4 ms·

By this logic, buying e-books from Amazon is the worst value I can think of, because I can get them effortlessly from libgen and other "sources", and a single b

By this logic, buying e-books from Amazon is the worst value I can think of, because I can get them effortlessly from libgen and other "sources", and a single book can cost as much as the whole year of YouTube premium.

iLoveOncall 4y ago
You are comparing something perfectly legal with something absolutely illegal, this makes no sense.
- raincole 4y ago
  Except ad-blocker is literally just stealing bandwidth. Just because it's legal (under the current law), it doesn't mean it's morally right. Why should Youtube or any hosting service serves a user when they refuses to view the ads? YouTube is not a public service.
  - SantalBlush 4y ago
    It is morally right, not because it is legal, but because I was never asked to make a market transaction for the content. By your reasoning, it would be theft to close your eyes during a TV commercial. I completely reject your line of reasoning.
  - iLoveOncall 4y ago
    Ah! Well guess what? Showing me ads that I did not request is stealing MY bandwidth. And much worse than that, it's stealing my time.
    - raincole 4y ago
      Yes, this is why YouTube should just refuse to serve you and other adblocker users. This way it can no longer steal your time, and it's the only fair solution.
RobotToaster 4y ago
Considering Amazon can literally just erase e-books that you supposedly "own", like they literally did with 1984[0], very much yes. [0] https://gizmodo.com/amazon-secretly-removes-1984-from-the-kindle-5317703 https://gizmodo.com/amazon-secretly-removes-1984-from-the-ki...
- raincole 4y ago
  If you truly believe this (which I don't agree with), at least you're consistent. But I feel "adblock good, piracy bad" is a double standard that many people hold. Practically, I think adblocker is even slightly worse than piracy. At least when you download a cracked game via a torrent, you don't cost Steam any money.
reportgunner 4y ago
But it is.

iLoveOncall 4y ago

You are comparing something perfectly legal with something absolutely illegal, this makes no sense.

raincole 4y ago
Except ad-blocker is literally just stealing bandwidth. Just because it's legal (under the current law), it doesn't mean it's morally right. Why should Youtube or any hosting service serves a user when they refuses to view the ads? YouTube is not a public service.
- SantalBlush 4y ago
  It is morally right, not because it is legal, but because I was never asked to make a market transaction for the content. By your reasoning, it would be theft to close your eyes during a TV commercial. I completely reject your line of reasoning.
- iLoveOncall 4y ago
  Ah! Well guess what? Showing me ads that I did not request is stealing MY bandwidth. And much worse than that, it's stealing my time.
  - raincole 4y ago
    Yes, this is why YouTube should just refuse to serve you and other adblocker users. This way it can no longer steal your time, and it's the only fair solution.

RobotToaster 4y ago

Considering Amazon can literally just erase e-books that you supposedly "own", like they literally did with 1984[0], very much yes. [0] https://gizmodo.com/amazon-secretly-removes-1984-from-the-kindle-5317703 https://gizmodo.com/amazon-secretly-removes-1984-from-the-ki...

raincole 4y ago
If you truly believe this (which I don't agree with), at least you're consistent. But I feel "adblock good, piracy bad" is a double standard that many people hold. Practically, I think adblocker is even slightly worse than piracy. At least when you download a cracked game via a torrent, you don't cost Steam any money.

reportgunner 4y ago

But it is.