this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
167 points (97.7% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54500 readers
616 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Youtube's ad policy is abusive, and online ads are not always safe. Regardless of whether adblocking is legal or fair to Youtube, not doing so puts you at greater risk of malware insertion so is a necessary safety precaution.
As YouTube profits from your engagement through more than ads, YouTube still benefits even when you watch videos without ads.
I really don't see how adblockers would ever be illegal, that sounds like an absolute dystopia.
Personally, I don't see how YouTube can be abusive. It is their platform and they can do whatever they want with it. It is your choice if you use it or not. If you think the ads are out of control, you can pay for their subscription or use free services.
If content creators are uploading their videos there, it is because YouTube can pay them more than other platforms... Thanks to the ads. So it's not like there aren't other options out there, it's just that YouTube pays content creators more. Free market.
You're getting an endless amount of information backed by amazing engineers that designed a service that never goes down and loads 4K videos at incredible speeds worldwide for millions of users concurrently.... At the price of a few minutes of your life per day. Seems fair. They are not denying you the access to the information. They are using that money to pay content creators a fairly so they are incentiviced to create more content that you can enjoy.
YouTube is a high quality service. Why is it bad to give them something back for the high quality service you're receiving? It's not like this is a mediocre click bait article with 50 ads attacking your screen. Plus, you're also giving back to the content creators. If you didn't like the content, you can downvote them or report them to tweak the algorithm.
It's abusive because a 2min video will have 30sec of ads its absolute bullshit and worse than even cable fuckery.
And I'm really, REALLY sick if seeing this idiotic argument of company X can do anything they want, because free market.
This isn't even youtube specific but I absolutely disagree with that line of reasoning. That same argument is used by people whenever a company does shady shit.
No company just materialized out of thin air pulling themselves out of the ether, they all exist and thrive because of the community WE all created! Our public infrastructure, education, tax codes and million other things WE contributed allows any corporation to exist at all.
So no, corporations don't get to just do whatever the fuck they want, because "market".
I personally would pay for YouTube for a reasonable price and 10$/month ain't it. I don't want youtube music or whatever shit they are bundling with it.
Yes, corporations get to do whatever they want with their property. If you don't like it, you can choose other services, nobody is forcing you to stay there.
Well, if it is abusive or not will be determined by the majority of people. If their numbers start going down because of this, they'll act on it. If not, it means the majority of people are willing to see the ads to get to the content. People also complained when YouTube implemented ads in the beginning, very short ones. Clearly, the majority of people were fine with it. Free market, supply & demand.
Personally, I run away from ads so I don't use YouTube that much. I watch Veritasiun and 3Blue1Brown mostly and every time I see an ad come up, I like it because I know I'm giving money to the dudes giving me great content. It's my way of giving back.
And I get to do what I want with my property. I don't want ads on my screen, so I block them.
And they can do anything they want with their property so they'll block you if you do that.
But that is the point!! Don't use their service man, nobody is forcing you :)
There are many forms of entertainment out there, you're not tied to any of them. Be free, enjoy your life.
They haven't blocked me so I guess they're ok with it.
Nobody forces me, but I choose to. Just like I choose not to watch the ads.
They're still doing canary testing. Eventually they'll block accounts from users that use adblock after they get a warning.
So you'll have to choose if you want to keep using the service with ads or move on to something new. And the great news is that it is totally your choice and you're free to make it.
Alright so you've literally just ignored everything I've said. Got it. Have a good day.
This is logical nonsense. If their numbers don't go down, that doesn't make their actions not abusive, it simply indicates that people are willing to put up with the abuse (because they get enough value out of the platform despite the abuse). Whether it is abusive or not is not a numbers game.
This means that people still derived enough value from the platform, despite the ads. That is, stopping using the platform would be more of a net loss than accepting ads on the platform. And yet, this doesn't have anything to do with whether it is an abusive practice or not.
In fact, you're touching on something here: ads were initially very brief and intermittent; they've gotten progressively worse and more invasive and so, just as boiling a frog, you can't take peoples' acceptance of the situation at face value. If you've conditioned someone to put up with (worsening) abuse, their seeming acceptance of the situation doesn't mean you aren't being abusive.
So please give me the objective definition of what is abusive. Because in my book that is totally subjective. I just told you they created an almost perfect service that let's you stream infinite amounts of information with zero downtime and minimal buffer times, and they are asking a few minutes of your time per day, so they can make a profit and pay fairly to content creators and very smart engineers.
For me that is fair. For you, that's abusive. Who is right? You because you agree with yourself?
I'm not sure if you're constructing a strawman or if you think you're replying to someone else.
I didn't say whether or not it's abusive.
All I said was that your logic of "if their user count doesn't go down it's not abuse" is bullshit. I went on to bring up the "boiling the frog scenario" to further explain how users can become accustomed to abuse.
OK, let's start from scratch then. The person who replied to my comment said it was abusive. "Abusive" is totally subjective, how can we know if this is abusive or not? You're right, numbers might not reflect this but they do show if they think the content is worth watching the ads.
For me, it isn't worth it so I almost never use YouTube, but I don't think it is abusive. It's a really high quality service with incredible engineering.
So there's no point in talking in subjective terms, people will always disagree. Let's just wait and see if people still want to use their platform after the change. If they do, that is their decision, they are free to make a choice. There are many video streaming platforms out there. Just not as high quality as YouTube. They also don't have as much content because content creators want to receive ad money.
My guy you're posting on a piracy community.
Yeha and pirates say that content should be free and accessible, and that's why piracy is ethical. YouTube is providing a way to keep content available for everyone while keeping a business running for millions of people around the globe.
Just look at all the posts in this community saying that piracy is THE ethical way.
So, they fucking hate it when content is paywalled and say that this is awful because content should be free for poor people. But they also hate it when content is free and they have to watch ads. They just hate every sustainable business model. Wtf.
This is just communism in disguise. They want private effort for free and hassle free anytime, anywhere. Probably looking at it on their Iphones or Samsung phones. Thst they were able to purchase because they were paid for their work.
gestures around I'm not sure if you know this, but you're on Lemmy, not Reddit or Gab.
Are you implying I'm far right? If so, you're so wrong. I'm not far left either.
They are literally giving them the content for free. FOR FREE!
But no... "watching ads!?? For a 4K stream with machine learning generated captions for accessibility, multi-language subtitles, minimal buffer time and worldwide low latency? Are they INSANE! They are exploiting us! We are the victims of a corporation! Everything should be totally free and ad-free for us to enjoy anytime from our Iphones. Also, don't forget to give me my paycheck in time because I'm also anti-work and it is abusive if I don't get paid a fair wage for my effort, you cheap corporate pig".
No, I'm just pointing out the community you're talking about. This is a piracy community, on Lemmy. If you're surprised that this specific community is hostile to your arguments, I'm not sure what you were expecting.
Addressing the main point of your argument, the idea of the FOSS movement which many people in this community espouse is to have effectively a volunteer and donation-based society, just like Lemmy and the rest of the Fediverse. Peertube comes to mind as a specific example. For a significant portion of that population, communism and socialism are also not considered bad things. For others, the crux of their complaint is not against the monetization of content, but the degree to which said monetization interrupts their viewing experience - 30 second ads on a 10 second video, for instance, or multiple 10 second ads interspersed at 30 second intervals throughout a 2 minute video, with the lion's share of the revenue going to YouTube and not directly to the creators - hence the creation of platforms such as Bitchute, Nebula and CuriosityStream.
And what specifically is wrong with being paid a fair wage on time for work and effort matching the job description exactly?
Then why aren't they using these alternatives? Why does every company and place need to follow their ideals?
As the social media juggernauts, these companies are viewed as the embodiment of everything they see as wrong with a capitalist/corporatist society, and in their mind, by dismantling or fundamentally changing and challenging these juggernauts, they can inspire and bring about the change they want in society as a whole.
So they are against it by using it? What?
I also think these corporations are evil, but complaining about everything they do just because it is an inconvenience for them? They should complain and act on the shit that matters.
Against it by "using" it in a manner which deprived the company of revenue - such as watching videos with an adblocker.
This, in their mind, counts as "shit that matters".
Your definition of communism is flawed, but I actually agree with the rest of what you're saying. Content creators are what makes yt worthwhile, and them earning money through ads is perfectly reasonable.
YouTube has some shady practices like showing ads on videos of creators that don't have a contract with them, meaning YouTube makes money from those creators without the creators receiving anything in return. But for the most part I think that ads on YouTube are fine.
communism is when...
people use adblockers, apparently
When they think it is morally correct, yeha. When they think piracy is morally correct and ethical, they are basically disregarding private property and private incentive. They think it is their right to have free access to information that others worked to create.
I wouldn't have a problem if they accepted they are basically stealing, at least I'd respect that, but they won't. They think piracy is freeing society from capitalism. If you don't believe me, keep reading the posts in this community.
Do you also not see how a Tyrant boss that screams and belittles their employees is being abusive? The employees are free to quit and find work elsewhere right? Oh wait, freedom to avoid abusive behaviour doesn't make that behaviour non-abusive!
I'll also add that Youtube's ads aren't the only way you 'pay' for the service. They gobble up all the data they can glean from your interactions with them. So much data most people don't even really understand how much they're giving away. This data is sold sure, but it is also used to inform the algorithm on how to make the service more addictive to the users. That is to say, some of the abuse is insidious. Are drug dealers paragons of virtue when they offer free samples?
No other service advertises as obtrusively as Youtube does. Twitch comes close. The reasons they get away with this are:
the service is designed to be addictive, and
they have an effective monopoly. No other free service (and paid for that matter) comes close.
Both easily defined as abusive.
Personally, I don't see how people using adblockers can be abusive. It is their computer and they can display whatever content they want with it. It is their choice whether an ad plays on it or not. If YouTube thinks the adblockers are out of control, they can start paying people money to watch content on YouTube's computers.
Just because you think making you watch ads make it abusive doesn't mean it is.
Why do you hold the voice of truth? I just told you, I don't think it is abusive because that is giving more money to content creators. If you think it is abusive, stop using the service. Also, you knew about the data they are mining and you're still using the service. Do you think others are blind to the fact Google collects data? They just don't care, like you.
Do you also think the husband isn't being abusive because the battered wife let the food get cold? 'It is not abusive because he gets a hot meal out of it'. That's what you sound like.
So you're saying YouTube is an abusive husband and you're a wife who can't get away from that relation because you're too afraid for your life or your children's future?
I never saw it like that. I hope YouTube doesn't kill you or take away your children.
You're comparing very serious cases with the most ridiculous type of dependency ever. You're comparing an abusive employer/employee relation with YouTube making you watch ads. Holy shit. A husband beating the shit out of his wife with YouTube making you watch ads.
What's next, are you going to compare this with African-American slavery? A level 7 intergalactic species dominating the milky way and extracting resources from defenseless planetary systems?
I really need to know what's next.
No no, that's what YOU sound like. Not me.
No, u
Yes, we've established that's what you're trying to do, for the 2nd pitiful time now.
Also an unpopular opinion but I actually don't mind paying for YouTube Premium to avoid the ads. Content creators get a bigger cut from my watching habits and it comes with a music streaming platform.
We are in piracy community though so it makes sense people are against paying for content that once upon a time was completely free.
But despite paying still remain the product since Google is still data mining users instead of opting paid users out. And doesn't have options like sponsorblock built in, dislikes returned, or ability to combine subscriptions into custom groups.
I feel you could get the annual cost and divide it among channels you want to give the money and that'd be more money for them. Like I don't see the official YouTube app being a better app than third parties personally.
Even YouTube front ends I've found better than the official YouTube site, since they can bypass region blocks.
Totally agree with you, but they need to make an Ad free only subscription. YouTube Premium is more of a package deal (Ad Free/ YT Music/High bitrate).
Spotify used to have a tier called Spotify Unlimited which basically was essentially ad free Spotify with no other premium features. Half the price £5 per month.
100%
I feel they'd make more money that way too. I'd pay for YT but I don't because I love Spotify, so I feel like I'm paying for something I already have.
And people would still complain about the cost.
I disagree with the "it's their platform" argument, but I definitely agree with you that people should stop complaining about YouTube ads so much.
They give you an option to both remove the ads and support the creators you watch. They support billions of hours worth of content watching each year and millions of hours of content storage, across the world, for free if you so choose. Seems quite generous.
I'd bet most people watch YouTube almost as much as Netflix or Hulu, again for free, and still complain about YouTube serving ads. The solution is to just pay for premium. They even give you music streaming with it anyway.