Adblocking Does Not Constitute Copyright Infringement, Court Rules

[Arika]

i have just fixed Youtube's adblock problem. do this and i'll turn off my adblocker. ads should be unintrusive. currently they are the exact opposite.

 

[leadeater]

14 minutes ago, Arika S said:

i have just fixed Youtube's adblock problem. do this and i'll turn off my adblocker. ads should be unintrusive. currently they are the exact opposite.

Nice however two problems, Theater Mode which currently will be your default if you last used it and the second is Mobile and Mobile App. I would hazard a guess that Mobile is quite important, probably more so than desktop browser or will be eventually.

 

Also industry moved away from banner Ads because they were actually rather ineffective, not that I think pre-roll Ads are much more either but they must be to some degree simply due to how they are presented to the viewer. So I doubt anyone wants to go back to banner ads when they know already they don't work well.

[aDoomGuy]

10 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Consuming content for free that you are supposed to either pay in as cash or your time. Its as simple as that.

Just pointing out that....

 

If I don't use adblock, but mute my headset and minimize the window until the actual video start... As compared to watching the frikkin ad on full blast. What is the difference for a creator? It's not that we have to "pay with our time". It's just that someone is paying to shove their garbage down our throats and what's more. The ones paying for that have accepted that not all consumers watch all their garbage.

 

One has the option to buy Youtube Premium subscription. But that is not the creators money. That money belongs to Google and while it trickles down to the creators ...PROBABLY not much. Your simple as that arguement is quite flawed.

[joaopt]

6 hours ago, aDoomGuy said:

Just pointing out that....

 

If I don't use adblock, but mute my headset and minimize the window until the actual video start... As compared to watching the frikkin ad on full blast. What is the difference for a creator? It's not that we have to "pay with our time". It's just that someone is paying to shove their garbage down our throats and what's more. The ones paying for that have accepted that not all consumers watch all their garbage.

 

One has the option to buy Youtube Premium subscription. But that is not the creators money. That money belongs to Google and while it trickles down to the creators ...PROBABLY not much. Your simple as that arguement is quite flawed.

 

there's a school of opinion here that thinks it's piracy to not watch the ads and deny the revenue to the Youtubers, but thinks it's absolutely fine to rip of the advertisers, by for example letting the ad run but not watch.

They are the so called selective moralists.

[IPD]

4 hours ago, joaopt said:

 

there's a school of opinion here that thinks it's piracy to not watch the ads and deny the revenue to the Youtubers, but thinks it's absolutely fine to rip of the advertisers, by for example letting the ad run but not watch.

They are the so called selective moralists.

Precisely.  Self-Awareness = 0

[RedRound2]

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

I'm not supposed to pay anything for, YouTube is a Free Access platform with cost recovery through methods they want to employ. There is no agreement between me and the creator to pay or do anything and my view without a YouTube Ad still generates them revenue.

There doesnt need to be agreement when the payment part (here time) is part of the process. By that logic we all need contracts from every single company in the world stating if we use their service, we will pay them. That is stupid. Payment being part of the process of accessing or acquiring something.

But go ahead with your mental gymnastics

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

It's not "as simple as that", never was and never will be.

Yes, it is.

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

I'm not the one that made the claim or statement that by blocking YouTube ads the chances of getting any revenue from me is zero which you should know is not true. YouTube Ad revenue yes, revenue no.

 

Vessel Subscriber: Check (while existed)

Floatplane Subscriber: Check

Merch Buyer: Check

Used sponsor code when buying: Check

Amazon Referral Code User: Check

Merch Buyer: Check

Video referrals to people: Check

YouTube Ad Watcher: Uncheck

Yea so much for zero revenue from me because I block YouTube ads.

Irrelevant. You're talking about LMG in specific. Do you go all those extra lengths for content creator of every single video you watch on the platform. From that lovely lady who guided you to make some perfect hardboiled eggs, to small creators having videos that may have had something of interest to you at some point.

 

More than that, you flaunt so much about how much you spend, but cant afford YT premium? Well, that just shows character

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

Yes it is because that's a major reason why I block them, so if you to discuss with me why I blocked them then that is absolutely on topic.

I never asked you why you blocked them or not. If you are doing it in some protest of some larger issue. Go ahead. But dont go hurting small creators for that.

You want to protest against facebook. Stop using their service. I have no problem. What I have an issue is that you want to use facebook, but not give your part. unfortunately with facebook such an arraignment is not an option, but with Youtube it is, and sadly all you folks like to steal the snicker bar because you know that the security guard will let you go

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

You asked me why I said or thought the advertisers were predatory and abusive not the other way round, if you don't want to know then don't ask. Don't go throwing out of context claims when you instigated the question and don't like the answer. Learn to deal with it.

I asked expecting some simple answer and something to do with the user watching 5 sec unskippable ads or something. What you went on to explain was some random shit from years about something that is largely irrelevant. 

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

You have serious problems with opinions you don't agree with, hence you always default to out of context claims.

What is your opinion. All you've been doing is adulterating a simple conversation with world problems. And its always nice to see when the nerve finally breaks and the person starts insults. Very clear and mature.

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

YouTube removed the ability for non MCN partnered channels to have geo-restriction capabilities under negotiation from Advertising agencies and large corporations. Why do you think there is only one way to pay Google for advertising?

I have no idea why this is relevant to you watching a ad, allowing creator to get a cut instead of intentionally blocking ad and depriving the creator of revenue

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

YouTube is not the middleman for sponsorship deals at all, creators get next to no control over what YouTube Ads are played on their channel and YouTube can and has forced them on without permission from the creator/channel owner, even ones not eligible to get payouts at all.

Creators can turn off/on ads. That about as much as control anyone would even want. Its not a secret that Youtube isnt the most profitable company. They need to get some revenue for storing and hosting all the billions of videos even if the small creator not eligible for payouts

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

But you know what integrated ads are correct? How about YouTube works with the industry and creators to supply a selection of well produced segments that can be included in videos or inserted at upload that the creator can choose from so they can have actually relevant advertisements they wouldn't otherwise get and be privy to a better deal than pennies for views (if you don't click Skip Ad that YouTube allows).

That's what literally all youtubers are already doing with sponsorships. Getting youtube involved with millions of creators to mediate or be middleman is an organizational nightmare. And people will always end up making side deals to get over the youtube middleman cut. So you wind up ending up in the same situation, but just worse

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

You seem to know extremely little to nothing about this situation other than your own opinion that Adblock = bad because someone said something I liked and agreed with.

I cant explain you how 1+1=2, sorry. 

 

Its so diabolical how many people wants themselves seen as angels in life 

[RedRound2]

10 hours ago, aDoomGuy said:

Just pointing out that....

 

If I don't use adblock, but mute my headset and minimize the window until the actual video start... As compared to watching the frikkin ad on full blast. What is the difference for a creator? It's not that we have to "pay with our time". It's just that someone is paying to shove their garbage down our throats and what's more. The ones paying for that have accepted that not all consumers watch all their garbage.

 

One has the option to buy Youtube Premium subscription. But that is not the creators money. That money belongs to Google and while it trickles down to the creators ...PROBABLY not much. Your simple as that arguement is quite flawed.

The part where you can minimize it and ignore it completely is inherent to the system design of this particular transaction. So that is acceptable and within the constraints. It's similar to - you are more likely to get covid if you use paper cash instead of any digital method. 

 

At that point, its just a simple probability of how many people actually mute and minimize for 5 or 10 sec, instead of watching it passively?  If you willing to put all that effort, well congrats maybe you deserve a free ticket. But otherwise no.

 

And I said payment is time. Not whether the ad was effective or not. Ad is effective or not is more of advertisers problem, not a user problem.

 

14 hours ago, Elijah Kamski said:

Imagine paying for something that is free.

 

Just have videos behind a paywall like what Patreon does.

Lol. Did you spend all your life receiving charity or something?

 

Nothing is free. Anything that appears free, has got other ways to earn money from you using it. I thought this was very clear with everyone since facebook, but welp, apparently some people think corporations have infinite supply of money and provide you service out of their good hearts

 

If you dont like their model, they do have a subscription service. Its called Youtube Premium. Look it up

[aDoomGuy]

14 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

The part where you can minimize it and ignore it completely is inherent to the system design of this particular transaction. So that is acceptable and within the constraints.

I'm sorry... Constraints of whom? The masters of my life and how I use my own PC?

 

15 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

At that point, its just a simple probability of how many people actually mute and minimize for 5 or 10 sec, instead of watching it passively?  If you willing to put all that effort, well congrats maybe you deserve a free ticket. But otherwise no.

All that effort of clicking - and press mute on my keyboard? TBH more of an effort to actually install software so by that logic adblock users deserve their free ticket more than me don't you say?

 

16 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

And I said payment is time. Not whether the ad was effective or not. Ad is effective or not is more of advertisers problem, not a user problem.

It is not a problem to Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Dodge or Mercedes. They have their marketing budgets and they spend that money to reach as many potential customers as they can. If someone doesn't want to watch then they can't do anything about it and they accept that's how it is. Besides. If I am buying something it is not because of an advertisement.

 

19 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

If you dont like their model, they do have a subscription service. Its called Youtube Premium

So you don't like it if we use Googles free service without paying for it? Don't think for a second that Youtube Premium income goes to the content creators. That surely goes into the Google bank account, with probably some tiny tiny pennies finding it's way to content creators based on VIEWS and SUBSCRIPTIONS.

[RedRound2]

11 hours ago, aDoomGuy said:

One has the option to buy Youtube Premium subscription. But that is not the creators money. That money belongs to Google and while it trickles down to the creators ...PROBABLY not much. Your simple as that arguement is quite flawed.

This makes no sense. How is simple math, going over people's head, I will probably never understand.

Linus has repeatedly (so have others) that revenue from Youtube premium users is significantly higher

 

But lets break it down in numbers

 

Assume a video's average CPM is USD 15 (higher end iirc)

Your contribution: 15/1000 = 0.015 USD

 

Premium Subscription cost: 12 USD

Lets assume you watch 200 videos in a month: Each video will earn about 0.06 USD (this is probably in the worst spectrum)

Assuming YT takes 30% cut, revenu creators recieve is 0.042 USD which is 2.8x times the income otherwise from ads

 

And remember I assumed 15 USD CPM (average is 2 USD), which is far from reality, and you as a user watches over 200 videos in a month. 2.8x times is pretty much the worst case you can do. 

[RedRound2]

2 minutes ago, aDoomGuy said:

I'm sorry... Constraints of whom? The masters of my life and how I use my own PC?

Constraint of the approach used to get return. Sorry for speaking rocket science

2 minutes ago, aDoomGuy said:

All that effort of clicking - and press mute on my keyboard? TBH more of an effort to actually install software so by that logic adblock users deserve their free ticket more than me don't you say?

For every single video right? Sure man. Lets just pretend that in your world, everybody will consciously mute, minimize, then unmute and maximize for 2-3 ads that gets shown during the video for ALL the videos they watch in youtube.

 

You make funny jokes

2 minutes ago, aDoomGuy said:

It is not a problem to Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Dodge or Mercedes. They have their marketing budgets and they spend that money to reach as many potential customers as they can. If someone doesn't want to watch then they can't do anything about it and they accept that's how it is. Besides. If I am buying something it is not because of an advertisement.

Whether their marketing tactic is working or not is an advertiser problem. Have you not heard of the psychology that goes into the landing page, ad direction, etc?

2 minutes ago, aDoomGuy said:

So you don't like it if we use Googles free service without paying for it? Don't think for a second that Youtube Premium income goes to the content creators. That surely goes into the Google bank account, with probably some tiny tiny pennies finding it's way to content creators based on VIEWS and SUBSCRIPTIONS.

Lol, creators have said this themselves that they get paid much more with premium users. And I already posted a breakdown for people in my earlier reply

3 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

But lets break it down in numbers

 

Assume a video's average CPM is USD 15 (higher end iirc)

Your contribution: 15/1000 = 0.015 USD

 

Premium Subscription cost: 12 USD

Lets assume you watch 200 videos in a month: Each video will earn about 0.06 USD (this is probably in the worst spectrum)

Assuming YT takes 30% cut, revenu creators recieve is 0.042 USD which is 2.8x times the income otherwise from ads

 

And remember I assumed 15 USD CPM (average is 2 USD), which is far from reality, and you as a user watches over 200 videos in a month. 2.8x times is literally the worst case possible. 

 

[aDoomGuy]

9 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

This makes no sense. How is simple math, going over people's head, I will probably never understand.

Linus has repeatedly (so have others) that revenue from Youtube premium users is significantly higher

 

But lets break it down in numbers

 

Assume a video's average CPM is USD 15 (higher end iirc)

Your contribution: 15/1000 = 0.015 USD

 

Premium Subscription cost: 12 USD

Lets assume you watch 200 videos in a month: Each video will earn about 0.06 USD (this is probably in the worst spectrum)

Assuming YT takes 30% cut, revenu creators recieve is 0.042 USD which is 2.8x times the income otherwise from ads

 

And remember I assumed 15 USD CPM (average is 2 USD), which is far from reality, and you as a user watches over 200 videos in a month. 2.8x times is pretty much the worst case you can do. 

Well I for my part do not watch 200 videos a month. Maybe someone who spends that much time on youtube should consider a little donation. Like today I haven't watched a single tube. But yeah, if someone sits all day watching content on Youtube they should consider contributing but I firmly think a direct donation to a live stream or something is much more beneficial to the likes of LTT. HOWEVER, I would not go as far and call it piracy.

 

Is piracy illegal in many western countries? Yes it is. Is adblock illegal. Well according to European courts it is not. So there you go.

 

5 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

For every single video right? Sure man. Lets just pretend that in your world, everybody will consciously mute, minimize, then unmute and maximize for 2-3 ads that gets shown during the video for ALL the videos they watch in youtube.

 

Well, I am only me. Not everybody uses Youtube equally. Also I never said everybody does that as far as I know. I would assume most people use adblock. But hey. I don't mind what other people do with their own things.

[Biohazard777]

On 2/6/2022 at 2:08 PM, RedRound2 said:

Nothing in life is free

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

That's what literally all youtubers are already doing with sponsorships

A tiny fraction of the top percentile of YouTube creators yes, did I say they had to do it for everyone? No I did not, and I was quite specific about getting access to those creators that cannot get these deals because their viewership is too low so it's not worth the time of companies to allocate their employee(s) to negotiate such a low return or low value deal.

 

That's where collective barraging power comes in or did you forget YouTube is already doing that with the Advertising however it's not actually collective bargaining because the creators get zero say or input.

 

Maybe the creators that make YouTube what it actually is should get a little more input in to the platform? From all walks of life and size.

 

Your inability to see or even advocate for a change doesn't make your opinion correct. Beating down the same path that isn't working, that every YouTube creator and Channel works outside of to survive is clearly a problem and needs to be addressed yet I or anyone else should just support such a broken system? I can choose to not you can choose to do so, your choice. Unless the legality of it changes then it's just a choice.

 

With all the problems with YouTube Ads situation you want to throw around your own morality, point fingers and say we think we are angels, insinuate you're on the right side or otherwise better because you do not block ads. You're just supporting an abusive system and aren't any better. But go ahead with your denial, nobody blocking Ads has ever been claiming that we are "angels" lol. Would be nice to have a rational discussion without 16 layers of smug.

 

6 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

There doesnt need to be agreement when the payment part (here time) is part of the process. By that logic we all need contracts from every single company in the world stating if we use their service, we will pay them. That is stupid. Payment being part of the process of accessing or acquiring something.

There is, have you even read the YouTube Terms of Service? Payment does not have to be part of it but every single service that is a registered business has a Terms of Service and usage of the service is itself agreement to them. Not reading them doesn't make them not apply to you. However Terms of Service cannot require you to do anything outside the bounds of the law or any other regulations.

 

Even this forum has a Terms of Use, it's right down the bottom of every page. There is also a Privacy Policy and Community Standards.

 

If YouTube wants to require anyone to watch the Ads then it must be stipulated in the Terms of Service and is also must be legally allowed which it is not hence it's not in there.

https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms

 

6 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Do you go all those extra lengths for content creator of every single video you watch on the platform. From that lovely lady who guided you to make some perfect hardboiled eggs, to small creators having videos that may have had something of interest to you at some point.

 

More than that, you flaunt so much about how much you spend, but cant afford YT premium? Well, that just shows character

Firstly I don't watch that much YouTube, second if it's possible to watch elsewhere then I quite often do. I have given many creators donations and Patreon subscriptions yes, mostly the ones I stick around for a decent time and consistently watch is very few.

 

Also why would I want to give more money to a company that I object to many of their business practices? You want me to be actually morally corrupt and not stand by my principles? Good luck convincing me of that one.

 

I wasn't the one making character judgements or accusations yet here you are doing just that, fantastic. Such great "character", sarcasm indented.

 

6 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Yes, it is.

It's not, You're the one that threw around the original statement that blocking Ads results in a guaranteed zero revenue for the creator and failed to stipulate that only applies to YouTube Ads.

 

So we can cut out the rest of the discussion because I don't think you really want to discuss it, you want to only make a point about blocking Ads means a revenue loss, now loss or reduction here is important but you went with zero.

 

Last I checked YouTube Ads was not 100% the revenue of LMG or basically any other medium to large creator. And the only way these other revenue streams are possible are through subscription numbers and view numbers so there is in fact a correlation between my Ad blocked view and revenue therefore your statement cannot be correct.

 

Now for the smaller creators that truly depend on YouTube Ad revenue? Well I'm actually sad to say most of them are more reliant on Patreon or other forms of donations.

 

I can however easily make peace with the fact that the very slim minority that actually needed my YouTube Ad payout won't be getting it over not supporting a system I do not agree with more.

 

Your point was flawed, or more likely incorrectly scoped. It's easily demonstrated as not the case. Neither is the situation simple. If you want to isolate it to YouTube Ad revenue then I can be fine with that but if you want to discuss or demonstrate harm then it has to be done in mind of all sources of revenue not just one.

 

6 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

What is your opinion

You would know if you

• Actually read what I'm writing to you
• Did what I suggested and read my prior posts in this topic, I'm not going to repeat them to you

 

Just saying

 

6 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

person starts insults

Coming from the one that leveled it first, how about some self-awareness.  Going to accuse me of constantly going out of context then I'm entitled to a right of reply to give my point of view about your issue and why you think it happens. I'd suggest just dropping it because something you don't want to discuss isn't always out of context. Discussions go to all sorts of places and people have reasoning behind what they say and if you suspect it's in an area you do not wish to discuss then have the self control to not probe or ask in to it.

 

6 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

I asked expecting some simple answer and something to do with the user watching 5 sec unskippable ads or something. What you went on to explain was some random shit from years about something that is largely irrelevant. 

Now I suggest not discussing this however just to point out that it's not irrelevant and it's still happening right now. I can name a YouTube creator whos entire channel was destroyed in the last week due to this issue. I happen to think this is a right now problem and is quite relevant to my reasoning.

 

In fact if you aren't satisfied with just 1 then I can name 2 in the last week.

 

What you wanted was a meager excuse like you pointed to, what you actually got was a substantiated reason. Being outside of what you want to discuss is fine, that only makes it irrelevant to you though. 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Biohazard777 said:

-snip-

I'm fairly certain complaining is free. Getting people to care about you complaint on the other hand, not so much.

[Biohazard777]

51 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I'm fairly certain complaining is free. Getting people to care about you complaint on the other hand, not so much.

That would be 9.99$ sir. 
Or:

"Nothing is free." - Dumbest generalization I keep seeing popping up in these "pirate" threads.

 

[Elijah Kamski]

13 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

The part where you can minimize it and ignore it completely is inherent to the system design of this particular transaction. So that is acceptable and within the constraints. It's similar to - you are more likely to get covid if you use paper cash instead of any digital method. 

 

At that point, its just a simple probability of how many people actually mute and minimize for 5 or 10 sec, instead of watching it passively?  If you willing to put all that effort, well congrats maybe you deserve a free ticket. But otherwise no.

 

And I said payment is time. Not whether the ad was effective or not. Ad is effective or not is more of advertisers problem, not a user problem.

 

Lol. Did you spend all your life receiving charity or something?

 

Nothing is free. Anything that appears free, has got other ways to earn money from you using it. I thought this was very clear with everyone since facebook, but welp, apparently some people think corporations have infinite supply of money and provide you service out of their good hearts

 

If you dont like their model, they do have a subscription service. Its called Youtube Premium. Look it up

I prefer their alternative version, YouTube Vanced.

[mr moose]

Ayyy,  now I be talkin' in this crazy accent,  This adblock be the scurvy o' me.  To the depths with ye...

 

*Turns off adblocker and watches  youtube. **

 

 

MAKE YOUR DICK BIGGER!

Me:  For fucks sake!!!

 

*turns adblocker back on*

 

Ye better off as a pirate, than a def wanker.

 

 

[suicidalfranco]

31 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Ayyy,  now I be talkin' in this crazy accent,  This adblock be the scurvy o' me.  To the depths with ye...

 

*Turns off adblocker and watches  youtube. **

 

 

MAKE YOUR DICK BIGGER!

Me:  For fucks sake!!!

 

*turns adblocker back on*

 

Ye better off as a pirate, than a def wanker.

 

 

At least you didn't get a 5 minute long nat geo ad

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, suicidalfranco said:

At least you didn't get a 5 minute long nat geo ad

When I get ads like that I don't even make it to the content.  Even pre roll/embedded ads, I just switch off and go outside and build something.  The internet is here to serve me, I do not serve it.  

 

I know I am going to sound like an old man, but sometimes I wish the younger generations could experience the thrill of living without the internet or video games.  wandering off with your mates across town, exploring the old factories, walking down the railway line to the next town for drinks.  Getting in a fight then punching on then you're best mates again by the end of the day.    Nowadays it seems everyone's getting their knickers in a knot about not watching the fucking ads. I mean seriously, of all the things that motivate people to try and "educate" the world.  Not watching ads?  go outside!

 

 

[suicidalfranco]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

wandering off with your mates across town, exploring the old factories, walking down the railway line to the next town for drinks.  Getting in a fight then punching on then you're best mates again by the end of the day

How do you know about my last summer

[IPD]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

When I get ads like that I don't even make it to the content.  Even pre roll/embedded ads, I just switch off and go outside and build something.  The internet is here to serve me, I do not serve it.  

 

I know I am going to sound like an old man, but sometimes I wish the younger generations could experience the thrill of living without the internet or video games.  wandering off with your mates across town, exploring the old factories, walking down the railway line to the next town for drinks.  Getting in a fight then punching on then you're best mates again by the end of the day.    Nowadays it seems everyone's getting their knickers in a knot about not watching the fucking ads. I mean seriously, of all the things that motivate people to try and "educate" the world.  Not watching ads?  go outside!

 

 

When mobile gaming had a battery life of maybe 2 hours.  So when your parents kicked you out of the house until the street lights came on, you had to find something else to do.  And those that didn't make it back ended up on Unsolved Mysteries, like the good lord intended.

 

Fast forward to today, and we have parents who sit in the car--idling, down on the corner--waiting for the school bus to arrive to pick up their kid.  And I live below the mason-dixon line.  What kind of lily-livered, soy-milk-latte drinking fairies believe that this is somehow appropriate and going to encourage maturation in their kids?  I wish I was making this up, but I pass them nearly every day as I'm going for a run.

[suicidalfranco]

1 hour ago, IPD said:

When mobile gaming had a battery life of maybe 2 hours.  So when your parents kicked you out of the house until the street lights came on, you had to find something else to do.  And those that didn't make it back ended up on Unsolved Mysteries, like the good lord intended.

 

Fast forward to today, and we have parents who sit in the car--idling, down on the corner--waiting for the school bus to arrive to pick up their kid.  And I live below the mason-dixon line.  What kind of lily-livered, soy-milk-latte drinking fairies believe that this is somehow appropriate and going to encourage maturation in their kids?  I wish I was making this up, but I pass them nearly every day as I'm going for a run.

Tfw I grew up (early to end teenagehood) in an African capital city and it sounds like the US is even worst than that

[pythonmegapixel]

7 hours ago, IPD said:

 What kind of lily-livered, soy-milk-latte drinking fairies believe that this is somehow appropriate and going to encourage maturation in their kids?  I wish I was making this up, but I pass them nearly every day as I'm going for a run.

It is horrible for children's independence and maturity to raise them in a location where you have to drive them everywhere. A great way to make them feel like a prisoner in their own home until they are old enough to have a driving license.

 

(Obviously the solution is providing high quality transport other than cars and then ending the awful culture of sheltering children. Getting a bus to a town centre or riding a bicycle to a friend's house is not going to hurt them FFS!)

[Thaldor]

I would like to lift another cat on the table called YouTube demonetizing creators and still monetizing their content for themselves.

 

At least couple creators I follow have a hard time monetizing their content to the point they don't even try it anymore because they upload a video and YouTube automatically deems it "not ad-friendly". Still I turn my uBlock off and I get served ads on their content. So, YouTube bot deems their content not able to be monetized for them, so they cannot make a single cent out of it, but completely fine to monetize it by YouTube. Some of the time they maybe able to plead the case and get their content monetized for themselves but we then talk about week old content that YouTube has milked dry during the critical time the content is relevant and generating the most revenue.

 

Oh boy would this be juicy if, for example, Apple would go: "This iOS app you made goes against our monetization rules that we refuse to make Crystal Pepsi -clear for you and instead give you some random vague reason why you cannot make a single cent out of this app... But we will put couple ads here and there into your app and take 100% of the income to ourselves. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!" People would not only rip their pants but would be very, very, very pissed off and probably ripping Cupertino down. But when it's only 21st richest company in the world, not the 6th (by Fortune), no one bats an eye for it.

No, when we talk about Alphabet, people even defend its vague policies surrounding YouTube.

 

And those who say that YouTube adds more ads to make out the money they loose by people running adblocks, let me introduce you some business logic. That is their current narrative. If no one was running adblocks, they would for sure go with "people love watching ads and it's so nice that we decided to add more ads so people can enjoy even more watching them".

And most likely why they don't run ads from the same source as the actual content isn't their "good will" ("good will" and companies.... LoL, maybe if we talked about charities, definedly not when we talk about a company in the Fotune500 lists top end). They run the ads from their own ad servers because it's cheaper for them and they can serve the same ad on any platform from YouTube videos to Android games to websites using Google Ads.

[LAwLz]

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

When I get ads like that I don't even make it to the content.  Even pre roll/embedded ads, I just switch off and go outside and build something.  The internet is here to serve me, I do not serve it.  

Wow, you're a total piece of shit! Do you not understand that you are robbing those poor millionaires of their hard earned cash? Those billion dollar companies paid for you to see their ad, and now you're ignoring it, thus wasting their money? How can you sleep at night? I hope you end up behind bars, where you belong!

 

(Shouldn't have to say this but I am being sarcastic. This is what people like Linus sounds like to me though when he sits in a multi-million dollar home complaining that people are blocking ads on his videos).