• Ilandar
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    deleted by creator

    • tb_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      I really don’t get the hate he got for that take.

      Circumventing the method of payment could be argued as being a form of piracy. From that point of view, adblock is piracy.

      Like them or not, YouTube is not a charity and requires the serving of ads to continue funding the service. You could argue about how they go about it, but it’s a fact they need some sort of income to continue to exist.
      Same goes for YouTubers. They get a percentage of that ad revenue. And they also need some form of income.

      But just because he said so doesn’t mean he doesn’t understand why adblock is used. He didn’t say “don’t use adblock.” He’s shown how to use adblock before and since. He’s also mentioned that buying something from their webshop gives them a lot more money than turning off adblock.

      Saying “watching movies for free is pirating” isn’t the same as saying “you shouldn’t pirate movies”.
      Using adblock isn’t engaging with YouTube on YouTube’s terms.

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Adblocking isnt piracy, from any point of view.

        Its protection. Protection from sudden loud noises and visual diarrhea. Protection from malware and viruses from random website ads, and protection from Right Wing Extremist Propaganda like PragerU videos detailing how the black man should be grateful for the history of slavery and oppression (which has had a documented, factual effect on driving people into right wing extremist behavior, and the violent rhetoric and actions that inevitably follow)

        As long as all of that exists, Adblocking will never be piracy. Adblocking is, and will be, mandatory protection.

        And if Linus, or anyone else, wants to clutch pearls and cry about adblocking… They can take their complaints to Google/Facebook/Other Ad services, because their lack of moderation and inability to policing content on their services are directly responsible for creating the necessity for adblocking.

        • helenslunch@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          4 months ago

          Adblocking isnt piracy…Its protection…from sudden loud noises and visual diarrhea.

          I don’t understand how these are mutually exclusive? It’s both.

        • papertowels@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          To tack onto your list, ad blocking also deprives a source from an intended revenue stream associated with the content, which is probably why it’s being compared to piracy.

          I’m all on board with ad blockers, let’s just at least acknowledge the economic reality surrounding their use.

          • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            The economic reality is that I have to use adblocking because ad services refuse to police and moderate their system. Thats the economic reality that they created.

            Having a problem with the end user protecting themselves from what the advertisers and their ad services created is just trying to shift blame.

            • tb_@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              But that doesn’t mean it isn’t piracy?

              Downloading old Nintendo ROMs because the company refuses to redistribute them is also piracy, even though I would say it’s morally justified.

              • dustyData@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                This has been argued in courts ad nauseum. It is not piracy. Just downloading is not piracy. If you download a ROM from a site, the site is guilty of piracy. You are not. If you download from a torrent though, you’re guilty because you’re also participating in the distribution. There’s also nuance with profit depending on the jurisdiction. But, just like throwing away a pamphlet is not piracy, refusing to download and ad is not piracy.

            • 60fpsrefugee@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              That’s where Youtube premium comes in. To protect you from ads with a cost per month.

            • papertowels@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              You…really don’t have to.

              Again, I’m all for ad blockers, I use Firefox, I’ve ran my own pihole instance, etc.

              I’m just going to be frank, you’re being a little melodramatic. Do you just get vaporized when you use someone else’s computer and an ad blocker isn’t installed? Likely not.

              Ironically, by framing what is just a quality of life thing as a mandatory reaction to content providers actions, it sounds like you’re the one trying to shift blame onto them. Your entire argument has very strong “LOOK AT WHAT YOU MADE ME DO” energy.

              All I’m saying is call a spade a spade. I acknowledge that by using an ad blocker, I’m economically negatively affecting the content provider. I’m okay with that. On some websites I’ll disable the ad blocker, if it’s one I use a lot with reasonable constraints.

              • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Your entire post is trying to frame end users for the responsibility of what the advertising companies have done (or more like failed to do) and caused as a result.

                You’re trying to hold a fork up and demand everyone acknowledge as a spade, and ridicule anyone who doesnt agree with a very dismissive attitude.

                • papertowels@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Do you agree that “What the advertising companies have done” was in agreement with the providers of the content you’re consuming?

                  Meaning, the providers of the content you’re consuming intended for the advertising to be a revenue stream?

                  Meaning it’s not “the big bad advertisers” - it’s really the providers of the content you’re voluntarily consuming who you’re trying to frame as the bad guys?

                  • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 months ago

                    I don’t voluntarily consume malware, malicious software, or hate speech/propaganda.

                    Its just forced upon me when I don’t protect myself.

                    Are you really happy with yourself, white knighting for the poor defenseless advertising companies? The ones who serve this shit, without policing or moderation? The lack of which is precisely why adblocking, the thing you are trying to blame users for with your disingenuous “You criticize society, yet you exist in society… interesting” type argument, exists in the first place.

                    All the ad companies have to do to get rid of adblocking is police and moderate their content that they serve. Something they actively refuse to do.

                    And yet you don’t have a single criticism for that. You have nothing but vigorous defense of it, and shifting of blame to the users, for it.

        • tb_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Its protection.

          From your point of view, yeah. Not from the point of view of the creator and the platform.

          Linus isn’t clutching his pearls nor is he crying, he’s just pointing out you are circumventing the method of payment to the platform. It is detrimental to both the platform and the creator. That is a fact. Your choice has an impact and you should be aware of that.
          But at no point did he say “you’re a bad person if you use adblock”.

          What has got you so worried?

    • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      And yet he never said not to adblock, so the only thing he claims are the categorization of adblocking.

      • AstralPath@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’d argue this as well. I see it in a similar way. Linus is obviously not trying to sit on some high horse and condemn piracy, he’s just calling a spade a spade.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          No, he’s calling a spade a backhoe. Piracy is one of two things, depending on your definition:

          • sharing/accessing copyrighted material you don’t have the rights for (i.e. seeding or downloading a torrent)
          • circumventing technical restrictions on copyrighted content (e.g. DRM)

          Blocking ads does neither of those things, it merely blocks loading of content that you don’t want to see. It’s basically the modern version of a DVR, where you can choose to cut out portions of a video that you don’t want (e.g. the ads).

          These things are technically piracy:

          • using a YouTube downloader
          • sharing downloaded YouTube videos
          • posting a YouTube video that you don’t own
          • using substantial portions of a YouTube video you don’t own w/o authorization in your own video (i.e. beyond Fair Use)

          Blocking ads isn’t one of those things, neither is skipping over parts of a video you don’t want to see (i.e. the sponsor segment).

          Blocking ads reduces revenue to Google and the video creator. That doesn’t make it piracy, it’s just being a jerk to the platform and the creator.

        • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          The comment was replying to one about it being funny that Linus made a video about adblocking when he considers adblocking piracy. That would imply he is against adblocking in general, which your links does not show.

          Yes, he considers it piracy, but he is not against adblocking, which is why the original point of the parent comment doesn’t make sense.

            • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              I did read it the first time, which is why I brought up the context of the first comment, which implied that Linus is against adblocking.

              The comment you claimed to be lying is talking about the actual context of why Linus compared adblocking with piracy, which is about content creators and payment of their content.

              I’m only calling you out for making a point that is not in the context of the actual thread, not against the proof of what you posted in the first place, so I’m not sure we’re even in disagreement here.

                • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Why would the first comment said it is funny for Linus to make a how to adblock video if he is not implying that a Linus against adblock? Please explain how that logic works.