Are we pirates?

[joaopt]

5 minutes ago, WTF916 said:

But after all there is a simple solution for all of this. Paywall. If your content is good you will survive, if not you will not. There was life before YouTube.

Very true, any youtuber not fine with the model put it behind a Paywall and stop saying nonsense, just put it all on Floatplane.

 

And btw if you do that and there is demand be prepared for piracy.

[MageTank]

15 hours ago, joaopt said:

 

There is no implicit cost, there is no implicit contrat, it's free to watch internet content. If you're talking about support it can be done in other ways like it's been said a million times, someone can buy from the LTT store.

Yet there is no cost, explicit or implicit for freely avaiable things. Until it's under a paywall it's literally free.

This is flawed logic. The cost is simple. YouTube (Google, Alphabet, whatever you want to call them) has to pay to host the servers where the videos are stored as well as pay to maintain their servers and network infrastructures to deliver the content you are consuming. Buying a $20 T-shirt from Linus isn't helping the platform host at all. The creator isn't paying YouTube to maintain their servers either, it's the other way around, with YouTube paying the creator for hosting their content on their platform by sharing ad revenue.

 

YouTube doesn't hide their business model either: https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/our-commitments/sharing-revenue/

 

Anyone that has used a basic streaming service knows that ads are how the service remains free. If everyone blocked the ads, the service would have to switch to a different business model, likely charging people money for access akin to that of modern news outlets.

 

Piracy argument aside, you cannot tell me that you honestly believe YouTube is "free". If something is free, you're the product. It just so happens that you as a product in this context means you receive ads, that is the service you offer in exchange for "free" access.

[GeorgeKellow]

On 1/28/2022 at 5:03 PM, RockSolid1106 said:

I don't use adblockers. I feel I should be helping the creators with the little money they earn by me watching the ad. They put effort into that video, and they deserve it. I'm sure you or I wouldn't like if your/my viewers used adblockers and I/you got less revenue for all the effort I/you put into making that video.

 

That said, I do skip sponsor segments as they are a mere waste of time for me, I know that I'm not going to buy what they're promoting.

To me this translates to 

 

"I'll watch a completely random advert with potentially no relevance to the topic of the video" but "I will not watch a baked in ad about tech (Ususally tech) in tech video- god forbid"

 

...

[Avocado Diaboli]

59 minutes ago, MageTank said:

If something is free, you're the product. It just so happens that you as a product in this context means you receive ads, that is the service you offer in exchange for "free" access.

Nope, they get my data in return. That's the price I'm paying. Never ever forget where Google actually makes the most money. You said it yourself: If it's free, I'm the product. Not my attention to their ads. 

 

Again, I outlined this in an earlier post, if you want to argue that the onus is on me to watch ads for YouTube or Linus or whoever to be paid, then you haven't thought the whole chain through to the end. If nobody buys the products and services being advertised, nobody is making money. Therefore, you have to buy the advertised products and services for there to be enough money to pay for the ads that get shown to you. If you're really this adamant in claiming that the implied contract is that I should watch ads, then I get to claim that the implied contract is that you're supposed to buy products. After all, it's the sale of products that allows for the cash flow that pays creators. Everything else would be hypocritical.

[Areco777]

On 1/28/2022 at 10:09 PM, summoned said:

reffering to this topic on r/pcmasterrace:

I don't understand why getting rid of all this crap, flashy and disturbing content is bad?

Some advert are strictly abussive for young people. Some of them are crazy irritating. They all are stealing our time, bandwidth and data.

 

What are your take on this?

Do you use adblockers?

linus explained it with a example of netflix subscription , in netflix you pay the monthly fee to access the content but you can pirate the content from a site in youtube the payment is the ads , you are not suppose to see the videos without the ads being served , you can skip them and ignore them but not allowing them to be served is just like using a site to get netflix content , so i think linus is totally right but i agree that ads are annoying , so i will say agree to the fact that you are a pirate but dont change a think about your self , also ads being irritating in youtube is not a reason as you can just pay for the premium subscription  

[Areco777]

16 hours ago, joaopt said:

I decide what things should or should not be played. Just like i decide if i should watch ads in the middle of a football game or not, it's my time, it's my tv/pc.

just like saying i decide when i should get a parking ticket , its my car i decide if i want to park it somewhere or not 

[joaopt]

1 hour ago, MageTank said:

This is flawed logic. The cost is simple. YouTube (Google, Alphabet, whatever you want to call them) has to pay to host the servers where the videos are stored as well as pay to maintain their servers and network infrastructures to deliver the content you are consuming. Buying a $20 T-shirt from Linus isn't helping the platform host at all. The creator isn't paying YouTube to maintain their servers either, it's the other way around, with YouTube paying the creator for hosting their content on their platform by sharing ad revenue.

 

YouTube doesn't hide their business model either: https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/our-commitments/sharing-revenue/

 

 

Anyone that has used a basic streaming service knows that ads are how the service remains free. If everyone blocked the ads, the service would have to switch to a different business model, likely charging people money for access akin to that of modern news outlets.

 

Piracy argument aside, you cannot tell me that you honestly believe YouTube is "free". If something is free, you're the product. It just so happens that you as a product in this context means you receive ads, that is the service you offer in exchange for "free" access.

 

I could honestly care less about Alphabet's profits. Monopolistic, intrusive in peoples private lives, etc...  If they switch to payed i'm fine with it, i would still not support them in any way, there is already competing platforms including Floatplane, we'll survive.

[joaopt]

25 minutes ago, Areco777 said:

just like saying i decide when i should get a parking ticket , its my car i decide if i want to park it somewhere or not 

Sure not watching an ad on tv or parking on the middle of the road is literally exactly the same thing.

 

What's so hard for you to grasp, YT sends the video to my PC for free, its up to me to decide how i view it once it's on my PC, i'm not uploading it with my name or changing the content.

[MageTank]

28 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Nope, they get my data in return. That's the price I'm paying. Never ever forget where Google actually makes the most money. You said it yourself: If it's free, I'm the product. Not my attention to their ads. 

 

Again, I outlined this in an earlier post, if you want to argue that the onus is on me to watch ads for YouTube or Linus or whoever to be paid, then you haven't thought the whole chain through to the end. If nobody buys the products and services being advertised, nobody is making money. Therefore, you have to buy the advertised products and services for there to be enough money to pay for the ads that get shown to you. If you're really this adamant in claiming that the implied contract is that I should watch ads, then I get to claim that the implied contract is that you're supposed to buy products. After all, it's the sale of products that allows for the cash flow that pays creators. Everything else would be hypocritical.

You may be confusing me with someone else. I am not adamant about any "implied contracts" simply because they do not apply in this context. I am merely stating the fact that hosting the platform isn't free, and YouTube's business model involves making money from ad revenue. You cannot ignore this context and substitute your own as if it makes it fact because it cannot be argued when its this black and white. It costs money to operate and host these servers, they supplement that cost with ad revenue.

 

Do they sell your data on the side? Oh I am sure of it... It doesn't mean they don't also sell your views to advertisers for money. You clicking the ad or buying the product is irrelevant to YouTube or content creators, they get paid regardless of whether you buy the advertised product. Ad companies are also aware that not all views translates to product sold. They understand that there is value in brand recognition so simply putting the thought of their brand in your mind is value in and of itself.

 

I genuinely do not care if people choose to use adblocks on YouTube, doesn't hurt me in any capacity. I've already said it before in this thread that it's likely an issue that needs to be addressed with how they serve ads coupled with the ads they target towards specific users. There is a way to provide ads without them being intrusive or annoying, YouTube just hasn't moved towards that process.

 

9 minutes ago, joaopt said:

 

I could honestly care less about Alphabet's profits. Monopolistic, intrusive in peoples private lives, etc...  If they switch to payed i'm fine with it, i would still not support them in any way, there is already competing platforms including Floatplane, we'll survive.

This is the problem with the "me me me" generation. You don't like something yet you feel entitled to it anyways. If you are fine with paid alternatives then simply use those. Don't complain about a companies moral or ethical issues yet still consume their products, that is just weak and hypocritical, lol.

[Hairless Monkey Boy]

4 minutes ago, joaopt said:

its up to me to decide how i view it once it's on my PC

Yes, it is. And yes it should be.

 

It's also up to you whether or not you recognize and understand the consequences of your actions, and intellectually reckon with the ethical implications.

 

I use ad-block, and I fully understand the consequences and have personally reckoned with the ethical implications.

 

That's all, and it really isn't much.

[RockSolid1106]

12 minutes ago, GeorgeKellow said:

To me this translates to 

 

"I'll watch a completely random advert with potentially no relevance to the topic of the video" but "I will not watch a baked in ad about tech (Ususally tech) in tech video- god forbid"

 

...

I'll watch an ad since it funds the creators. I don't feel I'm entitled to content for free.

 

28 minutes ago, GeorgeKellow said:

completely random advert

I have decently relevant adverts, so isn't too bothersome to me. Yes, they show me some anime ads, which I hate, but sometimes they also show some ads which are pretty good, and I end up watching it till the end. Most of the times they're ads about tech(which I like).

 

I will skip sponsor segments since 1, the creators have no way to check if I watched that segment(or at least I think they don't), 2, the final outcome will be the same - I won't buy anything, and 3, most(like 90%) of their sponsors don't serve the country I'm in.

[GeorgeKellow]

4 minutes ago, RockSolid1106 said:

I'll watch an ad since it funds the creators. I don't feel I'm entitled to content for free.

 

I have decently relevant adverts, so isn't too bothersome to me. Yes, they show me some anime ads, which I hate, but sometimes they also show some ads which are pretty good, and I end up watching it till the end. Most of the times they're ads about tech(which I like).

 

I will skip sponsor segments since 1, the creators have no way to check if I watched that segment(or at least I think they don't), 2, the final outcome will be the same - I won't buy anything, and 3, most(like 90%) of their sponsors don't serve the country I'm in.

I might be getting this all wrong but these seems backwards af 

[Avocado Diaboli]

9 minutes ago, MageTank said:

You clicking the ad or buying the product is irrelevant to YouTube or content creators, they get paid regardless of whether you buy the advertised product. Ad companies are also aware that not all views translates to product sold. They understand that there is value in brand recognition so simply putting the thought of their brand in your mind is value in and of itself.

Not if it never generates a sale. For an ad to be useful to a company it needs to generate sales. If it doesn't, the company has no money to produce ads to begin with. With no money for ads, there's no point for YouTube to sell ad space. With no ad space, there's nothing content creators can monetize. Hence, you buying products ensures that there's enough money there to produce the ads that get served to you that pay for the content you're watching. All the brand recognition in the world is useless if it doesn't translate into cold hard cash at the end of the day. 

 

11 minutes ago, RockSolid1106 said:

the creators have no way to check if I watched that segment(or at least I think they don't)

A content creator might not be able to individually determine if you personally watched the ad, but they have analytics available that generally show you how much of a video your viewers watch. Here's what it looks like:

 

You can see the steady drop-off, with only a third of people who have started watching actually finishing the video.

If an advertiser is really adamant in knowing the engagement curve and sees massive troughs wherever the ads are run, they can generally estimate how much worth their investment was and how many people saw the ads.

[thatseantho]

Agree with Linus here, but I do wish YouTube required creators to timestamp the sponsored portions of videos - so when you pay for Premium, you're able to auto-skip the embedded ads.

[joaopt]

29 minutes ago, Hairless Monkey Boy said:

Yes, it is. And yes it should be.

 

It's also up to you whether or not you recognize and understand the consequences of your actions, and intellectually reckon with the ethical implications.

 

I use ad-block, and I fully understand the consequences and have personally reckoned with the ethical implications.

 

That's all, and it really isn't much.

 

100% agree, but it pissed me off, the comparison to piracy.

To Linus i can support by other ways

To Alphabet sure, but i would argue they do much worst, ethically speaking. We're even.

 

In this specific case i sleep fine either way.

[Hairless Monkey Boy]

19 minutes ago, joaopt said:

100% agree, but it pissed me off, the comparison to piracy.

Does it piss you off because you feel you are being judged, you don't want to be called a pirate, or you don't want to be associated with piracy?

 

I'm honestly curious to know those answers.

 

Because pirating content and blocking ads have very similar motivations, and very similar outcomes. The motivation is that for whatever irrelevant reason I don't want to pay the implicit or explicit cost for the content, and the outcome is that the creator misses out on revenue.

 

So it seems like a fair comparison to make.

[MageTank]

6 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Not if it never generates a sale. For an ad to be useful to a company it needs to generate sales. If it doesn't, the company has no money to produce ads to begin with. With no money for ads, there's no point for YouTube to sell ad space. With no ad space, there's nothing content creators can monetize. Hence, you buying products ensures that there's enough money there to produce the ads that get served to you that pay for the content you're watching. All the brand recognition in the world is useless if it doesn't translate into cold hard cash at the end of the day. 

 

A content creator might not be able to individually determine if you personally watched the ad, but they have analytics available that generally show you how much of a video your viewers watch. Here's what it looks like:

 

You can see the steady drop-off, with only a third of people who have started watching actually finishing the video.

If an advertiser is really adamant in knowing the engagement curve and sees massive troughs wherever the ads are run, they can generally estimate how much worth their investment was and how many people saw the ads.

I can't speak for everyone, but I work for a major system manufacturer and we don't mind spending money on advertisements to generate hype even if it doesn't translate directly to the sale of a specific product.

Some examples being:

• Creating one-off products that exist solely as a proof of concept
  • These are pitched and advertised to determine potential market interest, even if it doesn't translate to sales
  • Also gives us an idea on potential ROI if we wished to push the product to the market
• Giving products or funding to "social influencers" to hype the product
  • This allows your brand to reach untapped markets, even if they may or may not be interested in your product, their friends/families might and having that brand at the forefront of their mind is valuable in and of itself
  • Also allows for critical feedback from the influencer themselves should they be experienced in providing technical feedback on the products you are advertising

 

All of this is considered advertising, and even if the exact product being advertised never generates a sale, it's something we are always willing to pay. This is completely ignoring the funding we get from vendors that supplement our advertising costs to include their branding on our product pages, the programs we participate in giving us kickback on volume product licensing, etc. We run adverts on retailer websites (some of which we pay a premium to have our brand listed above others) but I am sure most of you get the gist. We want you you have that subconscious thought of our brand when a PC or laptop comes to mind. That is what we pay for.

 

It's also why I like that advertisers do not pay if their ad wasn't served because that is how it should be. You should never pay for a service that isn't providing what you are paying for. Content creators are also wise to the notion that Adblock exists, its why they create merch stores and run in-video sponsored ads. The only people losing out right now are the platform hosts and as I've stated before, they can mitigate this issue if they can come up with a way to make the ads relevant to the content in the video. If MSI or ASUS launches a new laptop and you get served an ad on a video about laptop repair, you probably wouldn't mind spending 5-15 seconds watching an ad about something you are currently interested in. That is where Google needs to improve. Allow ALL adds to be skippable (if someone is interested, they won't skip it) and serve that data to the advertiser. That will give them the aforementioned market data I referenced above.

[Avocado Diaboli]

36 minutes ago, Hairless Monkey Boy said:

Because pirating content and blocking ads have very similar motivations, and very similar outcomes. The motivation is that for whatever irrelevant reason I don't want to pay the implicit or explicit cost for the content, and the outcome is that the creator misses out on revenue.

That's a big conjecture. I don't block ads because I'm unwilling to pay for something. I block ads because I hate ads and because ads have ruined the internet. Can't say the same about if I were to pirate a movie or video game. So no, the motivation is not the same.

 

And again, I can perform the same spiel again: Not buying the products that the ads promote has the same impact on creators: Not engaging with them leads to advertisers not seeing enough profits to roll ads in the first place and it makes any given content creator less likely to be offered ads in the first place. If Ridge Wallet or dbrand don't see any returns from their investments on LTT, they're not gonna bother to continue advertising. So it's imperative for the channel that they serve ads that are likely to generate sales for whoever is buying the ad space, because that's how they ensure continued funding from them. So by any metric if you think watching ads is the right thing to do, you must also conclude that buying the advertised product is the right thing to do. 

 

8 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I can't speak for everyone, but I work for a major system manufacturer and we don't mind spending money on advertisements to generate hype even if it doesn't translate directly to the sale of a specific product.

You're still missing the bigger picture. As outlined above, a company needs money to advertise. If there's no money coming in from their ads, they cease to make sense for said company. All the things you've listed still have the impact of generating revenue, even if it's just for market research. So the point still stands, ads are intended to generate revenue. If they don't, ads cease to be meaningful. So I reiterate, not buying the advertised products has exactly the same outcome in the long run as not watching the ads. If that notion bothers you, congratulation, you've realized why it bothers me that people are calling people who block ads immoral or entitled. People here have been parroting this notion that you should "consider the outcome". And I'm just taking it a step further. Consider the outcome of not spending your money on the advertised products.

[joaopt]

1 hour ago, Hairless Monkey Boy said:

Does it piss you off because you feel you are being judged, you don't want to be called a pirate, or you don't want to be associated with piracy?

 

I'm honestly curious to know those answers.

 

Because pirating content and blocking ads have very similar motivations, and very similar outcomes. The motivation is that for whatever irrelevant reason I don't want to pay the implicit or explicit cost for the content, and the outcome is that the creator misses out on revenue.

 

So it seems like a fair comparison to make.

 

The motivations aren't even in the same planet, let alone similar. You pirate stuff to not having to pay for them, stuff that has a price to be paid. You block ads on free content because reasons irrelevant, some is because they think it's too much, others because content providers don't screen for ads and some are abnoxious at best, criminal at worst by using malware or stealing data, etc...

 

Did you fell like a pirate for going into the bathroom in the middle of a tv transmission of a football game? Because that's how they make their money!

 

If you fell you absolutely deserve money for the content, put it under a paywall. Linus could start tomorrow, all on Floatplane, no more freeloading. If a site thinks you're reading too much of their news for free, put it under a paywall. If you don't put a price sticker on it, it's free,

[MageTank]

34 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

You're still missing the bigger picture. As outlined above, a company needs money to advertise. If there's no money coming in from their ads, they cease to make sense for said company. All the things you've listed still have the impact of generating revenue, even if it's just for market research. So the point still stands, ads are intended to generate revenue. If they don't, ads cease to be meaningful. So I reiterate, not buying the advertised products has exactly the same outcome in the long run as not watching the ads. If that notion bothers you, congratulation, you've realized why it bothers me that people are calling people who block ads immoral or entitled. People here have been parroting this notion that you should "consider the outcome". And I'm just taking it a step further. Consider the outcome of not spending your money on the advertised products.

Enlighten me on exactly what picture I am missing. In the meantime, I'll go over once again what my point is and we can see if I am actually missing the point here. Let's use my industry as an example simply because I can draw from experience on it. I'll also break down your points in particular.

 

1. "A company needs money to advertise."
   1. This is true, but it doesn't mean it has to be your own money. In my industry, we have programs such as MDA, Jumpstart, etc that gives us funding that is put towards marketing and advertising. We also get funding from our various partner vendors if we advertise our products with their logos. I can advertise our systems without spending a dime out of pocket, I just need to meet requirements to benefit from these programs.
2.  "If there's no money coming in from their ads, they cease to make sense for said company"
   1. Again, this is simply not true. Sales are NOT the sole purpose of advertising. I hate using Wikipedia as a source when I can, but they actually spell it out perfectly:

      Quote

      Advertising is a marketing communication that employs an openly sponsored, non-personal message to promote or sell a product, service or idea.

       

      Commercial ads often seek to generate increased consumption of their products or services through "branding", which associates a product name or image with certain qualities in the minds of consumers. On the other hand, ads that intend to elicit an immediate sale are known as direct-response advertising. Non-commercial entities that advertise more than consumer products or services include political parties, interest groups, religious organizations and governmental agencies. Non-profit organizations may use free modes of persuasion, such as a public service announcement. Advertising may also help to reassure employees or shareholders that a company is viable or successful.

   2. Not all ads are "direct-response advertising". Many of them spend their money (or others money) at a loss to improve brand awareness. I can assure you that for my company, this is explicitly accounted for and is expected. Nobody gets dinged for operating in the red for this specific service.

3. "All the things you've listed still have the impact of generating revenue, even if it's just for market research. So the point still stands, ads are intended to generate revenue."

   1. You are incorrectly oversimplifying the goal of advertising and marketing. Yes, we advertise to generate revenue, but it doesn't mean our adverts are designed to sell you a specific product. We want you to be aware of our brands and showing an ad, even if only for a few seconds, helps in that. 

4. "So I reiterate, not buying the advertised products has exactly the same outcome in the long run as not watching the ads."

   1. No, it doesn't. Not buying a product you are aware of and never having heard of the product at all are two entirely different things. The first one is far more valuable than the second. If you know about my product but did not buy it, you are more likely to think of it or recommend my product/service to those that would be interested than if you never heard of it at all. This is why my point of not all advertisements are equal is fitting in this context...

5. "If that notion bothers you, congratulation, you've realized why it bothers me that people are calling people who block ads immoral or entitled."

   1. It doesn't bother me, though I question why you are bothered when people call you entitled for skipping ads. It's a pretty logical conclusion to jump to. You don't want to see something because you want to get to the content quicker because you feel entitled to what should or shouldn't be served to you, regardless of the impact on the platform hosts revenue. That is simply entitlement, the definition is cut & dry. Make no mistake, you are not owed access to a streaming service, it is a privilege. If you believe there is a negative connotation behind the word, that is entirely your problem.

6. "People here have been parroting this notion that you should "consider the outcome". And I'm just taking it a step further. Consider the outcome of not spending your money on the advertised products."

   1. I honestly don't mind if people don't consider the outcome. Frankly, adblocking is not your problem or ANY consumers problem to deal with. It is a service issue that needs to be resolved by the parties serving the ads and hosting the platforms in which the ads are served. If they have a problem with you blocking the ads, they'll prevent it or find middle ground that satisfies all parties. Also, all products are "advertised", good luck not spending any money on them, lol. The very forum you post on is advertised in videos and I assume LTT puts funding towards SEO to get this forum to appear towards the top of search results. Now try to convince me that is a waste of money...

[thrasher_565]

7 hours ago, WTF916 said:

But after all there is a simple solution for all of this. Paywall. If your content is good you will survive, if not you will not. There was life before YouTube.

 

 

is the black mirror? i watch the first season and it got weird...

[SimplyChunk]

9 minutes ago, thrasher_565 said:

is the black mirror? i watch the first season and it got weird...

make garbage then charge people for the privilege to NOT have to watch it.

[thrasher_565]

3 minutes ago, SimplyChunk said:

make garbage then charge people for the privilege to NOT have to watch it.

was not the question...

[SimplyChunk]

11 minutes ago, thrasher_565 said:

was not the question...

no not here maybe but it's the sub-plot of the black mirror episode pictured above.  It was called 15 million merits

 

Dude gives his girl friend 15 million merits for a shot at a singing talent show.  she's rejected but offered porn instead. He's then forced to watch the porn film she was put in cause he can't afford to skip it. the classic tale lol

[mr fobs]

I block ads, but thats not the only reason I'm a pirate! It is what it is, I am not paying for content with my ad view therefore I am technically pirating it. Do I care? nope.