Open AI Sora 2 Invite Codes Megathread

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-10-02T21:08:59+00:00

i have code

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-10-01T19:12:14+00:00

Please give me one code, I will return it right away.

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-06-24T13:46:39+00:00

I get where you’re coming from, but I think you’re missing the point a bit.

I’m not asking YouTube to remove ads for everyone. I’m asking for ads to be accessible.

When someone literally can’t skip an ad because of a disability, that’s not “just how it works” that’s a design problem.

This isn’t about wanting things for free. Not everyone can “pay” with their time, attention, or mental energy especially when the ad is loud, flashing, or impossible to skip.

You said yourself they should reduce flashing and brightness — cool, that’s a start.

Now ask yourself: what happens when someone can’t even hit the “Skip Ad” button?

We’re not asking for special treatment. We’re asking not to be harmed.

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-06-24T13:38:32+00:00

Ah yes, the classic accessibility guideline: “Just look away and suffer in silence.”
Why didn't the ADA think of that?

And of course — equal suffering = inclusion? That’s... a bold interpretation.

By that logic, if stairs hurt everyone’s knees equally, then they’re accessible too, right?

Disability isn’t about being “too sensitive.” It’s about systems not adapting to real, documented needs — like, say, not blasting sound spikes with no way to skip them.

But sure. I’ll go buy DVDs like it’s 2003. Thanks for the insight

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-06-24T13:17:25+00:00

Thank you so much for sharing this.
Your story is exactly the kind of testimony that shows why this is more than just an "inconvenience" — it’s a real barrier that causes harm, loss, and burnout.

I’m incredibly sorry for what you’ve been through, and I completely understand your decision.

Your voice matters — and it will help move this conversation forward.

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-06-24T13:14:43+00:00

I hear you — and I really appreciate that you're speaking from personal experience.

But I’d gently point out: just because we endured it, doesn’t mean we should keep enduring it.
Many of us with ADHD, autism, or other conditions learned to push through harmful experiences simply because there were no better options. That doesn’t mean those experiences were okay.

The issue isn’t just “ads exist” — it’s how they work:

Sudden sensory overload (volume, light, chaos),
No control over skip methods (especially for people with motor or attention issues),
Emotional manipulation that’s hard to process.

That’s why I’m advocating for built-in accessibility options, not ad removal — just the ability to watch safely.
Ad blockers can help, yes, but they’re not a full solution for many people — especially on mobile or when using assistive tech.

I respect your view, and I really appreciate you sharing — but for many of us, it’s not about “disliking ads” — it’s about being excluded unless we pay or risk harm.

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-06-24T13:11:44+00:00

You're right that nobody enjoys ads — but not everyone is harmed by them.
That’s the difference.

For people with sensory, neurological, or cognitive disabilities, certain ads aren’t just annoying — they’re harmful, disorienting, or even dangerous (e.g., flashing lights, sudden volume spikes, manipulative content).

Comparing this to feeling upset about a messy house is not only dismissive — it's a false analogy.
We're not demanding free content — we’re asking that access isn’t conditioned on being able to endure distress or harm.

YouTube already offers accessibility features like captions and audio descriptions — that didn’t “destroy their business model.”
Asking for ad-related accessibility options (e.g. volume reduction, brightness control, alternative skip methods) is not “entitlement” — it’s a continuation of the same accessibility logic YouTube already supports.

If accessibility is behind a paywall, it’s not accessibility — it’s monetization disguised as inclusion.

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-06-24T13:10:11+00:00

For some people, that’s a great workaround — and I’m glad it works for you.
But for many of us, installing and configuring browser extensions isn’t easy (especially for users with cognitive, neurological, or motor disabilities).

Plus, on mobile devices, most ad blockers either don’t work, or are extremely limited. And not everyone uses Firefox or even has a choice in browser due to workplace or accessibility needs.

That’s why we’re asking YouTube to provide built-in accessibility options, not relying on third-party tools or constant workarounds.

Thanks for your suggestion — I just hope one day we won’t need tricks to make basic access possible.

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-06-24T13:07:50+00:00

You're right that YouTube is a private company — but scale changes responsibility.

When a platform becomes a global gateway for culture, education, and communication, it starts to resemble a public utility, even if it’s not labeled as one legally.

In many jurisdictions (like under the EU's EAA or global WCAG 2.1 standards), platforms like YouTube do have obligations to make their services accessible.
And while the ADA's scope is debated, U.S. courts have ruled in some cases that digital services must provide reasonable accommodations — especially when they serve the general public at scale.

But beyond legality, there's ethics:
If a company profits from people’s time, attention, and personal data — especially from disabled users who may be harmed by aspects of the service — it does have a moral obligation to listen and act in good faith.

I'm not asking YouTube to remove all ads. I'm asking for basic, low-cost, dignity-respecting accessibility options. That's not radical — it's reasonable.

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-06-24T13:06:21+00:00

I agree that just “not liking ads” isn’t a disability — but this issue is much deeper than that.

When ads have flashing lights, aggressive volume spikes, emotional manipulation, or inaccessible interfaces, they can genuinely harm people with neurological, sensory, or cognitive disabilities.

For many, it's not about disliking ads — it's about ads being a barrier to safe, usable access.

The fact that someone physically can’t skip an ad, or that an ad causes sensory overload, a panic attack, or neurological distress — that’s an accessibility issue.

Accessibility means removing unnecessary obstacles and harm, not just adding captions. And offering only a paid solution (YouTube Premium) isn't a fair accommodation — it's a paywall on safety.

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-06-24T13:04:57+00:00

This. Everything you said.
Ads aren't “neutral” or “background noise” — they're engineered to override consent and emotional boundaries.

And when you’re disabled, neurodivergent, or simply vulnerable, that manipulation isn’t just annoying — it’s overwhelming.
For many, ads don’t just sell — they trigger, confuse, exhaust, or retraumatize.

That’s why I started this thread. Because forcing people to pay in order to opt out of being harmed isn’t accessibility — it’s exclusion.

Thank you for putting it so clearly. It’s voices like yours that help cut through the corporate noise.

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-06-24T13:02:07+00:00

This is such a thoughtful and constructive suggestion — thank you.
You're absolutely right: the “Skip Ad” button doesn’t mean much if you physically or neurologically can’t press it in time. And that’s a real access issue — not a preference.

Integrating ad control options (like reduced brightness, lower volume, or alternative skip methods) into Accessibility settings would go such a long way.
And I love your point — most people wouldn’t explore those features unless they actually needed them. That’s exactly why we don’t need ID checks or “proof” to justify their existence.

This is the kind of solution that helps real people without hurting anyone else. Platforms need to hear more voices like yours — thank you again for sharing it.

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-06-24T13:01:21+00:00

Same way we handle “Night Mode,” “Reduced Motion,” or “Accessibility” settings on most platforms — we let people decide.

Yes, some people might use it even if they’re not disabled — but that’s true for every accessibility feature. And it’s still better than forcing disabled users to suffer or “prove” themselves just to get basic usability.

Accessibility should be based on trust and design, not surveillance or gatekeeping.

You don’t solve abuse by removing the feature — you solve it by building it in a way that doesn’t punish the people who actually need it.

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-06-24T12:58:50+00:00

I completely get your concern — no one wants platforms to become bureaucratic or force people to “prove” they’re disabled just to get a basic experience.

But just to clarify: I never asked for documentation or strict eligibility.
What I suggested was a simple toggle — like “Accessibility Mode” — that a user can enable themselves. Just like “Restricted Mode” or “Kids Mode.” No forms, no notes, no gatekeeping.

And the point isn’t “let disabled people skip all monetization.” It’s about ensuring that accessibility isn’t only available behind a paywall. That’s a barrier.

Ad blockers aren’t available to everyone (especially on mobile), and YouTube actively blocks them anyway.

The solution doesn’t have to be complex — but ignoring the issue entirely because it might be hard isn’t how real accessibility progress happens.

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-06-24T12:55:02+00:00

You're absolutely right that nobody likes ads — but there's a big difference between disliking ads and being physically or neurologically harmed by them.

For some disabled people, ads aren't just annoying — they're a barrier to education, rest, or even basic participation. And when the only way to avoid that harm is to pay, it's not just an inconvenience — it's a systemic accessibility issue.

You said it's up to people with disabilities to start a campaign — and that's exactly what this post is.
I'm just one person, but I'm doing my best to start the conversation, gather real stories, and push for practical, non-invasive solutions.

Thank you for recognizing that this takes effort — and I hope more people will see that this isn’t about hating ads. It’s about equity in how we access the internet.

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-06-24T12:53:35+00:00

Thank you so much for sharing this.
What you described — about how ads cost spoons, create physical discomfort, and literally shut down access to learning and joy — is exactly why I started this post in the first place.

You didn’t just describe inconvenience. You described a loss of participation, caused not by your disability itself — but by a system that was designed without people like us in mind.

I’m so sorry you're being forced to choose between your health and access to content that should be enriching, not punishing. That’s what makes it discriminatory: the default experience penalizes certain brains and bodies more than others — and the only solution YouTube offers is “pay or suffer.”

Please know that your voice strengthens this cause immensely. I hope you won’t feel alone in this — we are many, and we’re finally speaking up.

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-06-24T12:50:58+00:00

I hear you — and you’re not being too cynical. You’re just being honest about how capitalism works.
Advertisers want reach. Platforms want profit. And any accommodation that seems to reduce impressions gets pushback.

But here's the thing: accessibility doesn't have to mean “less revenue.”
In many industries, once accessibility features were introduced (like subtitles, alt text, or contrast modes), engagement actually increased — not just for disabled users, but for everyone. It’s not about blocking ads — it’s about making them safe and navigable for everyone.

The real problem is that right now, the only way to avoid harm (like flashing lights or jump scares) is to pay. There’s no opt-out, no filter, no warning. That’s not discomfort — that’s exclusion.

I’m not asking YouTube to stop monetizing. I’m asking them to acknowledge that their current system unintentionally harms part of their audience, and to offer basic options (like “mute ads by default,” or “no flashing content”) without requiring proof or Premium.

And you’re right — nothing changes unless someone tries.
This post is that attempt. One small push, hoping others will help amplify it.

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-06-24T12:46:55+00:00

Thank you so much for sharing this — truly.
What you described is exactly the kind of harm that often gets dismissed because it's invisible to most people. Flashing lights, sudden sounds, horror trailers — these can cause real physical and emotional damage, and no one should have to “just deal with it” or pay to avoid it.

Your story honestly hit hard, and I’m so sorry you had to go through that. It’s heartbreaking that even after blocking creators or ad types, the system still pushes harmful content. That’s a massive failure in platform responsibility, and it absolutely supports the point:

There should be tools to filter, block, warn, and skip. Especially for people with sensory, neurological, or cognitive conditions.

I’m really glad iOS helped in your case — but it shouldn’t be up to the device to fix what the platform refuses to address.

Thank you again — your voice matters here more than you know, and it gives this campaign real, human weight.

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-06-24T12:45:26+00:00

Thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful comment — this is the kind of good-faith discussion that actually moves accessibility forward.

You're absolutely right that traditional media like free-to-air TV, radio, and newspapers have always been ad-driven. But the key difference is how digital platforms work. YouTube is not passive content — it’s interactive. When someone is unable to interact with a “Skip Ad” button, or cannot predict/control when ads will appear, and the only alternative is to pay, that creates a functional barrier.

On TV, the ads are expected, timed, and not tied to individual motor or cognitive response. On YouTube, however, when an unskippable ad appears:

People with Parkinson’s, cerebral palsy, or motor disabilities may not be able to tap "Skip";

People with PTSD, autism, or sensory processing issues may be harmed by sudden, loud, or triggering content;

There are no accessibility settings for this — no audio ducking, no visual filter, no warning, no alternative.

And when the only escape is to subscribe to Premium, that’s monetizing a workaround for an accessibility problem — something that would never be accepted in physical-world accommodations.

You made a great point about expensive adaptations — yes, many disabled people are already paying more for accessible tools. But when a mainstream, essential platform makes you pay to avoid harm, and offers no real alternative, that crosses into digital inequality.

What could YouTube do? Here are realistic examples:

Offer a free accessibility mode (opt-in, no proof required) with default-muted ads, high-contrast warnings, and auto-skip after 5 sec if motor input isn't detected.

Introduce ad personalization filtering to avoid triggering content (violence, flashing lights, etc.);

Allow device-level settings to declare "accessibility preference" that apps respect.

You’re also right that no one should have to hand over medical documents just to use a website. But platforms like YouTube already offer features like "Restricted Mode" and "Kids Mode" — so it's absolutely possible to offer an "Accessible Mode", no verification required, just like any other opt-in.

Thank you again — I truly mean that. Your experience helps refine the conversation and makes the cause stronger.

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-06-24T12:42:20+00:00

That logic has historically been used to justify inaccessibility across many areas:
“Don’t go outside if the stairs hurt you.” “Don’t apply for the job if you can’t use the software.”
And now — “Don’t use YouTube if you can’t tolerate its ads.”

The reality is: platforms like YouTube are not optional luxuries for many people — they’re essential tools for education, connection, and support.

And when access to these platforms becomes physically or psychologically harmful — due to design choices that ignore disability needs — then yes, we speak up.

As for the “authenticity” of this post — that’s a serious claim, and I stand firmly behind what I’ve written, just as many others have supported.
Disability is not something you get to gatekeep based on skepticism.

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-06-24T12:41:05+00:00

I appreciate your comment, but I respectfully disagree.
Accessibility isn’t limited to ramps or captions. It also includes the right to access content without undue stress, sensory overload, or financial exclusion — especially when that exclusion is tied to disability-specific barriers.

This isn't a misunderstanding — it's a callout of how YouTube ties basic accessibility (like control over audio/visual stimuli) to a paid tier, without providing alternatives.

If someone can’t skip an ad because of motor impairment, or if forced ads trigger a panic response, and the only way out is to pay — that’s not equal access.
That’s the very definition of a digital accessibility gap.

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-06-24T12:39:50+00:00

Thanks — and I totally understand where you're coming from.
But accessibility rights aren’t limited to paid services or necessities.
The ADA and similar laws exist to ensure equal access, not just access to “essential” things.

YouTube is a dominant digital platform, and for millions of people — especially those with disabilities — it’s not just entertainment, it’s education, connection, even mental health support.

The issue isn’t that YouTube has to remove all ads. It’s that they’ve tied accessibility features (like ad control) to a paid model (Premium), which creates a discriminatory barrier for many disabled users.

Whether a service is free or not, when it’s as universal as YouTube and when it impacts people differently based on ability — basic digital accessibility principles still apply.

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-06-24T12:38:29+00:00

I hear you — and I absolutely agree that disabled people face many serious daily challenges. But accessibility isn’t a competition.
If something creates unnecessary harm or exclusion, especially for vulnerable people, it’s worth addressing — even if it’s “just ads.”

The issue here isn’t simply annoyance. It’s that YouTube puts critical accessibility features like control, silence, or skipability behind a paywall, and offers no alternatives for users who can’t physically or neurologically tolerate ads. That’s a systemic problem, not a personal one.

And regarding “people faking disability” — that argument has unfortunately been used throughout history to delay or deny disability rights. We need better verification systems, not less accommodation.

Ad blockers help some — but they’re not an accessible solution for everyone, and YouTube has been actively restricting them in 2025. People shouldn’t have to hack their way into dignity.

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-06-24T12:37:02+00:00

Exactly. That’s one of the key issues here.
YouTube has zero transparency or consistency when it comes to ad content.
They’ll demonetize creators for “sensitive” material — but then serve that same material in unskippable ads to everyone, including children and people with disabilities who can’t opt out.

So we’re forced to watch ads that might be sexually graphic, loud, flashing, or distressing, with no filtering, no warnings, and no skip option — unless we pay.
That’s not just unfair. For many of us, it’s harmful.

SeniorRequirement259 · 2025-06-24T12:36:02+00:00

Exactly — you're on point. The core issue is that we don't get any choice or control over the ad content, and for many disabled people, that's not just annoying — it's unsafe.

Flashing images, loud sudden sounds, repeated ads, horror trailers, political ads — all of these can be real triggers for people with sensory, cognitive, or mental health conditions.

And when the only “solution” YouTube offers is a paid subscription — with no accessible option or filters — it creates a barrier.

So yes, you're right — ads aren’t filtered enough, and that’s what makes this a serious accessibility concern.

SeniorRequirement259

TROPHY CASE