Wan show: Never hate on your comunity

[wanderingfool2]

6 hours ago, ShrimpBrime said:

I don't see why he gets panties in a bunch.

 

Adblocker came out when he was like 9 years old.

 

Takes my time watching ads. My time isn't free. We should be paid to be forced to watch ads. 

 

I pay for internet to view shit without commercials. 

 

Rely income based on ads? That's a good reason to be mad, but financially sounds stupid.

For reference the whole point was it doesn't matter how you justify doing ad-blocking, but more so on admitting that what you do does have affects content creators and companies.

 

Just because you pay for internet doesn't mean you are justified to get things "free".  It means you get access to the internet...if a site isn't charging for you to access it, then it's likely they are being supported through ads.  Instead of blaming the company/creator themselves for relying on it.

 

So justify it all you want, but just because you feel your time is worth more doesn't mean that you can try claiming moral superiority or anything like that.  I effectively use ad-block (via no script), and I'm okay with it, I feel it's a safer way of browsing the internet...I do recognize that websites I visit do get hurt by it.  Is what I am doing wrong, I don't think so, but I'm still not going to try claiming that what I am doing won't hurt creators or that creators should change up their site to better suit my position.

[Rex Hite]

I get YouTube videos for free because they're offered for free. No sign-up, no account, and no payment asked.

If that arrangement becomes a problem they should change it.

 

 

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

For reference the whole point was it doesn't matter how you justify doing ad-blocking, but more so on admitting that what you do does have affects content creators and companies.

Sure, I also have an effect on them by not donating my entire income to them. When exactly does some megacorporation making a bit less money because I elect to do something that is perfectly within my rights become my problem? Sure, I can feel a bit more empathy with individual creators who would be making more money, but it's Youtube that is scamming them by having them generate revenue for the platform without having a real employment contract or a reliable salary.

 

And yeah, if you buy merchandise or otherwise support them I think you're perfectly in the clear to not give Youtube money so that a small fraction of it also goes to the creator. I think you're in the clear even if you don't, because people's time and money is finite and we don't owe it all to someone just because they sat in front of a camera and entertained us for 5 minutes. Rather than trying to guilt people into watching insufferable ads in their potentially already thin free time, we could question the systems that mean people can work for years to directly boost a platform's outreach and popularity only to be denied any form of stable income in return.

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Just because you pay for internet doesn't mean you are justified to get things "free".  It means you get access to the internet...if a site isn't charging for you to access it, then it's likely they are being supported through ads.

That's their decision, is it not? Clearly if so many websites choose to be free to access and serve ads that can be blocked they consider it a financially viable decision, more so than just charging for access. Youtube could just charge you for access as other platforms have tried - remember vessel? - but if they had they most likely wouldn't be in the dominant position they are now.

 

Since there's nothing illegal about blocking ads on your browser it's up to them to make the case for why I should just live with intrusive ads invading even my personal system and interrupting my free time to try and sell me something. You're not owed someone else's effort just because it would make you more money.

 

Also note that ad supported revenue doesn't need to be implemented this way - having revenue depend on viewer count was entirely Google & friends' idea. Ads on TV are paid a fixed price based on average viewership rather than exactly how many people are actually looking at the ad while it's playing. Advertisement billboards don't know how many people passing by actually look up and read them. Sponsor spots baked in videos are paid a flat amount regardless of whether people skip them. This is a grave Google dug for themselves and also part of the reason internet advertisement is so bad - to maximize revenue it HAS to invade your screen so that you count towards a view and invade your privacy to target you better.

[motomat86]

some of you should go outside and touch some grass,  snow is finally melting, get some fresh air.   maybe ride a motorcycle, then come back and smash nonsense on the keyboard

[WhitetailAni]

7 minutes ago, motomat86 said:

snow is finally melting

Perhaps where you are, but not everywhere. It snowed last night where I am.

--endpedantry--

My JayzTwoCents.

^^ This is the kind of ad that I would want to watch. It's funny, but it gets the point across.

Ads like this:

Are just cringe. For someone to watch an ad, make it short, but attention-grabbing. This one's long, and not very believeable.

I really doubt that the building Intel used had an Apple logo on it, and that they made it real enough for average Joe to believe; like an Apple store or something where they get pulled into the back rooms. If they did, kudos.

 

Regarding Linus' comments.

Quote

Also Linus: I can't pronounce your name "but it doesn't matter."

That's flat out rude. If you can't pronounce someone's name, apologize. Names aren't just meaningless tags stuck on people so we're not Human #549755813888. (with some exceptions) people choose their online names because it has some meaning to them, so Linus, please be considerate and at least apologize for not being able to pronounce someone's name - don't just brush it off because "it doesn't matter".

[wanderingfool2]

13 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I elect to do something that is perfectly within my rights become my problem?

Let's be perfectly clear about something.  Yes, it might not be classified as copyright infringement but it doesn't mean you are "perfectly within my rights" to do it.  It's just that the cost of even trying to sue someone would create so much backlash and even if successful the lawyer fees alone would be higher than any award.

 

The way I am going to put this again is look at old-school analog stations.  Under everyone's logic here, it wouldn't be a crime to "steal cable" by replacing the filter that limits the TV stations.  After all, it's not "costing" the cable company anything extra and the content is already being delivered.

 

21 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Since there's nothing illegal about blocking ads on your browser it's up to them to make the case for why I should just live with intrusive ads invading even my personal system and interrupting my free time to try and sell me something. You're not owed someone else's effort just because it would make you more money.

I still view it as very much an implied contract.  You go to YouTube, and you are expected to be delivered ads in order to offset the cost of hosting, and payment to content providers.

 

2 minutes ago, FakeKGB said:

That's flat out rude. If you can't pronounce someone's name, apologize. Names aren't just meaningless tags stuck on people so we're not Human #549755813888. (with some exceptions) people choose their online names because it has some meaning to them, so Linus, please be considerate and at least apologize for not being able to pronounce someone's name - don't just brush it off because "it doesn't matter".

Until he actually provides clips of Linus saying such, I'm not going to buy into what was said.  After all, the quote could be highly manipulated/paraphrasing while loosing context.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I still view it as very much an implied contract.  You go to YouTube, and you are expected to be delivered ads in order to offset the cost of hosting, and payment to content providers.

You can have your own head canon if you like but neither I nor the law in any country that I know of see it that way. If my business relies on the expectation that you'll toss a coin at me because you saw me juggling on a street corner that doesn't mean you're not within your right not to do so. If I'm not taking your property and I'm not signing a contract I don't owe you anything, let alone the act of initiating a Rube Goldberg machine of your creation that eventually ends with someone else giving you money because you promise them that I saw some ad.

3 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Let's be perfectly clear about something.  Yes, it might not be classified as copyright infringement but it doesn't mean you are "perfectly within my rights" to do it.  It's just that the cost of even trying to sue someone would create so much backlash and even if successful the lawyer fees alone would be higher than any award.

No, it's literally not illegal. You can sue me all you want and, in a sufficiently bad legal system, you might even bully me into a settlement if you have enough money... but then you would be violating my rights.

7 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The way I am going to put this again is look at old-school analog stations.  Under everyone's logic here, it wouldn't be a crime to "steal cable" by replacing the filter that limits the TV stations.  After all, it's not "costing" the cable company anything extra and the content is already being delivered.

It depends. Did the person who paid for the wiring sign a contract stating they weren't allowed to do this? Does this technique involve breaking DRM? Was copyrighted content reproduced without consent from the copyright holder? Blocking ads fits none of these criteria. If you think it's a crime then show me the law it breaks.

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

It depends. Did the person who paid for the wiring sign a contract stating they weren't allowed to do this? Does this technique involve breaking DRM? Was copyrighted content reproduced without consent from the copyright holder? Blocking ads fits none of these criteria. If you think it's a crime then show me the law it breaks.

It doesn't depend.  Technically at the time cables within the household were considered ownership of the cable company, but that was generally phased out (but before the digital era).  I'm referring to the classical analog TV days.  They use to put a filter (attached at the house), which means that at any given time if the filter were to break or be bypassed you would be able to access all the channels. 

 

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

No, it's literally not illegal. You can sue me all you want and, in a sufficiently bad legal system, you might even bully me into a settlement if you have enough money... but then you would be violating my rights.

Here we go again, please read what I said, did I say it was illegal?  It's a tort, and one that I would say could be held up in court.  First, the terms of service state it's not allowed, and like it or not I do believe it would be an implied contract that you are not indented to block out ads.

 

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

You can have your own head canon if you like but neither I nor the law in any country that I know of see it that way. If my business relies on the expectation that you'll toss a coin at me because you saw me juggling on a street corner that doesn't mean you're not within your right not to do so. If I'm not taking your property and I'm not signing a contract I don't owe you anything, let alone the act of initiating a Rube Goldberg machine of your creation that eventually ends with someone else giving you money because you promise them that I saw some ad.

There is a great difference between the performer on the street and going to youtube (and actively blocking ads).  One is a public area, and the other is a request for data where the assumption is that you will view the ad.

 

Again, the closest analogy is stealing analog cable (back in the day).  If you are saying that blocking ads is legal because the videos can be accessed free, then I am going to say stealing analog cable was perfectly legal.  After all, the signal was still delivered to your house...and all that needs to happen is for you to remove the filter that has removed the channels.  The cable company isn't losing any income because the signal was already being delivered there.

 

This whole concept behind "they don't protect it and you can easily access it" is I believe one of the major pushes behind DRM.  I'm willing to bet that if not as many people used ad-block on sites like YouTube you would find that the ads themselves would be delivered less.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

For reference the whole point was it doesn't matter how you justify doing ad-blocking, but more so on admitting that what you do does have affects content creators and companies.

 

Just because you pay for internet doesn't mean you are justified to get things "free".  It means you get access to the internet...if a site isn't charging for you to access it, then it's likely they are being supported through ads.  Instead of blaming the company/creator themselves for relying on it.

 

So justify it all you want, but just because you feel your time is worth more doesn't mean that you can try claiming moral superiority or anything like that.  I effectively use ad-block (via no script), and I'm okay with it, I feel it's a safer way of browsing the internet...I do recognize that websites I visit do get hurt by it.  Is what I am doing wrong, I don't think so, but I'm still not going to try claiming that what I am doing won't hurt creators or that creators should change up their site to better suit my position.

Sure the lack of just me watching an ad MIGHT hurt the net worth 50 million dollar Linus Tech Tip you tuber. 

 

Which at some point, people need to realize that I'm not trying to block his sponsorships and the ads that he implements into videos, but the pop up ads that You tube over-lays on top his video. I literally can't see the bottom of the screen and miss all kinds of shit, rewind play it again after closing the pop up ad. 

 

Really, the video paused ads don't bother me THAT much where I strictly use an ad blocker JUST for that alone. No, not at all.

 

Not that anything is a justification. More like, that's just the way it is.

 

No different than LTT "accidentally" pirating software in their videos, which he says, OPPS Sorry and purchases the software so he doesn't have to worry about a lawsuit. Which being worth 50 million dollars, he must be extremely careful. 

 

Either way, it's not theft in my opinion. He chose to make a business agreement with youtube, not myself. If he kindly asked me to watch videos (edit - and the ads) personally in a private message, I would consider it. Though I'm also in belief, he doesn't need little old me to help him be profitable. There's plenty of other suckers born every day. 

 

[IkeaGnome]

3 hours ago, motomat86 said:

snow is finally melting

Oh

Spoiler

That would be nice to see melting snow.