I think it is common for ToS to specify/contain something along the lines of:
If you don’t agree with the new Terms, You must stop using the Service.
Maybe add a negative, either bad or blocker, separate case apart from ‘infering acceptance from previous ones’, where disagreeing with new terms may get someone banned?
I’d like to hear your criticism/ideas.
On one hand, I think it’s just an odd way of expressing that user agreements are ostensibly contract law (the extent to which they are binding aside), and as the ‘contract’ is revised (as you say when terms update), consent must be presumed, because if the user doesn’t consent to the contract, then it is null and the services it provides for cannot be offered. But it would be good to encourage policies that ask as little from the user as possible, and wordings of this type (which I have also seen) are so badly phrased that I’d call them a miscommunication, or even disingenuous. So I’d approve of it being a new case.