It seems so strange to me that we are locked in battle with providers mining our lives for whatever, and we have to work our asses off trying to stay anonymous, to the point of being denied service
It seems so strange to me that we are locked in battle with providers mining our lives for whatever, and we have to work our asses off trying to stay anonymous, to the point of being denied service
or even pseudo-incriminated for attempting to maintain our own life.
It seems so stupid that I'm like a suspect for wanting an exchange of information without dropping my pants and bending over. No, I don't want cookies. Yes I want to read the article but no, I don't want to "sign up."
It makes me feel like being a f*cking hermit. But I prefer to pirate. Even though I'm not that good at it. Screw them. I got two private trackers, a VPN, and I hope that's enough.
You're viewing a single thread.
Yeah it's weird how privacy and piracy have blended together over the years.
With some games you need to pirate them if you don't want a Russian nesting doll of launchers and accounts that are able to leak your information and fill your computer with bloat.
I do find the argument interesting some YouTubers try to make about ad blockers being a form of piracy.
To be fair, it makes sense to liken the use of ad blockers with piracy. Consuming the content without paying for it either way, either without directly paying yourself or without indirectly paying through watching ads. Doesn't change that ads on most parts of the internet are extremely invasive and far too much.
I feel fully entitled to protect myself from the ads because of the problems with them. But I don't feel the need to lie to myself about the fact that I'm consuming content without paying for it in some way. Then again I support some content creators that I feel deserve it. Not sure if that helps offset it somewhat or not, but I don't really care that much either.
Please stop doing this. It just give bad actors better tools to fuck content creators.
If ads arent chosen and paid for to the content creators directly then its a damned cancer on the entire industry and you by giving them this are supporting wage theft at best and exploitation at worst
How many content creators have been demonetized for no reason at all yet ads are still injected into their content anyway?
Sorry for being angry about this, but if we as a whole accept this then we are watching enchitification in action and im sick of the amazing thing that is the internet continually get worse
No, I fully believe you're making different issues into one, which is dishonest argumentation.
Adblockers are functionally equivalent to piracy, the fact that some entities abuse others is a different issue. It's the same as with gambling mechanics in games, the fact that most people would think that those are predatory and bad does not change that not paying for the game is piracy. It's possible to be more nuanced about things than to group everything together.
v
Your spelling also doesn't help your credibility
If you can't see past someone's spelling mistakes then your credibility is the one I think is in question. Just ask me to fix it if the meaning is unclear or ambiguous instead of attacking my credibility(pot kettle black). Perhaps I did make some spelling mistakes, but do you know if english is even my first or third language?
It's interesting that you both tell me not to connect one issue and also its downstream effects, but then turn around and say that my argument lacks nuance(if that's a fair summary of your response, as I take it to be)
I'm saying that calling adblocking piracy has downstream effects that complicate the larger issue of the enshitification of the internet in general, and you want to boil things down to a simple binary of circumvention, i assume. But I reject the statement that adblockers are piracy without explanation.
So please, explain it so that the basis for this opinion can be understood instead of simply repeating it. What is it that makes adblocking equate to piracy in your opinion?
I'm passionate about this. I see it very much like a repeat of introducing micro transactions in the form of DLC into gaming which ruined gaming for me and many other people. Enshitification seems rampant these day. I believe that ive seen it in action before and that im seeing it again with this idea that adblocking is piracy.
Oh, I could see past your errors, I was just pointing it out. Errors do not help credibility, almost ever. (There might be some times it does, but I'm not sure I would want to gain credibility with people that would take such as helping my credibility). If you disagree with this I don't know what to tell you. I also didn't actually attack your credibility (I don't really think you have any, but that's a different matter), but made an observation that you could make sure your writing is better to not detract from your credibility. With the amount of tools available to avoid spelling mistakes it doesn't really matter whether English isn't a language one is perfectly proficient in.
I have clearly expressed what makes adblocking equate to piracy. It's in the first paragraph of the first comment of mine you replied to. It should be fairly straight forward. Consuming without paying.
I reject your premise that it's like microtransactions in gaming, unless you specifically mean in "free" games. Of course microtransactions and a lot of DLC for paid games are enshittification, but that's more like asking you to pay more to access a new episode of a show or a scene from a show you've already paid for. Not near the same as having ads to pay for the costs of delivering content (and I include producing the content in "delivering" it).
Now, if you instead make the argument that the amount of ads or the contents of ads are enshittificating services that let you consume content without directly paying for it yourself I can agree. But not that ads themselves are enshittification. Nor that avoiding to pay to consume content isn't piracy. I just think it's self-deception to claim that not paying by blocking ads isn't piracy. I have also made it clear that I think blocking ads is perfectly reasonable and what should be done. It may not be piracy in the legal sense, but circumventing systems meant to pay for something seems perfectly in line with the colloquial sense of the word.
Somewhat of a tangent
Now, do I think the internet would be better if there were no ads at all? Yes, of course. But do you think it would be better that people would have to directly pay to use services on the internet instead? That would mean poorer people would be barred from a lot of online services. Because it costs something to host services on the internet and that has to be paid somehow. And people generally congregate to a small subset of sites which thus get a lot of traffic and thus high costs that has to be paid somehow. Sure, you could have some sites being public forums made available by government and thus "free to use" because they payment is through taxes, but that's generally not how businesses operate.
You either couldn't look past a couple of spelling errors or deliberately chose not to. My evidence? You commented on it and now we are talking about them. What was the point of mentioning it all if you were willing and able to ignore them.
You are a bad actor and you have shown what worth you are.
Go away.
Im done with you.
You have shown who you are and you arent just arent worth another thought
You're more of a bad actor with your tantrums and rage-downvoting.
I wish you a better future.
EDIT: also to add that I simply made a note of it, specifically in a spoiler, while you were the one to try to make it into a conversation and talk about it. It really shows more about you than about me.
I don't see why a free market can't take care of this problem. Let the suppliers run their ads and if it's not profitable then let them fold. None of this "please stop using ad blockers our business model sucks and we need you to accept worse overall service so we can stay in business".
I don't really care that much either.
This is the most important thing imo. Some people just don't care (not saying it's a bad thing). Others do so to each their own.
Sure, let everything require that you pay upfront for everything. Those too poor to afford to pay don't deserve to have access to it anyway, right?
I'm not saying that ads are good, but having an option for people to pay to access a service that isn't directly tied to money they have accessible seems better than barring them from that access. At the same time that option cannot be too intrusive or otherwise be too much of a negative before it becomes predatory. We can wish for the world to be perfect as much as we want, that doesn't make it so. We can work towards a future where people don't have to work to be able to live comfortably and where we have very different ways to compensate people for their time and effort on top of that. But we're not there.
I'm not quite sure what you meant by your last paragraph, though.
Those too poor to afford to pay don't deserve to have access to it anyway, right?
Those too poor to afford to pay get it for free, comrade.
I feel like a lot of people are wholly unaware of FOSS. But anyway my free market idea would require consent, for example a pop-up that says "would you like to pay $0.30 or watch an 8 second ad to view the content?" and then people could make their choice. If their choice is neither then they will go somewhere else for the information or entertainment. Consent is absent from the current model, aside from using an ad blocker to signal your refusal.
There are tons of videos (educational and otherwise) on youtube that have never paid out to their creators, either because they were from the era before youtube enshittified or because the algorithm decided that the content creator has earned nothing. It reminds me of the old argument that "you shouldn't pirate music because it's not fair to the artist" but man you've got to see those record contracts, especially those made to black or otherwise underprivileged artists. Being fair to the artist was never an imperative, but this argument still persists with people who identify themselves with their jailers, or who actually don't really care that much (not saying that in a bad way).
Humans by nature are creative and helpful. We will always make how-to videos, guides, music, stories, and art. We don't need megacorps to facilitate this, it's the megacorps that want in, and they're going to have to come up with a better business model.
Well yeah, of course we're consuming content without paying. But that is not piracy.
The creators are distributing the content freely, and we're consuming it, while ignoring the ads, because we have the ability to do it.
Is flipping the channel on legacy TV when switching to commercials piracy as well?
Anyone who considers adblocking immoral shouldn't block anykind of advertising anywhere.
Where did you get that it was immoral from? I don't see many (anyone?) that have claimed that.
If someone claims adblocking is form of piracy they are also claiming its immoral or bad thing to do. I doubt someone making claim like that would have anything nice to say about piracy.
I mean, why else would people speak against adblocking if they didnt think it was somehow "immoral" or otherwise negative thing to do.
No. Making a claim that adblocking is a form of piracy does not in any way say that either piracy nor adblocking is immoral. Only if they actually make a claim that piracy is immoral can it be transferred like that.
You also seem to make the claim that anyone equating adblocking and piracy are speaking against them. Why are you making such a claim?
Also *it's, *didn't. It's not that hard.
I'm just so tired and annoyed about people wanting to restrict adblocking in anyway, so I guess i assume things too easily. I consider being able to not see ads my inherent right.
Oh, absolutely. And it's just gotten worse with the intrusiveness and amount of ads everywhere. Piracy also seems to become the only way to avoid far too much data collection about us as well.
With some games you need to pirate them if you don't want a Russian nesting doll of launchers and accounts
I'm not a gamer but is this really true? I thought it was the other way around, that pirated games were the ones filled with malware.
Absolutely. Sure pirated games run that risk but communities are big enough to usually snuff it out quickly if it's a malware filled crack. Going through legitimate means a PC gamer is likely to have steam, epic games launcher, blizzard launcher, EA, Ubisoft, and probably more I can't think of. Many of these are clunky and slow and demand online connectivity or multiple sign in auths every time you just want to play a damn single player, offline game
Sure pirated games run that risk but communities are big enough to usually snuff it out quickly if it's a malware filled crack.
Big time. Even rumours of a repackers adding malware blow up on communities like this.
Core characters in the repack community also occasionally ask for and receive donations. I've donated to DODI, FitGirl, and Gnarly. Hopefully they receive enough to discourage them from anything malicious but they're also adored and respected by the community.
Going through legitimate means a PC gamer is likely to have steam, epic games launcher, blizzard launcher, EA, Ubisoft, and probably more I can't think of. Many of these are clunky and slow and demand online connectivity or multiple sign in auths every time you just want to play a damn single player, offline game
I purchased a Call of Duty title recently and that was a big thing. The amount of ads in the launcher was wild.
I didn't even think of the ads when writing that, but damn that's probably the worst part of it all! Thank you for adding that major detail, clearly my very minimal usage of most of those launchers was showing lol
Ooooh I see what you mean, thanks.
communities are big enough to usually snuff it out
That's awesome, power to the people!
I do find the argument interesting some YouTubers try to make about ad blockers being a form of piracy.
This argument makes no sense to me, it would be piracy if I was copying the videos into my own channel and raking in the views. An YouTube channel is more like TV, you're broadcasting into the wild hoping to get some eyeballs and selling those eyeballs to the highest bidder. It's up to me if I want to see the ads or not, just like TV.
Ad blocking being likened to piracy would be valid except for the fact that internet ads have always been predominantly intrusive, misleading, predatory, and malicious.
No no it isn't piracy. Shame on you
for giving them that power to wield they will use it to claim that putting tape on your camera so you cant be spied on is piracy. And thats rediculous, but thats what will happen if we dont stand together and say no no its not piracy just because i didnt want to watch your stupid fucking add on a video that YOU ARENT MONITIZING DIRECTLY. ads that arent payed to the content creator directly is wage theft at best and exploitation at worst
Edit sorry this isnt aimed at you personally beyond the first 8 words. Im not drunk but it does feel a bit like a drunken ramble, guess it touched a nerve. Ill have to reflect on that
Is piracy not inclusive of subverting the means for a producer to profit off of a product when using that product?
The issue I see in it is that businesses have made the assumption that internet adverts are the same as television adverts. They started using them as such and now they are having a hissy fit that they don't have a captive audience.
If they find a way to force adverts on us, then we will be a captive audience once more.
Is piracy not inclusive of subverting the means for a producer to profit off of a product when using that product?
Not really. Most people who "pirate" games or media wouldn't have paid for them anyway.
As Gabe Newell said (and demonstrated with Steam), "piracy" is a service problem.
Give people an affordable and more convenient way of accessing said games or media (Steam, Spotify before it got enshittified, Netflix before it got enshittified and the market got fragmented beyond any reasonable usability), and we'll happily stop "pirating".
If anything, "piracy" increases profits. Neil Gaiman compared it to word of mouth, or sharing your copy of a book with a friend: people in markets his books had trouble reaching (again, a service problem) "pirated" his books, liked them, and shared them with others... increasing his sales in said markets (people liked his work enough to try to find the books and buy them, and many who would have never heard of him became paying fans).
"Piracy" is free marketing (of course, this doesn't work if your product isn't worth its price, but bad products not earning money is a good way to improve overall quality), not theft. And without all the inconveniences of paid marketing. And often it's a symptom that the way you're selling your content is too inconvenient or overpriced for at least a fraction of your potential consumers, and thus needs to be fixed or improved (either voluntarily or through regulation).
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Neil Gaiman compared it to word of mouth, or sharing your copy of a book with a friend
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
You haven't disputed my description in any way.
In fact, it seems like you agree but you're just spending a lot of effort defending the act of piracy.
You're saying "piracy" subverts the means for a producer to profit off their product.
I'm saying the exact opposite: that it not only doesn't do that, but in fact almost certainly increases said profits (and linking references to support said position).
And I'm absolutely not defending "piracy". It shouldn't exist, as its existence is a symptom of serious issues within the market. And getting rid of it is simple: just provide an affordable and more convenient alternative. Valve did it. Netflix and Spotify did it, for a while.
But, if said alternative doesn't exist, "piracy" will happen, and it happening, while definitely a worse situation than said convenient and affordable option existing, will be more beneficial to both society and content producers than the absence of both.
You are suggesting that piracy eventually leads to profit. That's not a definition of piracy.
I am saying piracy is obtaining a digital product in an unauthorised manner to avoid paying for the product.
I am ambivalent to piracy. I think it's a common factor and it is up to content producers to combat it. I am familiar with the studies you've linked, but that's not the topic I'm discussing.
You are suggesting that piracy eventually leads to profit.
Provided the product is something people want, yeah. If not, at the very least it won't decrease profit. As I said it's free marketing. Sharing. Word of mouth. Trying before you buy.
That's not a definition of piracy.
No, it's not, correct. I don't know why you think I was attempting to define it, but to be clear I was replying to this rethoric question of yours, and disputing your implicit assertion that it subverts the means for a producer to profit off of a product (which it evidently doesn't):
Is piracy not inclusive of subverting the means for a producer to profit off of a product when using that product?
(This is the end of the previous paragraph; just putting this here because otherwise, at least in my client, the two quotes back to back look like they might be confusing to read; this probably is, too, but hopefully not as much.)
I am saying piracy is obtaining a digital product in an unauthorised manner to avoid paying for the product
No, piracy is the practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea. Of course dictionaries also include, at this point, definitions like (from Oxford's) "the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work" (which is clearly wrong, as it would include things that no one refers to as "piracy", like plagiarism or copyright infringement) or yours (also wrong; that would be corporate espionage and sabotage; you might have been trying to say "obtaining a copy of a digital product..."), due to the concerted malicious efforts over several decades by IP lobbies to attack such a fundamental aspect of culture and of human nature as sharing (which is what is being attacked when the word "piracy" is used in this context) by labelling it with the same word as a particularly horrible crime.
I am ambivalent to piracy.
That's horrible, tragic, and sad. Regardless of whether you're using the correct definition or the malicious one.
it is up to content producers to combat it.
Sure, if by that you mean provide an affordable and more convenient alternative.
Though I'd argue that given that most of them (with exceptios such as Valve, which is doing an excellent work combating it, judging by the amount of unplayed games in the stereotypical Steam library) seem to prefer to make their customers' experience worse (to the point of installing malware on their computers) such alternatives should, at this point, be forced through customer protection regulations.
but that's not the topic I'm discussing
I wasn't replying to whatever topic you were discussing (and at this point I neither remember what it was, nor care to), as I thought was evident by quoting a specific part of it I was replying to said specific part, to wit, your implicit (and clearly incorrect) assertion that "piracy" negatively affects profits.
Then for some reason you started talking about definitions, and here we are. 🤷♂️
It's gotten to such an extreme that some websites are nothing more than ad delivery mechanisms under the concept that "ads allow us to provide you quality content for free", which, under the hood, is just a shitty business model that doesn't work for consumers. I've seen websites that literally copy paste the content 2 or 3 times to extend the word count and have nonsensicle, out of order sentences that don't contain any information. There are also websites that have incorrect information, which are also published with the sole purpose of serving ads to generate revenue, which imo is worse. Just another way that capitalism is making our world more shitty.
This has been the way for decades now.
What should be happening is people avoid the culprits and/or use an ad blocker. I do believe this is actually what's happening, which is why content platforms like YouTube are looking for ways to control their audience.
Ad blockers aren't illegal, but neither is a website blocking ad blockers. It's an arms race that the content platforms will lose. So I wonder what will be the next step if the ad space depreciates too much to drive the content.
I think of adblockers as a filter.
Websites can choose to include ads, and I choose to filter them out with ad blockers.
Its no different than me placing a sticky note over every ad on my screen, or turning away and covering my ears when a video ad plays. But ad blockers automate that process and make it a whole lot easier. Simple quality of life
"If you want basic privacy protection, you are a pirate and I hate you." - Linus Sebastian, professional L generator (abridged)
Not at all what he said, great “quote”
Did you lose your ability to recognise sarcasm, or did it never develop in the first place?
Of course that's not what he said, but the issue of web ads is much deeper than the ad revenue or no ad revenue question he is taking a stand on. It has been discussed ad nauseum by more technically minded people than him.
"I am a big dumb dumb idiot" - rtxn@lemmy.world
Don't worry it's not an attack on you or a lie about what you said, just sarcasm.
That guy is a fucking loser
Can someone give me a source to what he's referring to?