Countering the Ad-Blockers being theft argument

[Lurking]

2 minutes ago, Holmes108 said:

 

I don't think too many (or any?) people are making a legal argument. Even Linus was pretty clear in just saying that it's effectively the same thing as piracy. Even piracy (in the truest sense of the word) is different than "real" theft, in my mind. Still reasonable to be a crime technically, but not really the same thing overall. So yeah, there's all kinds of differences, and nuance. But some of us still think there's little difference in bypassing ads, or simply cracking the .exe of that game you really want. 

 

I think many of the arguments against this concept (though not all, to be fair), come from a place of feeling offended of being called  "thief". But I don't think most of us are saying that. At least in any sort of judgmental, or negative context.

If no law is broken, it isn't theft or piracy. 

 

Probably should use a different term than theft or piracy. 

[crazzp]

53 minutes ago, Lurking said:

If no law is broken, it isn't theft or piracy. 

 

Probably should use a different term than theft or piracy. 

Yea he has changed to privateering, whatever that means. Happy?

 

Now can we get back to the part where creators' ad revenue is affected no matter what reasons people use to adblock? 

[TetraSky]

Disclaimer : I still block ads. But I agree with Linus.

2 hours ago, Lurking said:

My viewing time isn't their property.

The video you're watching for free, in exchange of an ad, is their property. Your viewing time and eyeballs literally don't matter here, that's false equivalency. YOU want to use THEIR services to watch THEIR videos. In exchange they are asking you watch an ad.

Piracy is illegal according to the law. Piracy is also the unauthorized use of content. The only authorized use of ad-free youtube is to pay for Youtube Premium. 

 

2 hours ago, Lurking said:

Same way I wasn't required to watch a TV ad, there is no legal requirement to watch YT ads. 

No one is legally forcing you to watch the ads. You just have to let them play in the background, same as you would with TV ads.

 

2 hours ago, Lurking said:

if you argue about moral obligation to watch the ads, you should say anyone not actually buying an advertised product is stealing.

Yes this is nonsense and no one was arguing this. It's not a moral obligation. It's a terms and services obligation. You want to use youtube ad free? Pay for Premium, that's the only authorized Ad-free experience on youtube. Anything past that is piracy.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3181017?hl=en&ref_topic=9257895&sjid=9709122582208201460-NC

 

2 hours ago, Lurking said:

Anyone calling it theft should cite the exact federal or State law that says ad blocker use comes with some sort of penalty. 

That's the thing, there's no "specific" law that talks about ad blocking.

Because many/most laws are made to cover a broad spectrum of shit and be interpreted in many ways by Lawyers and Judges. This is why we often talk about "precedents" when a Judge rule in favor/against something.

Until this is challenged in court, it would fall under the "piracy" banner. Which would be this law in Canada:

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-42/

Or the digital millennium copyright act in the US.

 

Until Google decides to legally go after an adblocking software in court, you're free to use your interpretation piracy.

[Lurking]

45 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

Disclaimer : I still block ads. But I agree with Linus.

The video you're watching for free, in exchange of an ad, is their property. Your viewing time and eyeballs literally don't matter here, that's false equivalency. YOU want to use THEIR services to watch THEIR videos. In exchange they are asking you watch an ad.

Piracy is illegal according to the law. Piracy is also the unauthorized use of content. The only authorized use of ad-free youtube is to pay for Youtube Premium. 

 

No one is legally forcing you to watch the ads. You just have to let them play in the background, same as you would with TV ads.

 

Yes this is nonsense and no one was arguing this. It's not a moral obligation. It's a terms and services obligation. You want to use youtube ad free? Pay for Premium, that's the only authorized Ad-free experience on youtube. Anything past that is piracy.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3181017?hl=en&ref_topic=9257895&sjid=9709122582208201460-NC

 

That's the thing, there's no "specific" law that talks about ad blocking.

Because many/most laws are made to cover a broad spectrum of shit and be interpreted in many ways by Lawyers and Judges. This is why we often talk about "precedents" when a Judge rule in favor/against something.

Until this is challenged in court, it would fall under the "piracy" banner. Which would be this law in Canada:

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-42/

Or the digital millennium copyright act in the US.

 

Until Google decides to legally go after an adblocking software in court, you're free to use your interpretation piracy.

That link didn't say anything about being required to play the ads or using adbockers.

 

I don't even use an adblocker, I use Brave browser and that just blocks the ads. So it isn't like I installed something specifically. 

 

People taped shows on VCR to fast forward commercials. Ad blocker is just an automated way. 

 

Untill there is a courtcase following your assessment, it is just that, YOUR assessment and NOT a legally binding interpretation of any law.

 

YT and creators are free to decode their content like Netflix and sell it. Any hacking then would be illegal theft or piracy. But as long as they distribute it freely, they are not entitled to my money or watching ads. They also can find better ways to force ads that a plugin or browser can't filter out. It is on them to do. They could re-mix that video to include their ads, for example. They left the option open to have ad blockers differentiate between content and ad. 

 

Edit: and did YT actually write in their terms of service that we are not supposed to use advlockers? Is that something we agreed to when signing up? What about watching YT without being logged in? There never was an agreement in place.

 

Our gas station pumps now also play ads. That ad revenue offsets some of the cost. You should then argue anyone muting them isn't doing their fair share. 

 

 

[TetraSky]

12 minutes ago, Lurking said:

That link didn't say anything about being required to play the ads or using adbockers.

You're just willfully disregarding things that are plainly written now.

Quote

Turn off ads

If you want to turn off ads on YouTube, check out our paid memberships for an ad-free experience. 

Yes, it doesn't mention adblocking. They never will. That would just send more people toward adblockers.

It still clearly states, if you want an ad-free experience, you should check out their paid membership. Hence, doing anything that goes against this to have an ad-free experience, is not authorized by youtube. There's a reason why they were cracking down on it in the last few weeks (then the adblockers got better and blocked those warnings as well).

[Scorpiopt]

Not Blocking ads this days is a privacy concern and device stability issue on things like phones . my S20 would slow down or straight crash chrome when i still used it because some websites run so much ads and tracking bs.
An ad every 3 or lines of text plus some on the side ? really? browsing on phones is a huge pain in the ass these days without ad blocking and any site that attempts to block people from visiting over it is a website i am not visiting . 
 

Lets take Fandom for example huge amount of wikis available great right?. Look at the image and this is without counting ads
Like it or not AdBlock has become a necessity , websites and services in general have became complete and utter garbage filled with ads , data selling and tracking and more tracking . 
I understand websites need revenue sure  ,  but this has become greed , google of all things is more concern of selling data then providing good services to customers , they just want ways to get more data out of you so they can sell it .

[Lurking]

1 hour ago, Scorpiopt said:

Blocking ads this days is a privacy concern and device stability issue on things like phones . my S20 would slow down or straight crash chrome when i still used it because some websites run so much ads and tracking bs.
An ad every 3 or lines of text plus some on the side ? really? browsing on phones is a huge pain in the ass these days without ad blocking and any site that attempts to block people from visiting over it is a website i am not visiting . 
 

Lets take Fandom for example huge amount of wikis available great right?. 
Like it or not AdBlock has become a necessity , websites and services in general have became complete and utter garbage filled with ads , data selling and tracking and more tracking . 
I understand websites need revenue sure  ,  but this has become greed , google of all things is more concern of selling data then providing good services to customers , they just want ways to get more data out of you so they can sell it .

+1

I use "Adblock" browser on my Android phone and that naturally blocks ads on websites. One thing I noticed before such good browser, the ads actually load faster than the actual page content. Even moving picture ads showed up before the actual website text. Really noticeable and annoying on slow connections. 

They must have programmed the websites to prioritize ads. And the ads get pulled from a different source than the actual page. So could be any malware or spyware 

 

My Internet life is nice... But once I use a browser without adblocker... Good Lord! Ads are plastered all over with videos, sound etc People might accept some ads. But the ad industry totally over-did it and deserve ad blockers with all consequences. 

 

When I was young a 2 hour movie maybe had 3 ad breaks. That was acceptable. Now a 10 minute YT video (that I watch in 1.25 or 1.5 times speed whereas ads are in 1x) has 3 ads. Totally not acceptable.

[Holmes108]

2 hours ago, Scorpiopt said:

Blocking ads this days is a privacy concern and device stability issue on things like phones . my S20 would slow down or straight crash chrome when i still used it

 

Wow. Not disputing the privacy concerns, but I've never experienced anything remotely close to this on my phone. Not on my PC either really, unless we're talking about some really sketchy "yarr matey" sites.

 

1 hour ago, Lurking said:

When I was young a 2 hour movie maybe had 3 ad breaks. That was acceptable. Now a 10 minute YT video (that I watch in 1.25 or 1.5 times speed whereas ads are in 1x) has 3 ads. Totally not acceptable.

 

I can't say I've seen ad breaks on youtube ever rival TV. TV gives you pretty consistently 44 minutes of content per hour, making ads 25% of the content. I never experienced it that badly on youtube, granted I've had premium for some time now.

 

I have used a cable channels official app a couple of times, and while I generally found the ads there slightly less prevalent than live TV there were some major exceptions. I forget the channel/show app it was, but I recall seeing 3 non-skippable ads, then they showed "coming up on....", then 3 more ads, then the show's title sequence, then 3 more ads. It was outrageous lol.

[wasab]

On 11/8/2023 at 7:58 PM, htimsenyawed said:

There is one thing that is both terrorism AND theft though - taxation.

i would like not to pay taxes but then the government might say okay sure but please return all the money we spent on your k1-12 public schooling, any college grants, health care subsidies, tax credits, government-funded social welfare programs, ect ect ect. oh, we will also start charging you a toll for every mile you drive on the public road, a fee for every time you call for emergency services such as police and ambulances, and every time you use any services at a public facilities. 

[Lurking]

9 hours ago, Holmes108 said:

 

Wow. Not disputing the privacy concerns, but I've never experienced anything remotely close to this on my phone. Not on my PC either really, unless we're talking about some really sketchy "yarr matey" sites.

 

 

I can't say I've seen ad breaks on youtube ever rival TV. TV gives you pretty consistently 44 minutes of content per hour, making ads 25% of the content. I never experienced it that badly on youtube, granted I've had premium for some time now.

 

I have used a cable channels official app a couple of times, and while I generally found the ads there slightly less prevalent than live TV there were some major exceptions. I forget the channel/show app it was, but I recall seeing 3 non-skippable ads, then they showed "coming up on....", then 3 more ads, then the show's title sequence, then 3 more ads. It was outrageous lol.

I said when I was younger. And that wasn't in the US. A movie had about three 5-minute ad breaks. That was totally fine since TV was free (no subscription). 

Nowadays in the US, it basically is impossible to watch TV that has ads. A movie takes forever. 

 

I visited a friend who still has cable or satellite TV. We watched a movie.. that got towards the end.. and one ad, then another.... I really wanted to see how it ends... But ultimately went to bed because I felt the last 30 minutes of the movie will take an hour and I just couldn't do it. 

[Arika]

12 hours ago, Scorpiopt said:

Blocking ads this days is a privacy concern and device stability issue on things like phones . my S20 would slow down or straight crash chrome when i still used it because some websites run so much ads and tracking bs

do you mean "NOT blocking ads"?

[Scorpiopt]

10 hours ago, Arika said:

do you mean "NOT blocking ads"?

Yes Ad blocking is a necessity  if you value your privacy 

[Scorpiopt]

20 hours ago, Holmes108 said:

 

Wow. Not disputing the privacy concerns, but I've never experienced anything remotely close to this on my phone. Not on my PC either really, unless we're talking about some really sketchy "yarr matey" sites.

 

 

Actually was a Tabletop news website that made me realise the issue , every time i visited it chrome would drag my phones performance to hell or crashed .
Installed vivaldi ( same browser i use on pc ) with adblocking on and no more problems 

 

  

10 hours ago, Arika said:

do you mean "NOT blocking ads"?

Yes Ad blocking is a necessity  if you value your privacy 

[Bitter]

 

This is why I block ads. 4 ads covering what I'm trying to read, can't even close the one floating over the article text. Close them, scroll a few lines, ads open again.

[E-waste]

On 11/5/2023 at 6:30 AM, podkall said:

I also heared Google used to fund Adblock companies and regularly donate them, strange right? Why would they do that?

Oh it gets even deeper, they combed through the code of "privacy badger" addon, written by the EFF.org, and actually contributed bug fixes, and I mention this as much as I can, as privacy badger blocks google's domains.  Maybe not the search, but surely doubleclick.net and others.

 

Isn't that odd?

[Kisai]

25 minutes ago, E-waste said:

Oh it gets even deeper, they combed through the code of "privacy badger" addon, written by the EFF.org, and actually contributed bug fixes, and I mention this as much as I can, as privacy badger blocks google's domains.  Maybe not the search, but surely doubleclick.net and others.

 

Isn't that odd?

A rising tide floats all boats.

 

If a bug in a third party product continuously marketed as "privacy" fails to do what is advertised because of how your product does error checking or bounds checking, then you are incentivized to have them fix it.

 

For a while I ran Ghostery when I need to view specific sites (eg fandom.com) that are too full of garbage ads to be useable, but Ghostery would just continuously leak memory, that it became a worse experience to have Ghostery installed at all than just going to the hosts file and blacklisting the ad bid scripts on specific sites.

[E-waste]

3 minutes ago, Kisai said:

For a while I ran Ghostery

I don't use it, but tested it, privacy badger is very easy to use, and works just like Ghostery.

 

Again, developed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and an easy interface.

 

Now, if "block all" is an option, like in NoScripts "untrusted" setting, which is used in The Onion Router TOR browser, then I'll switch to privacy badger.  You really really should give it a go, blocking cloudfront, shopify, fontawesome, and 18 other domains on websites makes them load magnitudes faster, saving cpu load, and if on mobile, battery drain could be reduced.  I use dark reader, and an option there is to use the font style in dark reader, so if that is used, loading a font style from a remote server is wasted energy.

 

I have it set to use a websites font, but NoScript is set to not load anything unless I have set it to trusted before, on any website.

[Mark Kaine]

On 11/9/2023 at 8:36 PM, TetraSky said:

No one is legally forcing you to watch the ads. You just have to let them play in the background, same as you would with TV ads.

well you dont, you can mute them, you can block them, etc... 

 

also funny this keeps getting mentioned... i remember "wirecutters" mostly stating the costs (yes) but also that they don't want to see ads...... and now they have the option of again costs *or* ads, and i bet in some cases both...so this whole wire cutting nonsense was really just that, nonsense.  oh, and people of course continue to watch TV, including ads... smh.

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

7 hours ago, htimsenyawed said:

Your “I’m a little socialist short and stout” logic makes no sense on the government demanding money back when it was the taxpayer money they spent in the first place. 
 

Although the government wanting paid twice checks out.

yup, i thought im getting my money back??!!

 

this deal keeps getting worse lol...

 

[E-waste]

On 11/10/2023 at 8:20 AM, Lurking said:

I use "Adblock" browser on my Android phone

Come on!  Switch to team Firefox and stop supporting Google's blink rendering engine.  Did you know that Google Chrome is used by 66% of all website visits?  Just because of name recognition.  If it was Google Firefox, then Firefox would have 66% market share, because people don't have the desire to question how any of this works, "it just does".

 

So they go to Google.com homepage one day, and see "download Google Chrome, fast and free" and it's over for competition because anything Google does is always the best and perfect without question, and no other software company is of higher quality than Google because they made the internet.

 

I would assume that is as far as most people understand how google (the internet) works, and they could not possibly care any less at all.

 

So they don't think to use a "knock-off" "cheapo" browser like Firefox, because "if it was any good, why don't people use it".

 

Because people don't give two rat turds about how this stuff works and don't want to.  So if Google does something it HAS to be the best.  I'm still upset that Google Earth basically took away NASA worldwind.  I mean, a program, written by an group of people, some of whom have gone to space?  Who better to program a virtual globe?

 

But here comes Google with Google Earth, so to the wind goes NASA's program.

 

I knew back in 2008, that when chrome was released, it was going to be BAD for all other browsers, especially Firefox.

 

Sure, they screwed up their addon system early on, and had to do it again recently, kept screwing with the interface (I liked the larger icons and text in the 3 by 3 layout) multiple times.

 

But Firefox is still the ONLY main open-source browser, especially developed since 1994, that is not based on Google's blink rendering engine.  I have had this discussion before on the thread, and some people have written off firefox for various reasons, and today, it has

 

6.78% desktop market share.

 

On mobile, chrome has 66% market share.

Safari has 24%.

Oh and get this shit, Safari on Mac desktop, is just 9.8%.  Maybe people don't like safari, but it is clear what browser they are installing.

 

Guess how much mobile marketshare Firefox has.

 

Is it 10%?

 

What about 5%

 

2.5%

 

How about just 1%?

 

Nope.

 

It has an estimated share of 0.5%.

 

It is so low that the figure is very difficult to find.  That's how little use it has on mobile.  All android users should be supporting open-source software, since android is also open-source.

 

F-droid is an easy way to do this, and Fennec is in there which restores about:config url to modify browser settings.  This is a feature removed in 2013 or 2014, which main firefox mobile still doesn't have enabled again yet.  So please, join team firefox, and support open-source software.  Also firefox development just moved over to GitHub!

[E-waste]

3 hours ago, Bitter said:

 

This is why I block ads. 4 ads covering what I'm trying to read, can't even close the one floating over the article text. Close them, scroll a few lines, ads open again.

Nice Firefox btw, what addons do you use?

 

I use NoScript and Dark Reader and that's it.  At one time I had "decentraleyes" installed, not sure what it does.

 

Stack Exchange has the same issue.  Try viewing their page with NoScript, but do not allow javascript for the page.

 

Then enable javascript for stack exchange.

 

Then allow cookie law to load (trust) in NoScript.

 

I must have something blocked at my dns, because I can't get that box to go away.  I click "customize" and it just stays there

 

I click accept and it won't budge.  So I have to view their page only being able to read the last two or three lines of text at the botton of the screen.  And if I want to scroll up I have no idea where I am on the page because the cookie box floats down, and covers what little text I was able to view.

[Lurking]

25 minutes ago, E-waste said:

Come on!  Switch to team Firefox and stop supporting Google's blink rendering engine.  Did you know that Google Chrome is used by 66% of all website visits?  Just because of name recognition.  If it was Google Firefox, then Firefox would have 66% market share, because people don't have the desire to question how any of this works, "it just does".

 

So they go to Google.com homepage one day, and see "download Google Chrome, fast and free" and it's over for competition because anything Google does is always the best and perfect without question, and no other software company is of higher quality than Google because they made the internet.

 

I would assume that is as far as most people understand how google (the internet) works, and they could not possibly care any less at all.

 

So they don't think to use a "knock-off" "cheapo" browser like Firefox, because "if it was any good, why don't people use it".

 

Because people don't give two rat turds about how this stuff works and don't want to.  So if Google does something it HAS to be the best.  I'm still upset that Google Earth basically took away NASA worldwind.  I mean, a program, written by an group of people, some of whom have gone to space?  Who better to program a virtual globe?

 

But here comes Google with Google Earth, so to the wind goes NASA's program.

 

I knew back in 2008, that when chrome was released, it was going to be BAD for all other browsers, especially Firefox.

 

Sure, they screwed up their addon system early on, and had to do it again recently, kept screwing with the interface (I liked the larger icons and text in the 3 by 3 layout) multiple times.

 

But Firefox is still the ONLY main open-source browser, especially developed since 1994, that is not based on Google's blink rendering engine.  I have had this discussion before on the thread, and some people have written off firefox for various reasons, and today, it has

 

6.78% desktop market share.

 

On mobile, chrome has 66% market share.

Safari has 24%.

Oh and get this shit, Safari on Mac desktop, is just 9.8%.  Maybe people don't like safari, but it is clear what browser they are installing.

 

Guess how much mobile marketshare Firefox has.

 

Is it 10%?

 

What about 5%

 

2.5%

 

How about just 1%?

 

Nope.

 

It has an estimated share of 0.5%.

 

It is so low that the figure is very difficult to find.  That's how little use it has on mobile.  All android users should be supporting open-source software, since android is also open-source.

 

F-droid is an easy way to do this, and Fennec is in there which restores about:config url to modify browser settings.  This is a feature removed in 2013 or 2014, which main firefox mobile still doesn't have enabled again yet.  So please, join team firefox, and support open-source software.  Also firefox development just moved over to GitHub!

I'm not using Chrome on my phone. The browser is called "Adblock". It looks similar to chrome, though 

 

I'm still burned from Firefox use back in the day when it had tons of memory leaks. Crashes, running low on memory ... Good riddance. Chrome was such a liberation.

 

Maybe Firefox improved, but I still have the bad taste in my mouth.

[Bitter]

50 minutes ago, E-waste said:

Nice Firefox btw, what addons do you use?

 

I use NoScript and Dark Reader and that's it.  At one time I had "decentraleyes" installed, not sure what it does.

 

Stack Exchange has the same issue.  Try viewing their page with NoScript, but do not allow javascript for the page.

 

Then enable javascript for stack exchange.

 

Then allow cookie law to load (trust) in NoScript.

 

I must have something blocked at my dns, because I can't get that box to go away.  I click "customize" and it just stays there

 

I click accept and it won't budge.  So I have to view their page only being able to read the last two or three lines of text at the botton of the screen.  And if I want to scroll up I have no idea where I am on the page because the cookie box floats down, and covers what little text I was able to view.

UBO and Privacy Badger.

 

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, E-waste said:

Come on!  Switch to team Firefox and stop supporting Google's blink rendering engine.  Did you know that Google Chrome is used by 66% of all website visits?  Just because of name recognition.  If it was Google Firefox, then Firefox would have 66% market share, because people don't have the desire to question how any of this works, "it just does".

 

So they go to Google.com homepage one day, and see "download Google Chrome, fast and free" and it's over for competition because anything Google does is always the best and perfect without question, and no other software company is of higher quality than Google because they made the internet.

 

I would assume that is as far as most people understand how google (the internet) works, and they could not possibly care any less at all.

 

So they don't think to use a "knock-off" "cheapo" browser like Firefox, because "if it was any good, why don't people use it".

 

Because people don't give two rat turds about how this stuff works and don't want to.  So if Google does something it HAS to be the best.  I'm still upset that Google Earth basically took away NASA worldwind.  I mean, a program, written by an group of people, some of whom have gone to space?  Who better to program a virtual globe?

 

But here comes Google with Google Earth, so to the wind goes NASA's program.

 

I knew back in 2008, that when chrome was released, it was going to be BAD for all other browsers, especially Firefox.

 

Sure, they screwed up their addon system early on, and had to do it again recently, kept screwing with the interface (I liked the larger icons and text in the 3 by 3 layout) multiple times.

 

But Firefox is still the ONLY main open-source browser, especially developed since 1994, that is not based on Google's blink rendering engine.  I have had this discussion before on the thread, and some people have written off firefox for various reasons, and today, it has

 

6.78% desktop market share.

 

On mobile, chrome has 66% market share.

Safari has 24%.

Oh and get this shit, Safari on Mac desktop, is just 9.8%.  Maybe people don't like safari, but it is clear what browser they are installing.

 

Guess how much mobile marketshare Firefox has.

 

Is it 10%?

 

What about 5%

 

2.5%

 

How about just 1%?

 

Nope.

 

It has an estimated share of 0.5%.

 

It is so low that the figure is very difficult to find.  That's how little use it has on mobile.  All android users should be supporting open-source software, since android is also open-source.

 

F-droid is an easy way to do this, and Fennec is in there which restores about:config url to modify browser settings.  This is a feature removed in 2013 or 2014, which main firefox mobile still doesn't have enabled again yet.  So please, join team firefox, and support open-source software.  Also firefox development just moved over to GitHub!

been always using Firefox until they fucked it up with constant forced bs updates...there's no going back now, i still use it on my phone but it lacks in speed compared to Samsung internet "beta" which is my main browser (and chromium based)

 

i don't see how it matters how many % your browser has, just use what works for you tbh. 

[wasab]

9 hours ago, htimsenyawed said:

Your “I’m a little socialist short and stout” logic makes no sense on the government demanding money back when it was the taxpayer money they spent in the first place. 
 

Although the government wanting paid twice checks out.

Huh? You have been paying taxes since the first day you started kindergarten in a public k-12?