4 ms·

> I read a lot 'entitled' opinions in this thread pretending that the whole world should ignore their circumstances Come on, how many of the HN users bragging

> I read a lot 'entitled' opinions in this thread pretending that the whole world should ignore their circumstances Come on, how many of the HN users bragging in this thread about blocking YT ads are in a similar situation? I'm glad you've come up with a convincing justification for your behavior, but you've built a mighty strawman there, no one is arguing that people who cannot afford a modern smartphone are the problem.

627467 6y ago
The convincing justification is only one part of the argument. The other part is about freedom to challenge contemporary adtech and digital business models.. ie. Compute on my terms. Content creators and YouTubers are welcome to not serve me their content if I don't accept their trackers. It's not only about affording a modern smartphone: all these digital behemoths rely on us keeping up to date to their tech standards, chasing the latest phone, the latest firmware. Software like newpipe lets us engage on our own terms.
- hug 6y ago
  > Content creators and YouTubers are welcome to not serve me their content Except they are not. If you turn on an ad blocker and use YouTube, the creator of the content has no way to stop you.
  - 627467 6y ago
    That's odd. There's plenty of content creators that won't serve me anything unless I have: paid and/or have JavaScript turned on.
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  Sometimes I think of the freedom to challenge contemporary restaurant business models too.. you know, food on my terms. Restaurants are welcome not to serve me their food if I don't accept their bill, but I won't tell them upfront just like you. Let's not pretend this is about high-minded freedom; like everyone else in a free market, you're free to not consume the fruits of labor from content creators and YouTube. At least in your previous comment, I thought it was honest and interesting to raise the issue of self-interested piracy for low-income users. For all your talk of entitlement, how disappointing it is for you to end with "but I'm entitled to their work because I don't like their terms".
  - anoncake 6y ago
    Bad analogy. Google doesn't charge so there is no bill to accept.
    - themacguffinman 6y ago
      The bill is the ads which they enforce to the best of their ability, the analogy doesn't have to be literal. Google also offers a literal charge, in the form of YouTube Premium.
      - anoncake 6y ago
        You can pretend that's the case, I won't. The only rights a company has towards its customers are to provide its services, charge money, and shut up otherwise. Demanding its customers to harm themselves is none of these things.
  - 627467 6y ago
    > Restaurants are welcome not to serve me their food if I don't accept their bill, but I won't tell them upfront just like you. What's the restaurant equivalent to me having to turn on JavaScript or disable my ad blocker? > thought it was honest and interesting to raise the issue of self-interested piracy for low-income users. Well, I touched you on that point (inequality). But it seems that I failed to touch you on the fact that digital users are entitled to run whatever they want on their computer.
    - themacguffinman 6y ago
      Creators have the right to set terms on the fruits of their labor. Your rights end where their rights begin. A restaurant's terms is their fee, YouTube and creators' terms are ads or Premium. I don't know why some people think they can just make up the right to do whatever they want with other people's work. You can do what you want on your computer, but not with their stuff. Easy solution: don't use YouTube, but apparently you think you're entitled to it.

627467 6y ago

The convincing justification is only one part of the argument. The other part is about freedom to challenge contemporary adtech and digital business models.. ie. Compute on my terms. Content creators and YouTubers are welcome to not serve me their content if I don't accept their trackers. It's not only about affording a modern smartphone: all these digital behemoths rely on us keeping up to date to their tech standards, chasing the latest phone, the latest firmware. Software like newpipe lets us engage on our own terms.

hug 6y ago
> Content creators and YouTubers are welcome to not serve me their content Except they are not. If you turn on an ad blocker and use YouTube, the creator of the content has no way to stop you.
- 627467 6y ago
  That's odd. There's plenty of content creators that won't serve me anything unless I have: paid and/or have JavaScript turned on.
themacguffinman 6y ago
Sometimes I think of the freedom to challenge contemporary restaurant business models too.. you know, food on my terms. Restaurants are welcome not to serve me their food if I don't accept their bill, but I won't tell them upfront just like you. Let's not pretend this is about high-minded freedom; like everyone else in a free market, you're free to not consume the fruits of labor from content creators and YouTube. At least in your previous comment, I thought it was honest and interesting to raise the issue of self-interested piracy for low-income users. For all your talk of entitlement, how disappointing it is for you to end with "but I'm entitled to their work because I don't like their terms".
- anoncake 6y ago
  Bad analogy. Google doesn't charge so there is no bill to accept.
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    The bill is the ads which they enforce to the best of their ability, the analogy doesn't have to be literal. Google also offers a literal charge, in the form of YouTube Premium.
    - anoncake 6y ago
      You can pretend that's the case, I won't. The only rights a company has towards its customers are to provide its services, charge money, and shut up otherwise. Demanding its customers to harm themselves is none of these things.
- 627467 6y ago
  > Restaurants are welcome not to serve me their food if I don't accept their bill, but I won't tell them upfront just like you. What's the restaurant equivalent to me having to turn on JavaScript or disable my ad blocker? > thought it was honest and interesting to raise the issue of self-interested piracy for low-income users. Well, I touched you on that point (inequality). But it seems that I failed to touch you on the fact that digital users are entitled to run whatever they want on their computer.
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    Creators have the right to set terms on the fruits of their labor. Your rights end where their rights begin. A restaurant's terms is their fee, YouTube and creators' terms are ads or Premium. I don't know why some people think they can just make up the right to do whatever they want with other people's work. You can do what you want on your computer, but not with their stuff. Easy solution: don't use YouTube, but apparently you think you're entitled to it.