4 ms·

I mean, this hauteur is nice and all, but typically people pay for things that they want to see continue existing. When you aren't paying in money, the only rec

I mean, this hauteur is nice and all, but typically people pay for things that they want to see continue existing. When you aren't paying in money, the only recourse is to pay with your attention. Refusing to do either is just social abrogation. I pay for YouTube Premium because I won't sit through ads but I want creators to get paid (and apparently at a better rate than without it). I also use SponsorBlock, by the time I've watched a channel's back catalog I've often already signed up for their Patreon. I can't practically do so for every channel, so making sure they get their impression money is minimally just.

Gormo 4y ago
And yet broadcast TV has existed for decades, supported entirely by ads, with no tracking or spyware involved, and with nothing restricting our ability to fast-forward through commercials.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
> typically people pay for things that they want to see continue existing That makes things even easier. I don't really want surveillance capitalism corporations like Google to keep existing. Therefore I won't pay them for anything, not even with my attention. "Minimally just" has nothing to do with it. Any data they have on me, they took despite my best efforts to deny them. If creators can't make it work without exposing me to this evil, that's OK too. It was never meant to be. > signed up for their Patreon Yeah, I think this is the way to go for creators. They get paid before they create for the act of creating. This is the only thing that makes sense in the 21st century. Outdated stuff like ads and copyright needs to go, if they refuse we'll force them out with amazing world changing technology like uBlock Origin, Sponsor Block, Ad Nauseam and the almighty ability to copy that every computer inherently possesses.
- thefreeman 4y ago
  >> it can be configured to skip things that are not simply sponsor spots, stuff like filler, intro and and cards, begging for subscriptions, and so forth > Amazing! I didn't know that. Now I'm starting to wonder why I ever tolerated this noise in the first place... This you?
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    Yes. Is there a problem?
- dtjb 4y ago
  Isn't the recourse then to ignore the product? Not take their stuff on your own terms just because you really want it?
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    No. This is just adversarial interoperability. Ignoring their silly "our way or the highway, take it or leave it" deals is what user freedom is all about. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interoperability https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interopera...
    - dtjb 4y ago
      The article defines the term but it does a poor job justifying it in the context of this discussion. Sure, it can be a tool to weaken large companies which is a good thing I guess, but it doesn't address the fundamental idea that we have always traded value for value. If we don't like the trade, we don't make it.
      - matheusmoreira 4y ago
        There is no "trade" here. I make an HTTP request, their servers send a reply with free data. If they don't want to serve me, all they need to do is return 402 Payment Required. It's not like I'm hacking into their servers and exfiltrating data against their will.
        eropple 4y ago
        This is pretty silly. You aren't Fighting The Man by not receiving ads paying for the stuff you consume. Google is The Man and they'll be fine. But they don't pay creators for videos viewed via adblock, and I sure hope you're putting money in the till for them.
RunSet 4y ago
https://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/10/why-its-ok-to-block-ads/ https://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/10/why-its-ok-to-...
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  I agree with this article but I think it's actually a lot simpler than that. Our attention belongs to us. Our minds are sacred. Not a single corporation on this earth should have an assumed right to "compete" for our attention or otherwise exploit it for personal gain. Our attention is not theirs. They have no right to sell it off to the highest bidder. There really does not need to be any justification beyond this. Economic harm? It doesn't matter how much money they lose. When some advertising corporation calls ad blockers "robbery" I can only laugh. I call their advertising robbery. They rob us of our attention. They mind rape us, inserting their little brands into our awareness without our consent. I think they belong in jail for this stuff. Blockers are just legitimate self defense, we're just protecting ourselves against these malicious corporations trying to manipulate us with their advertising for profit.

Gormo 4y ago

And yet broadcast TV has existed for decades, supported entirely by ads, with no tracking or spyware involved, and with nothing restricting our ability to fast-forward through commercials.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

> typically people pay for things that they want to see continue existing That makes things even easier. I don't really want surveillance capitalism corporations like Google to keep existing. Therefore I won't pay them for anything, not even with my attention. "Minimally just" has nothing to do with it. Any data they have on me, they took despite my best efforts to deny them. If creators can't make it work without exposing me to this evil, that's OK too. It was never meant to be. > signed up for their Patreon Yeah, I think this is the way to go for creators. They get paid before they create for the act of creating. This is the only thing that makes sense in the 21st century. Outdated stuff like ads and copyright needs to go, if they refuse we'll force them out with amazing world changing technology like uBlock Origin, Sponsor Block, Ad Nauseam and the almighty ability to copy that every computer inherently possesses.

thefreeman 4y ago
>> it can be configured to skip things that are not simply sponsor spots, stuff like filler, intro and and cards, begging for subscriptions, and so forth > Amazing! I didn't know that. Now I'm starting to wonder why I ever tolerated this noise in the first place... This you?
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  Yes. Is there a problem?
dtjb 4y ago
Isn't the recourse then to ignore the product? Not take their stuff on your own terms just because you really want it?
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  No. This is just adversarial interoperability. Ignoring their silly "our way or the highway, take it or leave it" deals is what user freedom is all about. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interoperability https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interopera...
  - dtjb 4y ago
    The article defines the term but it does a poor job justifying it in the context of this discussion. Sure, it can be a tool to weaken large companies which is a good thing I guess, but it doesn't address the fundamental idea that we have always traded value for value. If we don't like the trade, we don't make it.
    - matheusmoreira 4y ago
      There is no "trade" here. I make an HTTP request, their servers send a reply with free data. If they don't want to serve me, all they need to do is return 402 Payment Required. It's not like I'm hacking into their servers and exfiltrating data against their will.
      - eropple 4y ago
        This is pretty silly. You aren't Fighting The Man by not receiving ads paying for the stuff you consume. Google is The Man and they'll be fine. But they don't pay creators for videos viewed via adblock, and I sure hope you're putting money in the till for them.

RunSet 4y ago

https://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/10/why-its-ok-to-block-ads/ https://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/10/why-its-ok-to-...

matheusmoreira 4y ago
I agree with this article but I think it's actually a lot simpler than that. Our attention belongs to us. Our minds are sacred. Not a single corporation on this earth should have an assumed right to "compete" for our attention or otherwise exploit it for personal gain. Our attention is not theirs. They have no right to sell it off to the highest bidder. There really does not need to be any justification beyond this. Economic harm? It doesn't matter how much money they lose. When some advertising corporation calls ad blockers "robbery" I can only laugh. I call their advertising robbery. They rob us of our attention. They mind rape us, inserting their little brands into our awareness without our consent. I think they belong in jail for this stuff. Blockers are just legitimate self defense, we're just protecting ourselves against these malicious corporations trying to manipulate us with their advertising for profit.