Are we pirates?

[Blademaster91]

24 minutes ago, thehardwarehacker said:

to some level we've all had to become pirates over the years in order to obtain something we need, or want, and the things is just not obtainable through a viable way. "yo ho, yo ho. A PIRATES LIFE FOR ME!" lol.

Yeah I admit i've had to pirate things, I know it hurts the publisher and creators, though I either couldn't afford the software, or with shows or movies, especially anime, the content just isn't available, or it's paywalled behind a bunch of different streaming services.  I wish Crunchyroll just had everything, now that Sony owns them, but no I'd still have to subscribe to Funimation, which also puts some anime behind their paid service to watch with Japanese audio with subtitles.

[Rex Hite]

I really think Linus needed to use the word "theft" in his example. It's still wrong but it's a clearer meaning.

He wanted our "awareness", and he got it! We are aware!

If he really wants to drive home his (initially) passive aggressive point he should declare that all Adsense revenue will go to various charities all the time from now on. That'll shut us up.

 

 

 

[IPD]

15 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

The browser miner thing which loads a mining virus as soon as the ad loads is what got me to use an ad blocker across youtube without shutting it off. I think the whole "just disable ad blocker for the channels you like" is flawed when malware is a possibility.

If Food B is malware then that would be food poisoning I guess? Then no thanks, i'll still get Food A in the end and support the creator in another way.

No Coin add-on for the browser?

[IPD]

14 hours ago, Kilrah said:

I mean the restaurant thing is broken anyway, you don't go to a restaurant and get free food so to make the analogy every single thing on the web would have to be behind a paywall.

 

Restaurant:

- Read the menu for free

- Order a dish that it seems you'll like based on a one line description

- You might end up loving it or not liking it at all

- You get charged regardless

 

Internet:

- Do a free search on your favorite search engine

- Click on a one line result that seems like what you're looking for

- You might get the information you're looking for, or end up on a page of useless garbage

- You get charged regardless

 

How fun would that be... /s

Let's be fair here.  Our ability to judge if something "contains the information we are looking for" was SEVERELY compromised by YT when they removed the downvote button.  So if the above logic applies, then yeah, there's yet another reason to always use adblock.

[Stahlmann]

12 hours ago, Rex Hite said:

I really think Linus needed to use the word "theft" in his example. It's still wrong but it's a clearer meaning.

Pirates are just swimming thieves. Call it theft or piracy it's all the same in the end.

 

12 hours ago, Rex Hite said:

He wanted our "awareness", and he got it! We are aware!

If he really wants to drive home his (initially) passive aggressive point he should declare that all Adsense revenue will go to various charities all the time from now on. That'll shut us up.

Now why would he do that? That would defeat the whole point of him bringing it up.

 

Now there are two sorts of people. Ones that accept that what they're doing is taking and not paying for something that comes with a cost. And ones that do the same but refuse to accept it. But that's not the first or last time someone brings up something like this and people are butthurt.

 

The people still discussing about this are also the type that get mad when constructive criticism is headed their way.

You can live in denial all you want, someday you'll have to accept the truth. Just like with everything else.

[Rex Hite]

I just like that there's something interesting being discussed!

 

The ethical implications of "My deal with adsense grants me the privilege to judge your behaviour..." (Heavily paraphrased)  speaks to how we judge and monetise so much of what happens in a virtual space. Well beyond ads; where value is placed and how that value gets exchanged is challenged by technology and specifically by algorithms. Algorithms created and maintained by humans with their own interests. Algorithms don't write themselves; Cui bono?

 

[camieabz]

Perhaps forum participants should be paid for their solutions. Back-dated to when forums started. Or were forum owners just slavers, utilising free knowledge and turning it to a profit in the long-term?

 

Works both ways.

[IPD]

10 minutes ago, camieabz said:

Perhaps forum participants should be paid for their solutions. Back-dated to when forums started. Or were forum owners just slavers, utilising free knowledge and turning it to a profit in the long-term?

 

Works both ways.

The latter.  Not even a question.  AutoForums is the living embodiment of this.

[Rex Hite]

In the olden days media that carried ads might be paid upfront for the ads they ran in magazines, TV, newspapers etc, and all the ignored ads were the advertisers risk.  If this risk has been now offloaded to the YouTube creators who carry the ads then that sucks but at least those YouTube creators didn't go to all the expense of creating all those ads that don't get seen. There's always risk, and offloading that risk to others is the real business-bro play.

[thrasher_565]

cheeseburger, doordash, tacotime, j2dimes, tampons, lian li, corsair, antec,  noctua, fractal design, dune 2021, ammazon, 

Spoiler

thing is in the video seem like a ceo response witch i dont agree with. i mean is the content getting better with 70+ people? i think not. maybe he needs to rethink the businesses.

                                       give me your credit card number, google, apple, amd, nvidea dell, hp, mindcraft,

 

sadly i got no moeny by advertising these names... but i though it was funny... plz dont ban me

[TypingCat]

Fact is that the Internet made it harder for creators of all kinds to maintain scarcity and have a market. So there are a lot of different creative approaches to securing compensation for goods. YouTube and AdSense are flawed methods but the approach is legitimate. Ultimately it is the creator who has the right to figure out how to get paid. 

 

Adblocking is perfectly legal. But I can understand that it can be problematic in proportion to how much it withholds compensation from a creator. Not all adblocking does this to the same degree. But there are occasions where we can guess that adblocking harms creators:

• News websites (we should be supporting journalism)
• YouTube (direct cause and effect harming revenue)
• Spotify (less direct but artists are already low paid, why make it worse)
• Websites that ask you not to adblock
  • I figure that if a website goes through the trouble of appealing to my sense of fairness, they must really need the money.

I justify adblocking on Facebook because (a) I don't support them as a company (b) I only continue to use them because they have a monopoly on the people I care to talk with and (c) They're still monetizing my personal data. If my adblocking is putting the tiniest dent in Facebook's payroll I could be guilty of a peccadillo, but I don't think so.

 

All of this is just going to what Linus said about understanding the consequences. 

[LinusTech]

4 hours ago, TypingCat said:

Fact is that the Internet made it harder for creators of all kinds to maintain scarcity and have a market. So there are a lot of different creative approaches to securing compensation for goods. YouTube and AdSense are flawed methods but the approach is legitimate. Ultimately it is the creator who has the right to figure out how to get paid. 

 

Adblocking is perfectly legal. But I can understand that it can be problematic in proportion to how much it withholds compensation from a creator. Not all adblocking does this to the same degree. But there are occasions where we can guess that adblocking harms creators:

• News websites (we should be supporting journalism)
• YouTube (direct cause and effect harming revenue)
• Spotify (less direct but artists are already low paid, why make it worse)
• Websites that ask you not to adblock
  • I figure that if a website goes through the trouble of appealing to my sense of fairness, they must really need the money.

I justify adblocking on Facebook because (a) I don't support them as a company (b) I only continue to use them because they have a monopoly on the people I care to talk with and (c) They're still monetizing my personal data. If my adblocking is putting the tiniest dent in Facebook's payroll I could be guilty of a peccadillo, but I don't think so.

 

All of this is just going to what Linus said about understanding the consequences. 

A - I can't believe this thread is still going. Wow.

 

B - This is a fantastic take. Here's a gold star.

[GorujoCY]

18 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

A - I can't believe this thread is still going. Wow.

 

B - This is a fantastic take. Here's a gold star.

On A, I actually can't believe the thread is still going too, I've been following for about a month now and it's still ongoing.

 

Though that Made the guy who posted it delete his account so R.I.P.

Edited February 18, 2022 by GorujoCY

[Legitsu]

I disagree about understanding the consequences how is somebody refusing payment for freely offered goods a consequence 

 

again semantics nobody is being actively harmed there is no active malice here it's a simple fact if you want to make money by selling goods then sell the goods don't throw the goods at the crowd and hope somebody decides to throw money back at you 

 

the problem is that somehow or other this model of giving out goods and hoping somebody pays you managed to somehow succeed and become profitable 

 

which has created this expectation that everybody should be involved in ensuring YOU the creator gets paid 

 

what has made this non-sense work is THE Sheer volume of traffic and exposure the internet brings 

 

at the end of that day it's the person that is selling the goods that has the problem of figuring out how they are going to get paid, isn't it? 

 

It your job your risk to take when you offer goods that some people may decide to just not buy your goods or decide to get the goods some ware else 

 

is it not putting the wagon before the horse to assume that everybody ELSE should be working to ensure That YOU Get Paid ? 

 

its pretty backwards to expect the general population to give a single fk about Your revenue stream 

 

yea the wheels come off the train if you don't but to that I say Poopoo who cares so sad too bad.... 

 

 

if your revenue stream relies on your users doing whats right for you then you don't have much of a revenue stream 

 

 

 

 

 

[Legitsu]

I guess my final point would be 

be grateful that the system works at all because by all rights it really shouldn't 

 

the only reason it works is that there is a lot of rules being bent when it comes to privacy and data collection 

 

because if companies actually cared about any of that there would be no money to be made selling ads and traffic 

that means no Adsense revenue no personalized targeted ads pushing your buying habits ect ect ect

 

remember Youtube only pays you because they are making BOATLOADS of cash off the back of Your Content and Userbase

its a perfect scam really one as old as the internet its self 

 

the entire thing is based on unscrupulous models and a lot of moral hoop jumping 

and frankly, it could all end tomorrow and I doubt the world would stop turning 

 

 

 

 

[Rex Hite]

There's got to be some great "lemons -to-lemonade" stuff coming up. A real business-bro brain can't let this stuff go to waste. All the ingredients are there.

I see WAN show isn't typically the best performer but there's viral potential. That Newegg thing took off for that other guy. But unlike that, piracy, advertising, ethical obligations etc has legs because it's always there, ripe for content. I think he should have fun with it.

[drewgi]

11 minutes ago, Rex Hite said:

There's got to be some great "lemons -to-lemonade" stuff coming up. A real business-bro brain can't let this stuff go to waste. All the ingredients are there.

I see WAN show isn't typically the best performer but there's viral potential. That Newegg thing took off for that other guy. But unlike that, piracy, advertising, ethical obligations etc has legs because it's always there, ripe for content. I think he should have fun with it.

 

They're going to be making merch that references it so there's definitely some lemonade inbound. 

[IPD]

8 hours ago, TypingCat said:

Fact is that the Internet made it harder for creators of all kinds to maintain scarcity and have a market. So there are a lot of different creative approaches to securing compensation for goods. YouTube and AdSense are flawed methods but the approach is legitimate. Ultimately it is the creator who has the right to figure out how to get paid. 

 

Adblocking is perfectly legal. But I can understand that it can be problematic in proportion to how much it withholds compensation from a creator. Not all adblocking does this to the same degree. But there are occasions where we can guess that adblocking harms creators:

• News websites (we should be supporting journalism)
• YouTube (direct cause and effect harming revenue)
• Spotify (less direct but artists are already low paid, why make it worse)
• Websites that ask you not to adblock
  • I figure that if a website goes through the trouble of appealing to my sense of fairness, they must really need the money.

I justify adblocking on Facebook because (a) I don't support them as a company (b) I only continue to use them because they have a monopoly on the people I care to talk with and (c) They're still monetizing my personal data. If my adblocking is putting the tiniest dent in Facebook's payroll I could be guilty of a peccadillo, but I don't think so.

 

All of this is just going to what Linus said about understanding the consequences. 

And yet, that addresses none of the issues with YT's arbitrary and capricious demonetization of videos/channels.  And yes, I will continue to mention "arbitrary and capricious" ad nauseum.  Because it's unfair to content creators who provide valuable content, but run afoul of the pompous morality vaunted by YT.

[Rex Hite]

2 hours ago, drewgi said:

 

They're going to be making merch that references it so there's definitely some lemonade inbound. 

I remember a video all about actual piracy and copying of LTT merchandise. It was fun, light,and  presented a valid complaint but did it in a way that promoted legit LTT merch. They lose a bit of revenue from the fakes but leverage that loss into a win, of sorts.

[Legitsu]

1 hour ago, Rex Hite said:

I remember a video all about actual piracy and copying of LTT merchandise. It was fun, light,and  presented a valid complaint but did it in a way that promoted legit LTT merch. They lose a bit of revenue from the fakes but leverage that loss into a win, of sorts.

butt thats not piracy

:banghead: 

[HanZie82]

You can call me what you want, but i will not allow adds to ruin my internet experience.
Fuck them all.

If they are unwilling to put in their own money to run a website, well maybe dont do it at all then. I dont care.
But for now the stupid masses can pay those add- bills i enjoy a smooth and awesomely un-distracting internet.

 

But then i've been a pirate on the internets for decades. And i will stay one.
Its not like anyone of the complaining ones are going hungry of it. So fuck 'm.

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, HanZie82 said:

You can call me what you want, but i will not allow adds to ruin my internet experience.
Fuck them all.

So, let's say everyone on the internet follows suit and does what you do.

What then? What will you do when most YouTubers decide to shut down their channel due to loss of income?

1 hour ago, HanZie82 said:

If they are unwilling to put in their own money to run a website, well maybe dont do it at all then. I dont care.

Where does this money come from? Or do you simply expect all websites to be run at a loss or locked behind a paywall?

 

LTT can probably fund the forum without ads at a loss and pay for it with their YT money - but of course, if they lost ads on both the forum and on YT, both would disappear without the income.

1 hour ago, HanZie82 said:

But for now the stupid masses can pay those add- bills i enjoy a smooth and awesomely un-distracting internet.

 

But then i've been a pirate on the internets for decades. And i will stay one.
Its not like anyone of the complaining ones are going hungry of it. So fuck 'm.

I'm glad that you're up front about it - but I just question what kind of internet would exist in this future.

 

I really see it going into two camps:

1. Your diehard folks who will run a site or YT channel at a loss, funnelling all their money from some day job into keeping it running, making no money.

2. Niche sites with paywalls spring up for those who can afford to pay for content or using a website. The occasional large scale site or service springs up with a paywall that can attract a larger audience.

 

Basically most creators and sites would fail. Maybe that's a good thing in the long run, but good content would disappear because of it. Most "free" stuff on the internet works either because of ads or because of a diehard fanbase that donates.

[Legitsu]

7 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

So, let's say everyone on the internet follows suit and does what you do.

What then? What will you do when most YouTubers decide to shut down their channel due to loss of income?

Where does this money come from? Or do you simply expect all websites to be run at a loss or locked behind a paywall?

 

LTT can probably fund the forum without ads at a loss and pay for it with their YT money - but of course, if they lost ads on both the forum and on YT, both would disappear without the income.

I'm glad that you're up front about it - but I just question what kind of internet would exist in this future.

 

I really see it going into two camps:

1. Your diehard folks who will run a site or YT channel at a loss, funnelling all their money from some day job into keeping it running, making no money.

2. Niche sites with paywalls spring up for those who can afford to pay for content or using a website. The occasional large scale site or service springs up with a paywall that can attract a larger audience.

 

Basically most creators and sites would fail. Maybe that's a good thing in the long run, but good content would disappear because of it. Most "free" stuff on the internet works either because of ads or because of a diehard fanbase that donates.

so a bunch of people that where not likely to make it to the point where youtube could become there day job now need to find day jobs?

 

the argument that blocking ads hurts smaller creators is fallacious

because small creators aren't making any money on ads, it takes a large number of views to generate enough revenue to become self-sustaining in the first place

you are indeed most definitely better off just setting up a Patreon until you are over the profitability hill in which case once you are over the hill the volume of views is high enough where that people blocking ad's just doesn't matter 

 

the argument boils down to "well I could/should be making MORE money if people were not blocking ads" 

 

but people like say things like  well if you don't stop blocking ads's it is going to be the end of the internet

like hell it would be, would it be a completely different internet? yes would it be better? whos to say lets find out 

 

[IPD]

1 hour ago, Legitsu said:

so a bunch of people that where not likely to make it to the point where youtube could become there day job now need to find day jobs?

 

the argument that blocking ads hurts smaller creators is fallacious

because small creators aren't making any money on ads, it takes a large number of views to generate enough revenue to become self-sustaining in the first place

you are indeed most definitely better off just setting up a Patreon until you are over the profitability hill in which case once you are over the hill the volume of views is high enough where that people blocking ad's just doesn't matter 

 

the argument boils down to "well I could/should be making MORE money if people were not blocking ads" 

 

but people like say things like  well if you don't stop blocking ads's it is going to be the end of the internet

like hell it would be, would it be a completely different internet? yes would it be better? whos to say lets find out 

 

Agreed.  YT used to be a hobby.  It wasn't until ads that people started perverting it into viewing YT as a means of household income.

[thrasher_565]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

So, let's say everyone on the internet follows suit and does what you do.

What then? What will you do when most YouTubers decide to shut down their channel due to loss of income?

Where does this money come from? Or do you simply expect all websites to be run at a loss or locked behind a paywall?

 

LTT can probably fund the forum without ads at a loss and pay for it with their YT money - but of course, if they lost ads on both the forum and on YT, both would disappear without the income.

I'm glad that you're up front about it - but I just question what kind of internet would exist in this future.

 

I really see it going into two camps:

1. Your diehard folks who will run a site or YT channel at a loss, funnelling all their money from some day job into keeping it running, making no money.

2. Niche sites with paywalls spring up for those who can afford to pay for content or using a website. The occasional large scale site or service springs up with a paywall that can attract a larger audience.

 

Basically most creators and sites would fail. Maybe that's a good thing in the long run, but good content would disappear because of it. Most "free" stuff on the internet works either because of ads or because of a diehard fanbase that donates.

big company are known to lie about alot of things. we dont no if yt runs at a loss and there probably shady stuff like selling your data. how much they make we dont no and probably never know

 

we do no that the news media is on front page... and probably more and more tv shows will show up on ty

 

alot of people make content and have a job and wate till they get to a spot were they dont have to as k for 'moeny" to leave there job and do yt full time. of cores they may offer patron, merch, or just a like and subscribe.  pestering your audience for moeny is not a good way to make ty full time. not only that it becomes greedy in ways. people just want more and more moeny and never happy with an above average pay vs a job. not saying its not hard to be a yt but i mean need to draw the line some were.

 

im not saying that you cant want better things for your family or workers but it comes with a consequences. not al of the  audience will agree...

 

its just like making a good game people will buy it just like good content people will watch.

 

all imo