Bazoogle @ Bazoogle @lemmy.world

帖子

2

评论

309

加入于

2 yr. ago

That's the equivalent of just turning off your monitor when you get an ad. There isn't any great comparison to cable TV and streaming services. Because you can consume streaming services while stopping the delivery of all ads. even using sponsorblock for in video ads. You cannot for cable TV. The best you can do is turn it off while they play, but they will play nonetheless.

The closest you get to it with cable TV is DVR and skipping the ads (some going so far as to auto skip) but you're literally paying for cable TV. The fact cable TV as so many ads with how much it costs is absurd anyway. So of course you aren't stealing because you're already paying an inordinate amount of money for the service.

So I guess if one day YouTube has a paid service with ads, and you block the ads, the debate of whether its stealing or not could get pretty murky. The scebario is closer to tag switching at Walmart, which is still stealing, but I guess arguably less? But right now, while you aren't paying anything at all for a paid service, it's pretty cut and dry.

🤔😜😆😬😮‍💨

🤣

What evidence is there of this being user-agent based? I've heard people make this claim, but I have not seen evidence of it and when testing on my own machine there was no delay at all.

The difference is the content is being delivered to the TV. YouTube cannot advertise if you simply block adverts. It's still advertising even if you walk away from your computer or close your eyes. It's the same thing for junk mail. If you never get the junk mail, then it's never actually delivered. But if you immediately shred it without ever looking, it was still delivered even if you didn't bother to look. That delivery of advertisements is how Google funds YouTube. To prevent that delivery is to stop the transaction you agreed to. You are not holding up your end of the agreement for a non-free service.

To "simply elect what contents are played on your own machine" would mean not using YouTube. It wouldn't mean using YouTube on YOUR terms

I think you raise valid points. My counter argument to you would be this: how does the average strength/dexterity/whatever measurement of sports of cisgender woman compare to the average transsexual woman? While one transsexual woman can still be beat by many women, it could arguably be unfair that their transition put them in the top ranking of the women's league, even if they aren't number 1.

Your comment assumes two things.

1. Companies try to make more profit
2. YouTube will make more profit by having ad contained paid tiers

The fist point is a fact of life.

The second one is simply not fact. It could be profitably, but it is far from guaranteed. They could just as easily make far more money by keeping the paid tier ad-free to avoid the loss of subscribers.

Do you think using adblockers to watch YouTube for free is stealing? It is, after all, getting a paid service for free against the services permission. If that is enough of a definition to be considered stealing (I think it is), then it's quite easy to understand why they might make their own services suck.

Walmart has implemented plenty of inconveniences to combat shoplifting. Things locked behind glass. I've had to wait 15+ minutes for a Walmart employee to unlock a door for me to grab a $20 power tool. If that isn't make services worse, idk what is. I am not saying it is right, but rather pointing how the double standards in the way we think. If you are going to be up in arms for ad blockers, I think you should also be up in arms about commercial retailers inconvenient anti-shoplifting measures. Both are means to stop users from obtaining the good/service without proper payment, even if it means legitimate customers get a worse experience.

And even if you agreed with the Walmart analogy, and also think the measures Walmart takes are on the same level as AdBlocker blockers, I think we can agree most people would not.

And if you do not think using adblockers to watch YouTube is stealing, I'm curious what your definition of theft is.

I know I have not be a very good echo in this echo chamber, but you don't think it's a tad ridiculous to say YouTube is forcing it down anyones throat? Nobody is forcing anyone to watch YouTube, yet you say it as if they are.

Not to mention they literally have a legitimate option to remove the ads, so they REALLY aren't forcing it down your throat. Which means if the service isn't worth it enough to you to pay for it or watch ads, don't use it?

Hanlon's razor - "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

This is not only adequately explained by stupidity, but it makes the most logical sense to be explained by stupidity. They are actively fighting a war with AdBlockers. They are trying to block AdBlockers, and AdBlockers are working as quickly as possible to fight those changes. Then Google has to fire back as quickly as possible. This is resulting in rapid published changes to counteract AdBlockers and their retaliation. It makes all too much sense that their fight against AdBlockers did not work as intended. The people making these changes are Google software developers, and I really do not think any of them have an issue with Mozilla.

The problem is that the paid option eventually gets ads anyway.

The problem is that YouTube hasn't done something, but you think they will? Cable television has basically always had commercials. When it started, it was mostly just government broadcasts, but when it got popularly commercialized, adverts were introduced. Netflix has a paid option with ads, but they also still have an ad-free option, so that still doesn't really substantiate your argument either.

There is no real evidence to think they will add ads to their paid service. Of course it's possible, but we don't need to make up things Google might do in the future to call them evil. There's plenty of things they're currently doing.

Yeah except changing your user agent to chrome bypasses the load slowdown lol

Did you test this yourself? Rather than just ask your source, I was going to test it myself. However, I cannot get a slow down at all. Everything is loading instantly and ad-free. Perhaps the servers providing my instance of YouTube don't have the change, I'm not sure, but I have not been able to personally create this. So without a reliable source or evidence, I cannot just take your word for it that changing the user-agent alone fixed the issue.

I said it gives the appearance of something

You said you feel that people are either lazy or unknowledgeable based on how they write. I am saying that is an unsympathetic feeling to conclude based on someone's writing.

It’s like they just typed whatever popped into their head without any consideration of how to convey it.

Your personal feeling is that this is a bad thing, I assume. I am challenging you to view it differently.

the reading experience should be considered

What about the writers experience? Why aren't you considering them? My point is that everything you say about the writer in regards to their poor English, or thoughts not being fully fleshed out, can be interpreted differently than your initial view.

I didn't comment on emoji use, but rather just the assumptions you made based on someone's English. Though I understand why you mentioned it, since the thread is about Emoji use.

I value YouTube, at most, at about $5 a month. I can easily do without it.

There you have it. If the cost of the service is not worth it, then users won't buy it. Either enough users will pay for it that the service will stay as it is for the price it is, they will decrease the cost of the service, or improve the service they are offering. Or, given Google's track record, just kill of the service entirely.

I will also point out that many users pay for Spotify for $11 USD a month. YouTube premium includes YT Music, which is a direct competitor to Spotify. So for users who pay for Spotify, it would be virtually $3 for ad-free YouTube. Of course this doesn't work if you don't pay for a music streaming service, but as far as services go it certainly isn't unreasonably priced. Sure, it may be unfair that they don't offer just a YT ad-free package, perhaps with all this backlash they will. Or perhaps not. It's Google, they'll do whatever they fuck they want.

Capitalism as an idea is not bad. America's current state of capitalism is very bad. This idea you just suggested also is not bad. But I think would be even worse than our current state of capitalism if it were attempted to be implemented. Greed would be present in any system, including this idealistic one where people pay for the costs of a service if able, to allow those who cannot to enjoy it also.

The argument I am making is in regards to stealing. I assume your argument also applied to other corporations in regards to the distribution and payment of goods/services, though regardless most people agree stealing is wrong. Most people see the prevention of theft as acceptable. I am merely pointing out the double standard most people up in arms are placing on this change. Most people do not see AdBlocking as stealing, though by definition they are using a paid service for free without the services consent. That seems to me like stealing. I am not here to discuss alternatives to our state capitalism, that is for a different thread. And stealing as a way to accomplish this new system also seems to be extremely, shall we say, ineffective?

You know the internet isn't actually magic, right? You know that storing and distributing data costs real money, and doesn't just magically appear on your computer screen. Video hosting is quite literally, insanely fucking expensive. That's the reality of it. The absolute absurd amount of storage it takes to host YouTube is truly mind boggling. Then they have to have who knows how much money in data transfer to both upload the videos, and then stream them out to however many users. That's not even including the fact that they do actually give money to their creators. Some of them make quite a substantial amount of it, no less. I haven't even mentioned the team with YouTube developing, maintaining, servicing, their technical equipment. All the customer support, the relations managers, the YouTube partner managers, and all the other hundreds of behind the scenes staff.

YouTube costs money. I think you don't disagree with that. Perhaps the part you have a problem with is thinking you, a single person, aren't costing them money. And sure, if you were literally the only person doing it, it really wouldn't be noticeable. But given all the uproar, it's very clear it's not just you. By how many people are upset, it's clear it's actually quite a substantial amount of people. So if you think all of those people aren't costing YouTube money, then I really cannot help teach you basic money any further.

If you're argument is instead that all these people mad about AdBlocker blocking are costing YouTube money, but not enough for them to lose money or even substantial profits, then I really don't know what to tell you. If that is your argument, then you are trying to argue that YouTube should eat the profits so users can steal more. Which really just doesn't make any fucking sense. Again, that's very similar to getting pissed that Walmart is making it harder to shoplift because Walmart make so much money. And yet nobody is suggesting Walmart make it easier to shoplift, because people as a whole see shoplifting as stealing, but don't see AdBlock as stealing. Quite frankly, that's just a result of an ignorance as to how technology works and what things actually cost.

And if you're suggesting something else, then I don't know what it is and you'll need to further clarify if you want me to better understand.

Regardless of what you may say, nobody is up in arms about Walmart's, or any other commercial retailer's, anti-theft changes. Adding ink tags to merchandise, locking things up in whatever method they chose, camera's out the wazoo. Nobody is up in arms because nobody thinks it's bad that they are trying to stop people from stealing.

You can try and dismiss me by saying I am defending Google, but it doesn't make what you're saying correct. YouTube is a paid service. To block the ads means to get that paid service for free. The content you are freely consuming is actively costing YouTube money. For them to stop you from freely consuming their product is very much so similar to Walmart making measures to stop shoplifters. You can view physical stealing and digital stealing as different, but they are the same thing. One is just less likely to get caught.

And just to be clear, I steal online content all the time. From digital movies/shows, to using AdBlockers on sites. Stealing is wrong, therefore what I am doing is wrong. Though it certainly is difficult to feel bad that the billion dollar corporations are missing out on my couple of bucks, or a random site didn't get $0.001 from my ad view. Regardless, just how a shoplifter can understand why Walmart would make it harder to shoplift, I can understand why YouTube would make it harder to AdBlock. Do I like it? Obviously not. But it's silly to sit here and suggest them fighting adblockers is what makes them evil, and not all the hidden tracking and absurd data collection.

Intelligence comes in more forms than just written language. Words can express emotion, but so can dance, painting, singing, even a glance can express so much. Why do you think it needs to stop at emoji's? Your inability to understand what they are saying with that emoji is not a failure of the emoji, but your ability to interpret it. That's like saying dancing doesn't convey emotion because you don't know what it is they are trying to convey. Perhaps you just need to learn more ways of expressing emotions?

Alright, I don't want to sound offensive, but maybe work on not being so obtuse. You need to think about other people more. Maybe that has some relation to it? When a person really can't stop and think about other people and why they might not have the most fluent internet posts, I feel like the other person is either lazy, or doesn't know how to stop and think about how big the world is.

Of course, this applies to me. I don't know who you are or what you've gone through, but I thought it would be a taste of your own medicine. People write in a lot of different ways than yours. And while there are a lot of correct and incorrect rules to English, there are not so many correct ways to communication. You (and I) type the way we were taught in English class. But just because someone else does not, does not make their typing wrong. It's not like they're going to get a grade for it. If you understood what they said, then it seems like a job well done.

And even if you CAN'T understand what they said or it doesn't make sense, you shouldn't assume someone is lazy. While English is the most spoken language, it is not the most spoken native language. Such a massive portion of English speakers have a non-English native language, and so so many are learning. Or maybe they aren't learning, and that's okay too. Or maybe they're young. Maybe they're developmentally disabled. Or maybe they just don't want to think so hard on a stupid internet post. Whatever the reason, stop and think about all the possible reasons they typed like that. I'm sure you can come up with quite a few, and one of them might even be right.

Also:

especially when it’s poorly written I feel like the person either is lazy or doesn’t know what they’re writting.

writing*

You CANNOT opt out of data collection from youtube

Right, and that's exactly what I said. Though Google specifically doesn't really need to sell your data. They just use it themselves to advertise to you.