4 ms·

> adblockers will exist for as long as Google deems them unproblematic (...) the existence of such piracy is heavily dependent on the providing body, and as suc

by bambax 4y ago

> adblockers will exist for as long as Google deems them unproblematic (...) the existence of such piracy is heavily dependent on the providing body, and as such, are existant by benevolence Mmm, what? Adblockers aren't piracy.

seejayseesjays 4y ago
Entirely true, though Linus Sebastian would probably disagree. In terms of receiving content without paying the tithe of attention/money/time, though, one could consider it a form of """piracy"""
- iforgotpassword 4y ago
  Yeah like, I would have disagreed at first too, but he has a point there.
- lelandbatey 4y ago
  Linus is totally off his rocker though. His argument is that "he deserves to get paid for what he does, if you AdBlock he doesn't get paid, hence you are taking money from him if you AdBlock." This idea though is totally wrong, and is some serious post-hoc BS after over a decade of this internet advertising business model becoming comfortable. Linus's business is GIVING AWAY content and hoping that advertisers (his real customers) will want to agree to pay him according to his terms. You can say things about TOS and EULA and how that is totally a legally and morally binding or whatever but that's moving the goalposts now that folks have found a way to exploit audiences for money after years of GIVING AWAY content for free. I don't have to read each advertising flyer that comes with my pizza, even if the pizza store decides to give me 100 advertising flyers in exchange for making the pizza free, and no amount of EULAs will make it so. It's my computer, I can throw out the garbage you give me if I want.
  - BLKNSLVR 4y ago
    That's an interesting point. He's paid by the advertisers therefore they're his direct customers whilst the viewing public are secondary, and therefore have far less responsibility to maintain the viability of his business plan.
- standardUser 4y ago
  Instead of demanding my time and attention, which traditionally are not exchanged for goods and services, they should accept money.
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    Yup. Problem solved. Make me the customer again, ask me to pay. What he's really saying is: My customers are these advertisers, and it would be really nice if those pesky users I'm trying to sell would stop doing absolute bullshit like "insisting they have bodily autonomy" and "curating the content they view".
Abekkus 4y ago
Adblockers are arguably worse to a company than piracy. Pirates often argue that they aren't causing a lost sale, because if the product wasn't free, the pirate customer simply wouldn't use the product in the first place. Pirates however, generally aren't putting sustained load on the IP-holders' servers. Whereas adblockers are putting load on the companies' servers while not "paying" for the services, by blocking the ads.
- hypertele-Xii 4y ago
  Yeah but they also lighten the ad servers' load by not downloading the ads themselves, so it evens out. And considering most load from modern websites is indeed tracking and ads, I might even argue that adblocking saves the website money when I was never going to click on an ad anyway. If a website needs money to exist, paywalls and donations exist. If a website serves content without payment, that's their problem not mine.
  - jokethrowaway 4y ago
    The advertiser is saving (pennies) hosting money not the website owner. The website owner is providing a service, paying hosting and is not getting paid by the advertiser.
    - hypertele-Xii 4y ago
      If the website owner is not getting paid by the advertiser, why is the website showing ads?
- kennywinker 4y ago
  It's unclear what the business relationship is when you click on a link. I click on a link in a tweet, and I'm taken to a site and apparently I've agreed to be shown ads? No. Plenty of sites I visit are not trying to monetize my eyeballs. Calling using software to give you a choice about what you agree to "piracy" seems wrong. If sites offered consent - like "Welcome to this site, you'll see 10 ads per page, sold through google's ad network. Our content is written by humans not robots. Please disable adblock and proceed." That's a different relationship. Perhaps then it's more like taking something without paying ("piracy"). Perhaps in a sustained relationship, where you repeatedly visit a site, you know what it offers you and you want it, but are unwilling to pay the price of ads... maybe that starts to edge towards a piracy like situation.

by bambax 4y ago

seejayseesjays 4y ago

Entirely true, though Linus Sebastian would probably disagree. In terms of receiving content without paying the tithe of attention/money/time, though, one could consider it a form of """piracy"""

iforgotpassword 4y ago
Yeah like, I would have disagreed at first too, but he has a point there.
lelandbatey 4y ago
Linus is totally off his rocker though. His argument is that "he deserves to get paid for what he does, if you AdBlock he doesn't get paid, hence you are taking money from him if you AdBlock." This idea though is totally wrong, and is some serious post-hoc BS after over a decade of this internet advertising business model becoming comfortable. Linus's business is GIVING AWAY content and hoping that advertisers (his real customers) will want to agree to pay him according to his terms. You can say things about TOS and EULA and how that is totally a legally and morally binding or whatever but that's moving the goalposts now that folks have found a way to exploit audiences for money after years of GIVING AWAY content for free. I don't have to read each advertising flyer that comes with my pizza, even if the pizza store decides to give me 100 advertising flyers in exchange for making the pizza free, and no amount of EULAs will make it so. It's my computer, I can throw out the garbage you give me if I want.
- BLKNSLVR 4y ago
  That's an interesting point. He's paid by the advertisers therefore they're his direct customers whilst the viewing public are secondary, and therefore have far less responsibility to maintain the viability of his business plan.
standardUser 4y ago
Instead of demanding my time and attention, which traditionally are not exchanged for goods and services, they should accept money.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  Yup. Problem solved. Make me the customer again, ask me to pay. What he's really saying is: My customers are these advertisers, and it would be really nice if those pesky users I'm trying to sell would stop doing absolute bullshit like "insisting they have bodily autonomy" and "curating the content they view".

Abekkus 4y ago

Adblockers are arguably worse to a company than piracy. Pirates often argue that they aren't causing a lost sale, because if the product wasn't free, the pirate customer simply wouldn't use the product in the first place. Pirates however, generally aren't putting sustained load on the IP-holders' servers. Whereas adblockers are putting load on the companies' servers while not "paying" for the services, by blocking the ads.

hypertele-Xii 4y ago
Yeah but they also lighten the ad servers' load by not downloading the ads themselves, so it evens out. And considering most load from modern websites is indeed tracking and ads, I might even argue that adblocking saves the website money when I was never going to click on an ad anyway. If a website needs money to exist, paywalls and donations exist. If a website serves content without payment, that's their problem not mine.
- jokethrowaway 4y ago
  The advertiser is saving (pennies) hosting money not the website owner. The website owner is providing a service, paying hosting and is not getting paid by the advertiser.
  - hypertele-Xii 4y ago
    If the website owner is not getting paid by the advertiser, why is the website showing ads?
kennywinker 4y ago
It's unclear what the business relationship is when you click on a link. I click on a link in a tweet, and I'm taken to a site and apparently I've agreed to be shown ads? No. Plenty of sites I visit are not trying to monetize my eyeballs. Calling using software to give you a choice about what you agree to "piracy" seems wrong. If sites offered consent - like "Welcome to this site, you'll see 10 ads per page, sold through google's ad network. Our content is written by humans not robots. Please disable adblock and proceed." That's a different relationship. Perhaps then it's more like taking something without paying ("piracy"). Perhaps in a sustained relationship, where you repeatedly visit a site, you know what it offers you and you want it, but are unwilling to pay the price of ads... maybe that starts to edge towards a piracy like situation.