Are we pirates?

[RoseLuck462]

Ads suck, subscription models are way better 

[8tg]

The ads got more intrusive over time until they just made websites unusable. If the owners of the sites and ad providers didn’t completely over-do it, most people probably wouldn’t care too much at all, and would remain with ads on many sites like we did before Adblock. Either that or people would pay for a premium account of some variety that also removed the ads, which we see a lot of now.

 

Back in the mid to late 2000’s, advertisements on websites usually fit a banner ad on the top of the site, sometimes another on the bottom, and usually a square ad on any side menus. That was part of basically any website ever and it was fine, it was normal, they weren’t intrusive.

Now, YouTube wants me to watch ads before every video, in the middle of every video, and tries to auto play one at the end of every video, while also showing ads everywhere else on the website and mixing them into the content. Google searches now list ads as some of the first results. Twitter mixes ads into your post feed. Many news sites are almost impossible to read because of the sheer quantity of ads.

 

I refuse, Adblock 100% of everything on every website. Everyone had their chance, they made their content awful to navigate and I’m not going to compromise anywhere in the middle, I block everything I possibly can and I don’t care if that makes me some kind of content pirate, these websites burned their audience and don’t deserve my ad revenue.

[IPD]

6 minutes ago, 8tg said:

The ads got more intrusive over time until they just made websites unusable. If the owners of the sites and ad providers didn’t completely over-do it, most people probably wouldn’t care too much at all, and would remain with ads on many sites like we did before Adblock. Either that or people would pay for a premium account of some variety that also removed the ads, which we see a lot of now.

 

Back in the mid to late 2000’s, advertisements on websites usually fit a banner ad on the top of the site, sometimes another on the bottom, and usually a square ad on any side menus. That was part of basically any website ever and it was fine, it was normal, they weren’t intrusive.

Now, YouTube wants me to watch ads before every video, in the middle of every video, and tries to auto play one at the end of every video, while also showing ads everywhere else on the website and mixing them into the content. Google searches now list ads as some of the first results. Twitter mixes ads into your post feed. Many news sites are almost impossible to read because of the sheer quantity of ads.

 

I refuse, Adblock 100% of everything on every website. Everyone had their chance, they made their content awful to navigate and I’m not going to compromise anywhere in the middle, I block everything I possibly can and I don’t care if that makes me some kind of content pirate, these websites burned their audience and don’t deserve my ad revenue.

I'ma just leave this here...

 

 

[grg994]

This is so savage by me, but someone should tell Linus about SponsorBlock and so should we get some popcorn ready.

 

ps. I don't use it, I'm actually interested in LTT sponsor messages every time there is a new one.

[IPD]

3 minutes ago, grg994 said:

This is so savage by me, but someone should tell Linus about SponsorBlock and so should we get some popcorn ready.

 

ps. I don't use it, I'm actually interested in LTT sponsor messages every time there is a new one.

I'm a bit leery of this.  Sound idea in principle.  In practice, I see this being easily manipulated for nefarious purpose.  Users already can google-bomb search results, wikipedia pages get hostile edits, etc.  What's to stop one entitled Karen with an axe to grind--from maliciously timestamping content by someone they dislike?

 

Or what happens when people TRY to timestamp things to avoid ads, and then youtube responds with even more randomizing, making it virtually impossible to block them based off timestamps--as the ads will appear at a different timestamp every time you load that video?

 

I see a lot of potential problems....

[Kilrah]

8 minutes ago, grg994 said:

This is so savage by me, but someone should tell Linus about SponsorBlock and so should we get some popcorn ready.

 

ps. I don't use it, I'm actually interested in LTT sponsor messages every time there is a new one.

He's talked about it on WAN show.

[Bramimond]

Courts have figured out that this privateering isn't illegal, so it can't be piracy, since piracy is by definition illegal. That makes me legally safe. Morally, I think ads make the Internet a worse place by a whole lot. Like astronomically. So I feel morally obligated to block ads. Now I'm morally sound, too.

 

What is most annoying about this whole thing is that people actually believe that free content on the Internet requires ads. No, it doesn't. The Internet and free content was first, then came in the ads and made everything worse.

 

Here's an example of an ad-free recipe site.

If you use your favorite search engine to find recipes you find a lot of usability nightmares full of ads made by people whining that they need the money.

 

This is just one example of where ads have made the Internet worse.

 

It's basically the exact same conversation one can have about Proprietary Software™ and Free Software™. Obviously the whining people saying that people need to get paid to write quality software are wrong. People believing ads are needed for free content are wrong, too.

 

YouTube knows this, hence they don't really force people's hand in this. They could block people blocking ads. Entirely possible and they have enough resources to keep up the cat and mouse game. But they don't because they know people would just go elsewhere. Maybe https://odysee.com/. Maybe ThePirateBay™.

 

Yes, centralized video distribution is expensive. But hey, decentralized video distribution is basically for free! You just lose control. I'm kinda stuck where all the videos are, which is YouTube.

[RockSolid1106]

1 hour ago, IPD said:

In practice, I see this being easily manipulated for nefarious purpose.  Users already can google-bomb search results, wikipedia pages get hostile edits, etc.  What's to stop one entitled Karen with an axe to grind--from maliciously timestamping content by someone they dislike?

When you watch a video and it skips a portion for you, you get to vote with a little thumbs up or down. Maybe they take that into account for deciding whether that submission is trustworthy or not.

 

1 hour ago, IPD said:

Or what happens when people TRY to timestamp things to avoid ads, and then youtube responds with even more randomizing, making it virtually impossible to block them based off timestamps--as the ads will appear at a different timestamp every time you load that video?

Sponsorblock doesn't do anything to ads? It will only skip as in move on the timeline and skip the portions which include sponsors or intros or whatever, basically whatever is not useful. Seemed pretty easy to understand to me.

[tikker]

36 minutes ago, Bramimond said:

What is most annoying about this whole thing is that people actually believe that free content on the Internet requires ads. No, it doesn't. The Internet and free content was first, then came in the ads and made everything worse

The early internet also wasn't filled with the absolute mountain of bandwidth-hungry data seving the many millions and millions of peopel it is nowadays.

36 minutes ago, Bramimond said:

Here's an example of an ad-free recipe site.

If you use your favorite search engine to find recipes you find a lot of usability nightmares full of ads made by people whining that they need the money.

 And at the bottom of the page one finds...

a request for donations. They choose to not run ads, but they still need money to keep it afloat, so while it's free to access, it's not free to operate. If nobody would donate it would go down unless the owner would pay the hosting themselves. Furthermore channels like LTT are making their living with the videos they upload, unlike that recipe site. Now we don't know LTT's profit margin, but when ads make up 18% of the revenue stream that's not an insignificant amount.

36 minutes ago, Bramimond said:

Yes, centralized video distribution is expensive. But hey, decentralized video distribution is basically for free! You just lose control. I'm kinda stuck where all the videos are, which is YouTube.

Right, because all those peers that make up the decentralised network have free electricity and free hardware for free hosting? Sign me up if so. It's not free and at the end of the line someone pays for it. Are there other ways to fund e.g. a channel than ads? Sure, but then people will come up with other reasons why that is "not worth it" or "too expensive" like they do for Floatplane or the merch store already.

 

[Tristerin]

As a Pirate, this is just a petty crime compared. 

[SolarNova]

So just watched WAN show. Here's my take...

 

I dislike adds, lets get that outta the way, i cant recall ever finding an add anywhere useful in anyway. be it informing me of something i didnt know about, or convincing me to buy or look into something. Which ironically is their intended purpose. Im also old enough to remember using the internet befor adds were such a scourge.

 

So with that said, now it comes down to Linus's take that blocking adds is Piracy.

Wall o' text:

Spoiler

Well he rightly knew that that argument doesnt hold up in a legal sense at least. But even from an argument point of view its pritty fking thin.

The stealing/copying and redistribution of digital content is what Piracy is. Arguments on if its akin to actually stealing a 'thing' or stealing money if the individual wasnt going to purchase in the 1st place can be discussed another time.. but i digress...

 

'Adds', are not optional. be it on TV, or online, they are there whether u like it or not. Your not accessing a site or video and agreeing before hand that in exchange for the content u have to watch this arbitrary short clip. No, u just go to a website or youtube vid and they appear. There is no agreement between the viewer and the producer, its solely the producer making the decision. if the producer gets to make that decision then the viewer gets to make there own, in this case adblocker.

And ofc lets be clear, this isnt done, in the vast majority of cases, for some malicious intent vs the producer, if any maliciousness is involved its against the add owners , not the video they are being plastered on.

 

Linus mentioned 'moral piracy' i believe ...sure i can get behind that sentiment, there is in fact moral piracy. Its unlikely some rich bastard is pirating beocuse they cant afford the software/film, no its the poor sod who cant afford stuff for entertainment. Thats not a lost sale, I've partaken in such activities in the past myself. if i were rich enough to not notice loosing £60 I wouldn't have had to do it. but thats 'real' digital piracy we're tailing about. The avoidance of paying for something directly as would be required and agreed upon.

 

Linus here is trying to equate the act of watching something ..or rather not watching something ..to stealing, and thus piracy. Its just not, legally or morally.

 

Watching an add on an otherwise 'free' piece of creators content is a voluntary act ..a charity.. not doing it isnt 'stealing' ...its just 'not giving'.

 

Linus argued that with youtube content the 'deal' is; to watch it, you watch adds.

No, there is no deal ..none. Youtube is 'free', there is no deal.

Netflix has a subscription, u pay money, they give u access, thats the deal. If u get around that, thats Piracy.

Youtube is open ..to everyone ..period. Adds tacked on are a passive means of income for the creator IF the viewers CHOOSE to watch them.

Again choosing to watch an add is voluntary as there is no deal , no legally or morally binding agreement is made.

 

 

Now Linus does rightly say that if you do Pirate, at least stand up and own it. So here, i shall. I have in the past Pirated..and i feel no moral shame because of it. I couldnt afford to spend the money at the time, but i wanted the entertainment. As far as im concerned, i caused no loss in sale, because they were not going to get it ether way.

but regardless i was a Pirate and i shall not shy away form that.

 

 

My question to Linus if he or a staff member should read this.

Do you consider the use of a VPN which hides you data, Piracy ?

Withholding/hiding your data which can otherwise be used for marketing (making money) , would that not fall under your same argument on adds ?

 

In the end i think this comes down to Linus's definition of Piracy not being entirely in line with both the Legal definition, and broader social definition. perhaps he should have started of with a different term like 'free loading / privateer'

 

 

 

[Commodus]

Ad blockers aren't piracy, but they're still harmful.

 

Folks: if you don't like that a site displays ads, don't visit that site. Ask them to offer an ad-free subscription or donation-based system if you really want to see their content; don't just be a selfish leech who expects to get everything for free without even the slightest inconvenience.

 

I know some sites' ads can be overbearing, but you're not entitled to get everything you want, however you want it. And you're not going to send the right message by continuing to visit those sites.

[Blademaster91]

The ads most sites show are just as harmful, ads sneaking in malware is a possibility, it only takes allowing ads for a single page and its a chance i'm not going to take, so I have no shame in using an ad blocker.

Linus isn't entitled to telling everyone to turn off their ad blocker, and i'm not entitled to watch the content, and tbh I don't most of the time for several reasons.

[Error 52]

21 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Ad blockers aren't piracy, but they're still harmful.

 

Folks: if you don't like that a site displays ads, don't visit that site. Ask them to offer an ad-free subscription or donation-based system if you really want to see their content; don't just be a selfish leech who expects to get everything for free without even the slightest inconvenience.

 

I know some sites' ads can be overbearing, but you're not entitled to get everything you want, however you want it. And you're not going to send the right message by continuing to visit those sites.

Problem is, there are a lot of sites with ads I don't like. Even if every one of them had an ad-free option, I simply cannot be expected to spend that kind of money.

 

And the thing with ads is that they're a genuine security risk at this point. I'm sure we've all seen those fake "Download" buttons. Hell, I'd go so far as to suggest that having an adblocker is more important to keeping your computer safe than an anti-virus is. (Having both is better, ofc) I believe most companies with half-decent IT actually deploy adblockers now for this exact reason.

 

It's all completely completely ridiculous and unsustainable, but at this point I think we're just stuck watching as two trains are about to collide with each other.

[tikker]

41 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

Again choosing to watch an add is voluntary as there is no deal , no legally or morally binding agreement is made.

So in regards to the "no contract" part, this made me curious if there is something like an implicit contract (since contracts don't have to be in black and white to be valid) and as I mentioned in another reply there does seem to be such a thing as an implied contract:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/implied_contract

Quote

Implied Contract

A contract that is found to exist even when its terms are not explicitly stated because 1) the parties assumed a contract existed (implied-in-fact contract), or 2) denying the contract's existence would result in unjust enrichment to one of the parties (implied-in-law contract).

I see the possibility to argue point 2 here, as you are not watching the ad (blocking a revenue stream) and also not paying the usual subscription fee that is normally attached to not watching ads. I wonder if denying the "contract" of watchings ads (since you know they are there when you watch a video) could then be considered unjust enrichment of yourself.

 

 

[Commodus]

5 minutes ago, Error 52 said:

Problem is, there are a lot of sites with ads I don't like. Even if every one of them had an ad-free option, I simply cannot be expected to spend that kind of money.

 

And the thing with ads is that they're a genuine security risk at this point. I'm sure we've all seen those fake "Download" buttons. Hell, I'd go so far as to suggest that having an adblocker is more important to keeping your computer safe than an anti-virus is. (Having both is better, ofc) I believe most companies with half-decent IT actually deploy adblockers now for this exact reason.

 

It's all completely completely ridiculous and unsustainable, but at this point I think we're just stuck watching as two trains are about to collide with each other.

Then don't visit those sites unless it's necessary, or limit the ad blocking to the most egregious examples if you can. Yeah, it means missing out on a significant chunk of the internet that you might like. But shouting "I really, really want to see it," like a modern-day Veruca Salt, isn't really a great argument.

[Error 52]

3 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Then don't visit those sites unless it's necessary, or limit the ad blocking to the most egregious examples if you can. Yeah, it means missing out on a significant chunk of the internet that you might like. But shouting "I really, really want to see it," like a modern-day Veruca Salt, isn't really a great argument.

Or I could just block everything and make my entire browsing experience way easier, way safer, and problem-free. You see the problem here.

 

"Don't visit those sites!" is... not a particularly satisfying solution, especially when often I need to.

[Commodus]

4 minutes ago, Error 52 said:

Or I could just block everything and make my entire browsing experience way easier, way safer, and problem-free. You see the problem here.

 

"Don't visit those sites!" is... not a particularly satisfying solution, especially when often I need to.

I'm sorry, but blocking everything just isn't morally acceptable. You're depriving people of a living, in some cases from sites that are both reasonable about their ads and otherwise acting in good faith. It is one thing if you genuinely need to visit a site, but I'm pretty sure many of those site operators would say "making a livable income" is far, far more satisfying than visiting a site without ads.

[Radium_Angel]

13 minutes ago, Commodus said:

I'm sorry, but blocking everything just isn't morally acceptable

But putting my PC at risk from compromised ads is?

[Error 52]

21 minutes ago, Commodus said:

I'm sorry, but blocking everything just isn't morally acceptable. You're depriving people of a living, in some cases from sites that are both reasonable about their ads and otherwise acting in good faith. It is one thing if you genuinely need to visit a site, but I'm pretty sure many of those site operators would say "making a livable income" is far, far more satisfying than visiting a site without ads.

I know it's mean, but all I can really say is "Sucks to be them." It's just the reality of it. Even trusted websites can shit the bed and run potentially dangerous ads. If that damns my soul to hell, so be it.

[Vishera]

7 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

But putting my PC at risk from compromised ads is?

There is also the privacy aspect of it,ads have tracking scripts built into them.

After all advertisers profile/fingerprint your device,spy on you,collect data about you and your browsing habits and use that to display more ads to you.

At the end of the day it is malicious,so it's malware.

[Commodus]

10 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

But putting my PC at risk from compromised ads is?

You know you can... not visit the sites, right? Or again, only block the most egregious ads if you absolutely need to see a site.

 

I really don't get why people feel like they have a divine right to visit every site the way they want to see it. Believe it or not, it's possible to control your impulses and go to other sites that are safer and more respectful. Besides, vote with your site visits — you send a better message by not visiting at all than blocking ads.

[Radium_Angel]

Just now, Commodus said:

you send a better message by not visiting

You are absolutely right.

Bye LTT

[Guest]

What's a Pirates favorite letter??

 

RRRR

 

no, it's the Big Blue C!

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

You are absolutely right.

Bye LTT

Bye Radium_Angel!! It was nice to participate at LTT forums with you! XD