Did you know?: Dot Com and Dot Red have different ToSes?
Wound up on Dot Com on way to bug report portal and opened the ToS because I needed to check a provision's exact wording and noticed a bunch of provisions I've never seen before. Once I saw some of the prohibitions on certain anatomy I realized this was for dot com... then I realized I was pretty sure I never agreed to any of this but wasn't being asked to (not that I ever use Dot Com: Outside of a step to bug tracker, I've only ever used it read only for testing), but maybe I'm mistaken? Have you?
Several of these dot com only provisions are quite strange and I have no idea how they're supposed to work when PG content is automatically mirrored to dot com from dot red without user input. Unique prohibitions include (examples all posted on dot red and therefore within the ToS)
Content [...] depicting illegal activities. (if you're seeing this on dot com she's an actor posing for a stock photo)
Content depicting minors in dangerous [...] situations. (on dot com they're made of soft rubber)
Violence [...] targeting individuals or groups (notice that's not real people, just individuals)
So yeah, another reason the site(s) should probably get ToS(es) written by a real person who understands law (and checked by users with feedback before adoption so we don't get unintended regressions or inclusions) before it becomes a problem, because the sheer level of nonsense in there beyond the unique sections (e.g., it is prohibited to "access, search, or otherwise use any portion of the Service through the use of any [...] software". I'm pretty sure browsers are software.) makes the whole thing pretty junk if it meets actual resistance.