4 ms·

Except we paid for other streamers for an ad-free experience – until they started inserting ads again. Do we believe that Google of all companies won't pull a s

by 23B1 3y ago

Except we paid for other streamers for an ad-free experience – until they started inserting ads again. Do we believe that Google of all companies won't pull a switcheroo in a few years? Not on my dime.

deltree7 3y ago
[flagged]
- hatethissite42 3y ago
  it might work for you, but most people don't win from pretending that not watching ads is 'stealing' and are not going to go along with it lol
- ekianjo 3y ago
  illegally? is Google going to take us to court by blocking the ads? please mind the use of the word
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- 23B1 3y ago
  If it is wisdom you seek, you're gonna have to close your laptop my friend!
- josephcsible 3y ago
  Why is it unethical to do things just because a megacorp wrote a one-sided "agreement" not to?
  - deltree7 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - acdha 3y ago
    If you wanted a contract, they'd honor it for the term of the contract but you'd have to pay for that up front but statistically nobody online likes to pay for content so the ad-funded model is pervasive. The ethical choices are either to accept the service as offered or watch something which is offered under terms you find more acceptable.
    - jamilton 3y ago
      Why are those the only ethical choices? What ethical framework are you assuming?
      - acdha 3y ago
        Because there are two parties involved and those are the options which have mutual agreement.
- bigbob2 3y ago
  > Illegally circumventing the Terms of Service is unethical/stealing. That seems like a difficult argument to make because laws don't always align with ethics. Given the myriad of replies around this topic, it seems like opinions on the ethics of violating the ToS are mixed. It gets even more complicated when you consider that very few people have the time/skills to read/interpret such a complex and lengthy ToS. At what point is a company not morally complicit for taking advantage of the layman's inability to understand such a legal document? It doesn't help that the UI/UX seems to deliberately provide incentive for users to blindly accept.
- alwayslikethis 3y ago
  > No one is forcing you to use YouTube. Doubt it. Ever been required to watch a video for a class? There are limits to terms of service. Where does it end? Is it unethical to mute and switch to another tab to wait out the ad? How about simply looking away? Regardless of what the terms of service says I have the ultimate control of what I decide to take in. Adblocking is a way to assert that right to selectively let in stuff into my sphere of perception.
crop_rotation 3y ago
By this kind of hypothetical assumption, you shouldn't pay for anything, as the other party might change the terms in future, or in your parlance, "pull a switcheroo"
- 23B1 3y ago
  Yes, exactly. Brand loyalty is a thing.
  - deltree7 3y ago
    [flagged]
HDThoreaun 3y ago
youtube premium isn't a contract that punishes cancelling. If you don't like the service stop subscribing.

by 23B1 3y ago

deltree7 3y ago

[flagged]

hatethissite42 3y ago
it might work for you, but most people don't win from pretending that not watching ads is 'stealing' and are not going to go along with it lol
ekianjo 3y ago
illegally? is Google going to take us to court by blocking the ads? please mind the use of the word
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
23B1 3y ago
If it is wisdom you seek, you're gonna have to close your laptop my friend!
josephcsible 3y ago
Why is it unethical to do things just because a megacorp wrote a one-sided "agreement" not to?
- deltree7 3y ago
  [flagged]
- acdha 3y ago
  If you wanted a contract, they'd honor it for the term of the contract but you'd have to pay for that up front but statistically nobody online likes to pay for content so the ad-funded model is pervasive. The ethical choices are either to accept the service as offered or watch something which is offered under terms you find more acceptable.
  - jamilton 3y ago
    Why are those the only ethical choices? What ethical framework are you assuming?
    - acdha 3y ago
      Because there are two parties involved and those are the options which have mutual agreement.
bigbob2 3y ago
> Illegally circumventing the Terms of Service is unethical/stealing. That seems like a difficult argument to make because laws don't always align with ethics. Given the myriad of replies around this topic, it seems like opinions on the ethics of violating the ToS are mixed. It gets even more complicated when you consider that very few people have the time/skills to read/interpret such a complex and lengthy ToS. At what point is a company not morally complicit for taking advantage of the layman's inability to understand such a legal document? It doesn't help that the UI/UX seems to deliberately provide incentive for users to blindly accept.
alwayslikethis 3y ago
> No one is forcing you to use YouTube. Doubt it. Ever been required to watch a video for a class? There are limits to terms of service. Where does it end? Is it unethical to mute and switch to another tab to wait out the ad? How about simply looking away? Regardless of what the terms of service says I have the ultimate control of what I decide to take in. Adblocking is a way to assert that right to selectively let in stuff into my sphere of perception.

crop_rotation 3y ago

By this kind of hypothetical assumption, you shouldn't pay for anything, as the other party might change the terms in future, or in your parlance, "pull a switcheroo"

23B1 3y ago
Yes, exactly. Brand loyalty is a thing.
- deltree7 3y ago
  [flagged]

HDThoreaun 3y ago

youtube premium isn't a contract that punishes cancelling. If you don't like the service stop subscribing.