• IlandarEnglish
    1·
    2 months ago

    Read that second paragraph from me again:

    Whether you think this is moral hypocrisy is irrelevant to me. I was only calling out the previous commenter who straight up lied about Linus’s history and then attempted to frame the people who were right as uninformed and wrong.

    If you want to have a debate about the parent comment, debate the person who made the parent comment. That’s not me and I do not care about the point you are trying to make here.

    • stephen01king@lemmy.zipEnglish
      1·
      2 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.

      • IlandarEnglish
        1·
        2 months ago

        I brought up the context of the first comment, which implied that Linus is against adblocking.

        It didn’t. Read it again:

        Funny, considering in the past he’s gone on big rants about how adblocking is no different from piracy, and is theft.

        But then again, its Linux we’re talking about, its not like he has a particularly big issue with theft.

        He literally said both of those things. I have proven this. Someone asked for a source. Another person replied with:

        No, because that isn’t Linus’s take.

        But because he uttered something in favor of ads on his videos-which is how they got paid-he’s now considered ultra pro invasive ads by the user above

        As I have proven, Linus literally said both of those things. That was his take in 2022. At this point in the comment chain, no one has implied Linus is “against ad-bliocking”. They have only stated that he believed it was no different to piracy and theft, which is true. This third person in the chain was the one who actually brought up the “he’s against ad-blocking” argument as a strawman - that was never never implied in the original parent comment.

        The comment you claimed to be lying is talking about the actual context of why Linus compared adblocking with piracy

        No it’s not. That is quite clearly not what it was in response to. Again, read the the comment chain carefully here. You are taking things that were said or implied in other comment chains (or just completely fabricated) and pretending that they were what the comment chain I was involved in was related to.

        • stephen01king@lemmy.zipEnglish
          1·
          2 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.

          • IlandarEnglish
            1·
            2 months ago

            It is funny that YouTube took down his video detailing how to circumvent its revenue stream after he claimed doing so was piracy and theft.

            • stephen01king@lemmy.zipEnglish
              1·
              2 months ago

              Yeah, because you YouTube is against adblocking. It would be more surprising if they don’t.

              Now answer my question why it’s funny for Linus to make such a video when he isn’t against adblocking, and how that would mean the parent comment wasn’t implying that he is against adblocking.

              • IlandarEnglish
                1·
                2 months ago

                I just answered your question. Read it again.

                • stephen01king@lemmy.zipEnglish
                  1·
                  2 months ago

                  You might be right, I’ve misread the point of the parent comment in the first place. I guess I just wasted both of our time, sorry about that.