8 ms·

No that's what you get when you're the product by being a free user. Paid service relationship works just fine for me - Google isn't ideal but YouTube is one of

No that's what you get when you're the product by being a free user. Paid service relationship works just fine for me - Google isn't ideal but YouTube is one of my main content sources + YouTube music for my family for slightly more than the price of Spotify family subscription - yeah it's an easy choice. Spotify suggestions and playlists weren't a seller feature for me for years. Maybe I'm missing out on a few podcasts.

ohgodplsno 3y ago
No, Google will keep fucking you over and destroying the Internet, whether you pay or not. Not to mention the fact that what they pay out to creators is absolutely pathetic. Go find their Patreon, their Ko-fi, hell their paypal, anything but giving Google 13 bucks. Adblocking Google is morally right.
- Shekelphile 3y ago
  > Adblocking Google is morally right. All ads should be blocked. I do not consume ads, and am not interested in paying a ransom to hide them.
  - ddalex 3y ago
    If you don't consume ads, please do not use any ad-supported service, that's the easiest thing to do.
    - Shekelphile 3y ago
      No.
    - ohgodplsno 3y ago
      No.
    - tnbp 3y ago
      lol no
    - kmbfjr 3y ago
      “Consume” ads? That is a quaint 1960’s take that is long dead. Ad companies have been tilting the agreement attention for content ever more in their favor in aggressive and privacy harming ways. They long ago broke any moral standing. The content creators need to seek a better deal, they’re getting screwed by Google too.
    - LocalH 3y ago
      I'd rather use their services and block their ads, if I'm honest. Ad supporters talk like blocking ads is literal theft, which is absolutely laughable. It's further away from theft than piracy, which is also in no way literal theft. If I'm watching traditional non-demand television, and I go to the bathroom or change the channel during an ad, am I stealing from the network or the show? Hell no, that's ridiculous.
      - ddalex 3y ago
        Theft? Of course it's theft, if I reduce to what is happening - you're using their services for free with no compensation. That is the definition of theft. I would agree with you it's ok if there was no way to _otherwise_ pay for the service. If they push a only ads-supported version, and I have no choice but see ads, and I don't consent to the impact of ads on my brain, it makes a case for blocking ads being ethically correct. But since there is a choice on how to pay, I find reasoning is no longer ethically right. You can choice to pay with your attention and brain, or to pay with hard cold cash, so the argument of ads being shoved down your brain no longer holds. You can choose to not see ads and pay for the service, and you chose to steal. And you can make the argument that stealing is ok since you steal from the bad guys, but then you don't get to complain when others may steal from you - we're all "the bad guy" for somebody else
        ohgodplsno 3y ago
        No. Theft would mean they no longer have the service once I've taken it. Me taking a copy of Shrek 2 at the local store and not paying for it is theft: the store can no longer benefit from Shrek 2. Google can re-send the exact same bytes to someone else. All I've costed them is what it costs to send those bytes over. But then, would you consider going into a store, loitering for two hours, taking the sellers attention (therefore, costing them time that they cannot use to sell things to other customers) then leaving without buying anything theft ? Most reasonable people would say no. We'd all agree it's a dick move, but since corporations are not people, it doesn't matter.
        ddalex 3y ago
  - kibwen 3y ago
    Hear hear. I'm beyond tired of all these self-proclaimed hackers with their lips so far up Google's ass that they can taste what Sundar had for breakfast. The ad industry is a scourge on humanity, and its gormless defenders are willing accomplices.
- ddalex 3y ago
  Wouldn't be not using Google at all the morally right choice ?
  - ohgodplsno 3y ago
    It would be, if Google didn't have a chokehold on most of the internet. Sure, Nebula exists, I can watch three creators there, woohoo. Let me go on Dailymotion too for those sweet 2005 videos. Google did everything in their power to force themselves into every aspect of our lives and leaving no alternatives, or destroying them, or buying them. Now they get to deal with the consequences
  - kibwen 3y ago
    The morally right choice would be for the government to use antitrust regulation to break Google up into ten companies, and yet here we are.
- moonchrome 3y ago
  Stop using Google if you want to promote alternatives. Otherwise you're just rationalising freeloader behaviour.
  - ohgodplsno 3y ago
    Oh no, don't get me wrong, I'm not _rationalising_ freeloader behaviour. I'm saying Google _deserves_ to have freeloaders milking them for every bit they can. So does Meta, Microsoft, Apple, Netflix, Amazon...
    - montroser 3y ago
      And it's just a convenient consequence of doing the "morally right" thing, that you happen to get your content for free? And content creators be damned?
      - ohgodplsno 3y ago
        No, I just happened to always have it for free. They are the ones that decided that it was a good deal in exchange for tracking me throughout the internet, stalking me. They are the ones that decided to make my watching experience miserable by putting unskippable ads. They are the ones that decided to make the videos I watch crap, because if they're not 10 minutes long with a perfectly engineered cover image, they won't pay out the creators and they won't show their content. They are the ones allowing literal hour-long ads. They are the ones that decided to make my home page """algorithmic""", which is really "oh you watched a video game ? Others like <literal nazi>, you should watch it". They are the ones hiding, destroying, trying to piss me off by removing features one by one and putting them into Youtube Premium. Play in background ? High quality videos ? Not stopping autoplay every 30 minutes to ask me if I'm still here ? Picture-in-picture ? Adding to queue ? These are all features that they proudly displayed in blog posts saying how awesome they are, and that it'll always be free. Now, they blast me with popups telling me to get Youtube Premium. One per person in my household by the way, account sharing is bad and they must extract as much money as possible. The content creators I support get their money on Patreon or whatever fundraising platforms they use. Same things for my favorite journals. The others ? Well, I don't care enough about them to think that I would pay for them. Maybe others will. And if they don't, well, they'll stop.

ohgodplsno 3y ago

No, Google will keep fucking you over and destroying the Internet, whether you pay or not. Not to mention the fact that what they pay out to creators is absolutely pathetic. Go find their Patreon, their Ko-fi, hell their paypal, anything but giving Google 13 bucks. Adblocking Google is morally right.

Shekelphile 3y ago
> Adblocking Google is morally right. All ads should be blocked. I do not consume ads, and am not interested in paying a ransom to hide them.
- ddalex 3y ago
  If you don't consume ads, please do not use any ad-supported service, that's the easiest thing to do.
  - Shekelphile 3y ago
    No.
  - ohgodplsno 3y ago
    No.
  - tnbp 3y ago
    lol no
  - kmbfjr 3y ago
    “Consume” ads? That is a quaint 1960’s take that is long dead. Ad companies have been tilting the agreement attention for content ever more in their favor in aggressive and privacy harming ways. They long ago broke any moral standing. The content creators need to seek a better deal, they’re getting screwed by Google too.
  - LocalH 3y ago
    I'd rather use their services and block their ads, if I'm honest. Ad supporters talk like blocking ads is literal theft, which is absolutely laughable. It's further away from theft than piracy, which is also in no way literal theft. If I'm watching traditional non-demand television, and I go to the bathroom or change the channel during an ad, am I stealing from the network or the show? Hell no, that's ridiculous.
    - ddalex 3y ago
      Theft? Of course it's theft, if I reduce to what is happening - you're using their services for free with no compensation. That is the definition of theft. I would agree with you it's ok if there was no way to _otherwise_ pay for the service. If they push a only ads-supported version, and I have no choice but see ads, and I don't consent to the impact of ads on my brain, it makes a case for blocking ads being ethically correct. But since there is a choice on how to pay, I find reasoning is no longer ethically right. You can choice to pay with your attention and brain, or to pay with hard cold cash, so the argument of ads being shoved down your brain no longer holds. You can choose to not see ads and pay for the service, and you chose to steal. And you can make the argument that stealing is ok since you steal from the bad guys, but then you don't get to complain when others may steal from you - we're all "the bad guy" for somebody else
      - ohgodplsno 3y ago
        No. Theft would mean they no longer have the service once I've taken it. Me taking a copy of Shrek 2 at the local store and not paying for it is theft: the store can no longer benefit from Shrek 2. Google can re-send the exact same bytes to someone else. All I've costed them is what it costs to send those bytes over. But then, would you consider going into a store, loitering for two hours, taking the sellers attention (therefore, costing them time that they cannot use to sell things to other customers) then leaving without buying anything theft ? Most reasonable people would say no. We'd all agree it's a dick move, but since corporations are not people, it doesn't matter.
        ddalex 3y ago
- kibwen 3y ago
  Hear hear. I'm beyond tired of all these self-proclaimed hackers with their lips so far up Google's ass that they can taste what Sundar had for breakfast. The ad industry is a scourge on humanity, and its gormless defenders are willing accomplices.
ddalex 3y ago
Wouldn't be not using Google at all the morally right choice ?
- ohgodplsno 3y ago
  It would be, if Google didn't have a chokehold on most of the internet. Sure, Nebula exists, I can watch three creators there, woohoo. Let me go on Dailymotion too for those sweet 2005 videos. Google did everything in their power to force themselves into every aspect of our lives and leaving no alternatives, or destroying them, or buying them. Now they get to deal with the consequences
- kibwen 3y ago
  The morally right choice would be for the government to use antitrust regulation to break Google up into ten companies, and yet here we are.
moonchrome 3y ago
Stop using Google if you want to promote alternatives. Otherwise you're just rationalising freeloader behaviour.
- ohgodplsno 3y ago
  Oh no, don't get me wrong, I'm not _rationalising_ freeloader behaviour. I'm saying Google _deserves_ to have freeloaders milking them for every bit they can. So does Meta, Microsoft, Apple, Netflix, Amazon...
  - montroser 3y ago
    And it's just a convenient consequence of doing the "morally right" thing, that you happen to get your content for free? And content creators be damned?
    - ohgodplsno 3y ago
      No, I just happened to always have it for free. They are the ones that decided that it was a good deal in exchange for tracking me throughout the internet, stalking me. They are the ones that decided to make my watching experience miserable by putting unskippable ads. They are the ones that decided to make the videos I watch crap, because if they're not 10 minutes long with a perfectly engineered cover image, they won't pay out the creators and they won't show their content. They are the ones allowing literal hour-long ads. They are the ones that decided to make my home page """algorithmic""", which is really "oh you watched a video game ? Others like <literal nazi>, you should watch it". They are the ones hiding, destroying, trying to piss me off by removing features one by one and putting them into Youtube Premium. Play in background ? High quality videos ? Not stopping autoplay every 30 minutes to ask me if I'm still here ? Picture-in-picture ? Adding to queue ? These are all features that they proudly displayed in blog posts saying how awesome they are, and that it'll always be free. Now, they blast me with popups telling me to get Youtube Premium. One per person in my household by the way, account sharing is bad and they must extract as much money as possible. The content creators I support get their money on Patreon or whatever fundraising platforms they use. Same things for my favorite journals. The others ? Well, I don't care enough about them to think that I would pay for them. Maybe others will. And if they don't, well, they'll stop.