash than the CLA.

Wow. What is it with so many people leaping to conclusions and making statements like this? I didn't say anything is unfixable. Where did I say that? In fact, I said the exact opposite of that!:

codubee wrote:

…
We've had designs for a new backend system going back to 2019 and at this point, we are making serious progress on this, and it will entirely replace the old django based systems and the node based ones as well. The bugs and glitches you are talking about are us making heroic efforts to keep a system primarily developed and written from 2013-2016, from falling over before we get to the new.

Magudragon wrote:

Even Scratch Team seems to be as clueless as the rest of us, and that one user from the Scratch foundation (the foundation in charge of the TOS change)

Wow. Who do you think runs the whole site and develops for it? It's been the Scratch Foundation since 2020. 6. Years. The group of people who were running Scratch from inside the MIT Media Lab, were spun out into the Scratch Foundation. You're talking as if somehow the Scratch Foundation is some background organization…

Now, I shall say my support on the OP

They need to change the term “AI” to “generative AI”, things like machine learning can be useful

Yea uh no support (unless it changes)

ajskateboarder wrote:

CuteHamsterOwO wrote:

uhm, stealing without giving proper credit, and even with credit, but not permission (REAL permission, as in willing, not ToS permission ) is bad, because STEALING STUFF IS BAD in general

People on Scratch can “steal” stuff without permission today. Nobody has ever had to ask an original creator to use something in another project. Only credit is necessary (or was necessary, because now people can use sprites freely within Scratch without credit, according to the new ToS)

StarFutureFox wrote:

the AI ‘assistant’ literally added a random food truck that wasn't related to the project at all. I'm not about to go back and get a specific timestamp for you, go see it yourself if you don't believe me

I found a mention of the AI inaccurately stating there was a food truck on the stage. Otherwise, this is wrong. The assistant was providing assets from other projects, not generating them

woahh, you don't see how that's an issue? I don't feel like repeating this again, but a lot of people do not like their sprites and art taken and fed to an AI?

Looking over the ToS again, I do have problems with:

which may include (but not be limited to) licensing, developing, and improving AI models and allowing third parties to do so for free or for a fee

I don't really like that they're essentially giving away user Content directly to third parties. If they were training their own model or working with third parties in a more private manner, then I would have no issues. But otherwise I don't see how training an assistant from public code specifically for Scratch would be an issue (which is a personal opinion)

(in which case this suggestion handles things far more productively imo)

also: the accompanying Privacy Policy seems rather vague on this:

We may use AI and other automated technologies to facilitate the purposes set out above, such as to provide coding recommendations, moderate content and develop and improve the Scratch Website.

I've said this a lot already, but I don't think we have all that much information yet

yeah, I know that, its just that I think that stealing is bad, that's all (I don't like people stealing sprites with no credit in general, just an opinion lol)

This has gotten way too confusing for me, I leave for a few hours and when I come back, there are 2 new pages of information I was unaware of.
Bye.

codubee wrote:

(#3272)

ChristianScratcher1 wrote:

codubee wrote:

pippy2011eight wrote:

codubee wrote:

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

wait, I'm confused, how do you make an AI without training?

Because that's not what we're doing!

Terms of Service Announcement wrote:

We also want to assure you that right now, we are not training any AI models on Scratchers’ data.

Soooooo what exactly is the AI going to be training on?

We aren't training AI anything.

So why'd you guys give yourself that permission in the ToS? You say the ToS change was needed to comply with laws, but I don't see any law that tells websites they need to add a clause that specifically makes users consent to training AI off User Content™️. So if you claim that you aren't “training AI anything”, why'd you include it in the ToS? Your arguments hold no truthful value as the ToS is the ultimate legally-binding source of truth for the site. Why not remove it then? And even if you say you aren't doing it now, what's stopping you from doing it later, as the ToS allows explicitly?

Magudragon wrote:

Is Scratch trying to implement a Creative Learning assistant?
No, at least not yet

Wrong. Still don't know how you get there from what I said. We are absolutely iterating on the CLA and other AI related tooling. As I have stated, multiple times in this thread.

Magudragon wrote:

When will it happen?
Presumably only if the community is incredibly onboard (loud buzzer sound), since it is very costly

(insert Edna Mode meme: WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???)…
What you've responded with is so off the wall, I'm having trouble figuring out where to start with a reply…

Magudragon wrote:

If not, why was the TOS changed?
Because Ai from other corporations (ChatGPT, whatever else) can still train off the website in different ways.

Orgs change ToS's all the time. We've changed ours twice in the last 10 years. Do you think a ToS written more than a decade ago could even apply in the current landscape of the internet?

codubee wrote:

Magudragon wrote:

Is Scratch trying to implement a Creative Learning assistant?
No, at least not yet

Wrong. Still don't know how you get there from what I said. We are absolutely iterating on the CLA and other AI related tooling. As I have stated, multiple times in this thread.

Dang it i deleted my post that.. ah nvm I'll bring it back

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

-snip due to the post being extremely big-
I hope you read every word in this. Thank you.

ur joking, right?

Foxofpeace wrote:

Foxofpeace wrote:

littlejoeywhoiscool wrote:

codubee wrote:

littlejoeywhoiscool wrote:

Just a little question… who made this decision? And did everyone in Scratch Team initially agree on it?

What decision are you talking about? A single person did not make this decision, stop spreading lies about how the “Scratch Team” has no power, or somehow wasn't involved in the decision. The Team is part of that decision making process, _by definition_.

Here’s another question, why do you have the audacity to accuse me of spreading lies when I was just asking a question.

p.l.i.t.d.

p.l.i.t.d.

its strange how @codubee is all confident with addressing all of the posts, meanwhile, @codubee wont adress this question and isnt talking about it even though i have quoted it 3 times now

codubee wrote:

(#3280)
Orgs change ToS's all the time. We've changed ours twice in the last 10 years. Do you think a ToS written more than a decade ago could even apply in the current landscape of the internet?

twin, y'all didn't even have a tos until january. it was called the ToU

RL1123 wrote:

(#3281)

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

-snip-
I hope you read every word in this. Thank you.

The irony of this is that you made such a long anti-AI post that I had no choice but to use AI to summarize and understand it all.

-_-

Voxalice wrote:

(#3282)
Are you an AI?

beep bop. did you know eating 3 rocks a day gives you necessary iron minerals in your blood?

Foxofpeace wrote:

(#3284)
ur joking, right?

not at all. i spent sweat, tears, and a truckload of caffeine in writing that

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

codubee wrote:

(#3280)
Orgs change ToS's all the time. We've changed ours twice in the last 10 years. Do you think a ToS written more than a decade ago could even apply in the current landscape of the internet?

twin, y'all didn't even have a tos until january. it was called the ToU

I think you know they are essentially the same thing

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

Foxofpeace wrote:

(#3284)
ur joking, right?

not at all. i spent sweat, tears, and a truckload of caffeine in writing that

i meant about making an extremely long post and saying “i hope you read every word of that”

ajskateboarder wrote:

(#3287)

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

codubee wrote:

(#3280)
Orgs change ToS's all the time. We've changed ours twice in the last 10 years. Do you think a ToS written more than a decade ago could even apply in the current landscape of the internet?

twin, y'all didn't even have a tos until january. it was called the ToU

I think you know they are essentially the same thing

'twas a joke how dare me attempt lightening the mood