9 ms·

Technically, morally or practically? Technically nothing. Morally, you are depriving the content creators and Youtube of revenue (if they rely on Youtube ads)

Technically, morally or practically? Technically nothing. Morally, you are depriving the content creators and Youtube of revenue (if they rely on Youtube ads). You could argue that they aren't somehow fundamentally entitled to make money, but you are also not fundamentally entitled to consume their content. The content creator had to do work to produce the content and YT has to do work to provide a platform where it can be disseminated. Naturally, they want to be paid for doing this work. We can argue about how much they should be paid, but again nobody is forced to watch YT. It's a voluntary transaction. If you don't like ads, buy a YT subscription. If you don't want to support YT, encourage your content creators to provide their content elsewhere. Practically, some companies have been historically willing to shut one or both eyes over open source/free projects as a gesture of goodwill (or marketing exercise). The moment money is involved, the lawyers tend to be unleashed and the whole "this is just a free hobby project with no monetary incentives for the developers" goes out the window.

2Gkashmiri 3y ago
> You could argue that they aren't somehow fundamentally entitled to make money, but you are also not fundamentally entitled to consume their content i don't know. take radio for example. The advertiser has paid real money to the voice actors, scripts, etc, and the radio company for hosting their content and for propagation, this is real cost. so what happens if you turn off your radio and don't hear the radio commercial? are you obligated to listen to adverts on a radio? what happens if you make a manual hardware sponsorblock? can the advertiser sue a manufacturer of this manual hardware sponsorblock machine that is an addon to radio? the original selling point of the hardware machine would be to block explicit songs and adblocking would be an added benefit. could radio companies sue radio makers or this hardware machine maker for selling this addon? knowing full well that this maker is earning money. >but you are also not fundamentally entitled to consume their content here is an alternative answer argument. when you publish on a public website, you give away this "right to prevent consumption". youtube is a public website meaning anyone without login can access content so youtube and content creator and advertisers are forfeiting their right to demand remuneration. the alternative? well look at netflix. It is a paywalled service where only paid users access the content. There isn't much of adblocking on netflix or tracking protection and other stuff. What i am trying to say is, only netflix by their nature of a paywalled gateway can expect this "no payment, no content" rule because they have put technical roadblocks. if tomorrow netflix goes open, they will be treated like youtube.
prmoustache 3y ago
> If you don't like ads, buy a YT subscription. Why? They can block non premium users if they don't want non paying visitors to view the content. And I am free to switch virtual desktop, browser tab, mute it or turn my head away and put earplugs when they want to show an AD. This is just the same, but made with software.
- acdha 3y ago
  Just be honest and say you think you should be able to enjoy those artists’ work without paying. You know how this works: they get paid either from your premium subscription or when ads play. There isn’t a third option where you can watch their work and they get paid.
  - Timshel 3y ago
    Direct donation ?
    - acdha 3y ago
      That’s called YouTube premium. If you don’t like their business practices, I’d also try to buy directly from the artists or see if they have something like Patreon.
      - Timshel 3y ago
        > There isn’t a third option where you can watch their work and they get paid. That's the point there are other ways ...
        acdha 3y ago
        Not legally. That’s the entire point here: you can use YouTube’s content without following your part of the deal but you don’t have any right to complain when they start blocking that. Nobody is saying you have to like them, only that you don’t have a right to use private property without the consent of the owner.
janoc 3y ago
The problem with that argument is that that ship has long sailed. Today it is next to impossible to securely use the internet without having an adblocker installed and enabled (or using something like Freetube, which is essentially a specialized ad blocking browser), otherwise you are exposing yourself to drive-by malware installs. Ads were and are a major vector here, including Google ones, given their market size. Heck, even FBI recommends it for exactly these reasons! So if someone is arguing that I have to make my computer less secure only to make sure they can monetize my eyeballs, that's a no, full stop. I would happily pay and support the artists or creators (and I do so) - but not by removing adblock and opening myself to an indiscriminate onslaught of insecure and poorly made ads. And lets not delude ourselves with these moral arguments here - this isn't and never was about funding the creators of that content. Most Youtube video creators don't see a dime for their work from Google - and yet Youtube wouldn't exist without them and Google directly profits from that work. The choice of business model - provide free video supported by advertising - was also Google's. Nobody forced them into it and they are free to make YT subscription-only. However, if YT was a paid service from the start, they wouldn't be anywhere near where they are today. And don't get me started on the evolution of ads on YT - I have no issues with watching an ad or two per video. But these days you have unskippable pre-roll ads, you have (often multiple) mid-roll ads, you have ads at the end of the video and all that in addition to whatever sponsor promotion is directly in the video itself (and which actually pays the video creator). So out of a 10 minutes long video there is often ~6 minutes of just ads. No,thank you.
- Mindwipe 3y ago
  > Today it is next to impossible to securely use the internet without having an adblocker installed and enabled (or using something like Freetube, which is essentially a specialized ad blocking browser), otherwise you are exposing yourself to drive-by malware installs. This is incredibly overstated. I don't run an ad blocker. I consider it immoral. It's fine.
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    > This is incredibly overstated. How do you figure that? It's been less than a month since simply loading a .webp image could result in arbitrary code execution in your browser. Does it happen often? No, but it only needs to happen once to get screwed.
pydry 3y ago
As I understand it most content creators rely more on revenue from patreon, sponsorships and being on content owner controlled platforms like nebula. If you want, primarily, to contribute to the "free sushi restaurant" fund for google employees and financially support your friendly abusive global monpolist for purely moral reasons though by all means turn off that ad blocker...
- izacus 3y ago
  > As I understand it most content creators rely more on revenue from patreon, sponsorships and being on content owner controlled platforms like nebula. They really don't (which is demonetization hurts them every time YouTube does it). And they don't actually pay YouTube for infrastructure costs via Patreon either. And as many competitors to YouTube (one I worked for myself) found out, carrying video is very expensive.
  - pydry 3y ago
    If you're very very popular you can live off ads. Theyre the ones who can negotiate bigger cuts. Otherwise no. A lot of the content creators I watch are demonetized but google still runs ads. I try to support them directly - morally speaking I think it's the right thing to do to stand up against both hard and soft censorship. If you're in the mood to donate to Google's profit margins feel free though. They do have an expensive lawsuit to fight against accusations of being an abusive monopolist and I'm sure they could use your cash to help out.
amelius 3y ago
There is nothing moral about how the market works. You only get as much money as your business model allows you to get. Someone invents a great mathematical identity, but oops, there is no business model, so no money. Also, if there was a way to unwatch content and get your money back, I bet most people would use it. But this doesn't exist and content makers greedily exploit this fact.
anothernewdude 3y ago
> Morally, you are depriving the content creators and Youtube of revenue No, Youtube deprive the content creators. Like all publishers they give back only a fraction of what the content is worth by abusing their monopoly.
- adra 3y ago
  You know that YouTube is actually one of the few major platforms that are actually not fcking their content creators dry? They have kept their 50/50 split while other platforms have hacked away at percentages to keep more for themselves. At least with YouTube's case, they actually allow effectively anyone to upload mostly unlimited non-infringing content to their platform without the expectation of a single ad view. You may call them stealing from artists by not giving 100% back to their creators, but a notable chunk of the money collected really does go to keep the lights on for the entire product. It isn't just rent seeking. Complain about the splits, sure let's have a conversation. Complain about YouTube stealing money from artists, I'd say you don't have a leg to debate here.
e2le 3y ago
I feel this is setting up a false dichotomy, either you believe creators have a right to monetize views and thus watch the ads, or you don't. It's possible for an individual to believe in the right of a creator to monetize their own work but have other reasons (overly aggressive, quality, scams, fraud, and malware) for choosing not to consume the advertisements. I suspect that if it weren't for the steep decline in the quality of advertisements or their overly aggressive nature, many users of content blockers would have never being pushed to seek out a solution that grants them reprieve from the punishing barrage.
- izacus 3y ago
  No, you're setting up a false dichotomy. YouTube asks you to pay for Premium subscription if you don't want to watch ads. You're bloviating about some kind of moral highground where all you really want is to avoid paying those 15$ the service asks you to pay to use it.
  - Timshel 3y ago
    It'not like Youtube premium stop the tracking ... And it would mean linking to identifying informations. As opposed to using YT without any account or multiple ones, linked to a minimum of information, if you want to curate your recommandations.
    - izacus 3y ago
      I bet a lot that you'd refuse to pay for some other trumped up highground reason if Premium would prove that they stop tracking. You all just want to get shit for free.
      - Timshel 3y ago
        Don't know on the trumped up, but absolutely I will never trust any promise made by Youtube as long as it's a Google Entity. As for just wanting things for free, well I'm paying a Nebula subscription so ...
- 3y ago
Timshel 3y ago
Morally I prefer to support creators outside of the Google ecosystem. With youtube premium it's not like they stop tracking then selling what you do, you just gave them even more information with your paiement details ... The tracking/advertising industry is a cancer, yes it allows some free content and remuneration but at the same times it kills competition from less established actors. Those actors can't just burn money to keep you there while they resell all they can on their own ad network. So yes I'll block it and if it makes Youtube lose money then they will need to change their model and make it more hostile to users. Which can only help external platform such as Nebula and others grow. And if those platform grows then creators might be able to leave Youtube.
BLKNSLVR 3y ago
I put a lot of effort into maintaining my network and various devices so that content that I don't want is kept on the outside of the boundary that I can control. I have thusly earned the nice, palatable clean feeds of public internet.
drexlspivey 3y ago
> Morally, you are depriving the content creators and Youtube of revenue (if they rely on Youtube ads) In my 20+ years on the internet I have never clicked on an ad. I might have been made aware of a product that I went and purchased later when I actually needed it but never at the moment I saw the ad, meaning no affiliate revenue for the platform/creator. Am I allowed to block ads then, since there is a 100% guarantee that you won’t be getting any money from me? (I pay for YT premium so it doesn’t directly apply to me but the point still stands)
- acdha 3y ago
  Ads are also billed by impression, so you’re still removing revenue from the people who made the videos you watch. More importantly, however, this is like going into a restaurant and saying that you should be able to order only a side dish while eating food that you brought with. You might have a good reason for wanting to do that but that doesn’t somehow create a right to use someone else’s private property in violation of their wishes.
  - someone7x 3y ago
    Must I buy the product at Costco after I’ve tasted the sample or am I just a freeloader? Am I morally obliged to acknowledge the sponsors for everything I personally don’t purchase? To whom do I owe patronage when I accept something gratis?
    - acdha 3y ago
      > Must I buy the product at Costco after I’ve tasted the sample or am I just a freeloader? No, because the owner of that property has set terms allowing that. Try to eat a dozen samples, though, and they’ll probably ask you to leave. This isn’t actually a complicated concept: their property, their rules. If you don’t like YouTube, that’s totally reasonable – I don’t – but no amount of sophistry will create a right for you to use their private property on your terms. Just go somewhere else: there are tons of creators who’d love a better deal than Google/Facebook offer them but that’s never going to happen as long as people insist on paying them through YouTube.
izzydata 3y ago
>If you don't like ads, buy a YT subscription I won't buy a YouTube subscription precisely because I don't like ads. Buying a YouTube subscription is directly in support of ads. If you give Google money for a YouTube subscription you have just let Google know that ads are a great way for them to make money. They are now incentivized to implement more ads in the future. Paying to remove ads only causes more ads in the world.

2Gkashmiri 3y ago

> You could argue that they aren't somehow fundamentally entitled to make money, but you are also not fundamentally entitled to consume their content i don't know. take radio for example. The advertiser has paid real money to the voice actors, scripts, etc, and the radio company for hosting their content and for propagation, this is real cost. so what happens if you turn off your radio and don't hear the radio commercial? are you obligated to listen to adverts on a radio? what happens if you make a manual hardware sponsorblock? can the advertiser sue a manufacturer of this manual hardware sponsorblock machine that is an addon to radio? the original selling point of the hardware machine would be to block explicit songs and adblocking would be an added benefit. could radio companies sue radio makers or this hardware machine maker for selling this addon? knowing full well that this maker is earning money. >but you are also not fundamentally entitled to consume their content here is an alternative answer argument. when you publish on a public website, you give away this "right to prevent consumption". youtube is a public website meaning anyone without login can access content so youtube and content creator and advertisers are forfeiting their right to demand remuneration. the alternative? well look at netflix. It is a paywalled service where only paid users access the content. There isn't much of adblocking on netflix or tracking protection and other stuff. What i am trying to say is, only netflix by their nature of a paywalled gateway can expect this "no payment, no content" rule because they have put technical roadblocks. if tomorrow netflix goes open, they will be treated like youtube.

prmoustache 3y ago

> If you don't like ads, buy a YT subscription. Why? They can block non premium users if they don't want non paying visitors to view the content. And I am free to switch virtual desktop, browser tab, mute it or turn my head away and put earplugs when they want to show an AD. This is just the same, but made with software.

acdha 3y ago
Just be honest and say you think you should be able to enjoy those artists’ work without paying. You know how this works: they get paid either from your premium subscription or when ads play. There isn’t a third option where you can watch their work and they get paid.
- Timshel 3y ago
  Direct donation ?
  - acdha 3y ago
    That’s called YouTube premium. If you don’t like their business practices, I’d also try to buy directly from the artists or see if they have something like Patreon.
    - Timshel 3y ago
      > There isn’t a third option where you can watch their work and they get paid. That's the point there are other ways ...
      - acdha 3y ago
        Not legally. That’s the entire point here: you can use YouTube’s content without following your part of the deal but you don’t have any right to complain when they start blocking that. Nobody is saying you have to like them, only that you don’t have a right to use private property without the consent of the owner.

janoc 3y ago

The problem with that argument is that that ship has long sailed. Today it is next to impossible to securely use the internet without having an adblocker installed and enabled (or using something like Freetube, which is essentially a specialized ad blocking browser), otherwise you are exposing yourself to drive-by malware installs. Ads were and are a major vector here, including Google ones, given their market size. Heck, even FBI recommends it for exactly these reasons! So if someone is arguing that I have to make my computer less secure only to make sure they can monetize my eyeballs, that's a no, full stop. I would happily pay and support the artists or creators (and I do so) - but not by removing adblock and opening myself to an indiscriminate onslaught of insecure and poorly made ads. And lets not delude ourselves with these moral arguments here - this isn't and never was about funding the creators of that content. Most Youtube video creators don't see a dime for their work from Google - and yet Youtube wouldn't exist without them and Google directly profits from that work. The choice of business model - provide free video supported by advertising - was also Google's. Nobody forced them into it and they are free to make YT subscription-only. However, if YT was a paid service from the start, they wouldn't be anywhere near where they are today. And don't get me started on the evolution of ads on YT - I have no issues with watching an ad or two per video. But these days you have unskippable pre-roll ads, you have (often multiple) mid-roll ads, you have ads at the end of the video and all that in addition to whatever sponsor promotion is directly in the video itself (and which actually pays the video creator). So out of a 10 minutes long video there is often ~6 minutes of just ads. No,thank you.

Mindwipe 3y ago
> Today it is next to impossible to securely use the internet without having an adblocker installed and enabled (or using something like Freetube, which is essentially a specialized ad blocking browser), otherwise you are exposing yourself to drive-by malware installs. This is incredibly overstated. I don't run an ad blocker. I consider it immoral. It's fine.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  > This is incredibly overstated. How do you figure that? It's been less than a month since simply loading a .webp image could result in arbitrary code execution in your browser. Does it happen often? No, but it only needs to happen once to get screwed.

pydry 3y ago

As I understand it most content creators rely more on revenue from patreon, sponsorships and being on content owner controlled platforms like nebula. If you want, primarily, to contribute to the "free sushi restaurant" fund for google employees and financially support your friendly abusive global monpolist for purely moral reasons though by all means turn off that ad blocker...

izacus 3y ago
> As I understand it most content creators rely more on revenue from patreon, sponsorships and being on content owner controlled platforms like nebula. They really don't (which is demonetization hurts them every time YouTube does it). And they don't actually pay YouTube for infrastructure costs via Patreon either. And as many competitors to YouTube (one I worked for myself) found out, carrying video is very expensive.
- pydry 3y ago
  If you're very very popular you can live off ads. Theyre the ones who can negotiate bigger cuts. Otherwise no. A lot of the content creators I watch are demonetized but google still runs ads. I try to support them directly - morally speaking I think it's the right thing to do to stand up against both hard and soft censorship. If you're in the mood to donate to Google's profit margins feel free though. They do have an expensive lawsuit to fight against accusations of being an abusive monopolist and I'm sure they could use your cash to help out.

amelius 3y ago

There is nothing moral about how the market works. You only get as much money as your business model allows you to get. Someone invents a great mathematical identity, but oops, there is no business model, so no money. Also, if there was a way to unwatch content and get your money back, I bet most people would use it. But this doesn't exist and content makers greedily exploit this fact.

anothernewdude 3y ago

> Morally, you are depriving the content creators and Youtube of revenue No, Youtube deprive the content creators. Like all publishers they give back only a fraction of what the content is worth by abusing their monopoly.

adra 3y ago
You know that YouTube is actually one of the few major platforms that are actually not fcking their content creators dry? They have kept their 50/50 split while other platforms have hacked away at percentages to keep more for themselves. At least with YouTube's case, they actually allow effectively anyone to upload mostly unlimited non-infringing content to their platform without the expectation of a single ad view. You may call them stealing from artists by not giving 100% back to their creators, but a notable chunk of the money collected really does go to keep the lights on for the entire product. It isn't just rent seeking. Complain about the splits, sure let's have a conversation. Complain about YouTube stealing money from artists, I'd say you don't have a leg to debate here.

e2le 3y ago

I feel this is setting up a false dichotomy, either you believe creators have a right to monetize views and thus watch the ads, or you don't. It's possible for an individual to believe in the right of a creator to monetize their own work but have other reasons (overly aggressive, quality, scams, fraud, and malware) for choosing not to consume the advertisements. I suspect that if it weren't for the steep decline in the quality of advertisements or their overly aggressive nature, many users of content blockers would have never being pushed to seek out a solution that grants them reprieve from the punishing barrage.

izacus 3y ago
No, you're setting up a false dichotomy. YouTube asks you to pay for Premium subscription if you don't want to watch ads. You're bloviating about some kind of moral highground where all you really want is to avoid paying those 15$ the service asks you to pay to use it.
- Timshel 3y ago
  It'not like Youtube premium stop the tracking ... And it would mean linking to identifying informations. As opposed to using YT without any account or multiple ones, linked to a minimum of information, if you want to curate your recommandations.
  - izacus 3y ago
    I bet a lot that you'd refuse to pay for some other trumped up highground reason if Premium would prove that they stop tracking. You all just want to get shit for free.
    - Timshel 3y ago
      Don't know on the trumped up, but absolutely I will never trust any promise made by Youtube as long as it's a Google Entity. As for just wanting things for free, well I'm paying a Nebula subscription so ...
3y ago

Timshel 3y ago

Morally I prefer to support creators outside of the Google ecosystem. With youtube premium it's not like they stop tracking then selling what you do, you just gave them even more information with your paiement details ... The tracking/advertising industry is a cancer, yes it allows some free content and remuneration but at the same times it kills competition from less established actors. Those actors can't just burn money to keep you there while they resell all they can on their own ad network. So yes I'll block it and if it makes Youtube lose money then they will need to change their model and make it more hostile to users. Which can only help external platform such as Nebula and others grow. And if those platform grows then creators might be able to leave Youtube.

BLKNSLVR 3y ago

I put a lot of effort into maintaining my network and various devices so that content that I don't want is kept on the outside of the boundary that I can control. I have thusly earned the nice, palatable clean feeds of public internet.

drexlspivey 3y ago

> Morally, you are depriving the content creators and Youtube of revenue (if they rely on Youtube ads) In my 20+ years on the internet I have never clicked on an ad. I might have been made aware of a product that I went and purchased later when I actually needed it but never at the moment I saw the ad, meaning no affiliate revenue for the platform/creator. Am I allowed to block ads then, since there is a 100% guarantee that you won’t be getting any money from me? (I pay for YT premium so it doesn’t directly apply to me but the point still stands)

acdha 3y ago
Ads are also billed by impression, so you’re still removing revenue from the people who made the videos you watch. More importantly, however, this is like going into a restaurant and saying that you should be able to order only a side dish while eating food that you brought with. You might have a good reason for wanting to do that but that doesn’t somehow create a right to use someone else’s private property in violation of their wishes.
- someone7x 3y ago
  Must I buy the product at Costco after I’ve tasted the sample or am I just a freeloader? Am I morally obliged to acknowledge the sponsors for everything I personally don’t purchase? To whom do I owe patronage when I accept something gratis?
  - acdha 3y ago
    > Must I buy the product at Costco after I’ve tasted the sample or am I just a freeloader? No, because the owner of that property has set terms allowing that. Try to eat a dozen samples, though, and they’ll probably ask you to leave. This isn’t actually a complicated concept: their property, their rules. If you don’t like YouTube, that’s totally reasonable – I don’t – but no amount of sophistry will create a right for you to use their private property on your terms. Just go somewhere else: there are tons of creators who’d love a better deal than Google/Facebook offer them but that’s never going to happen as long as people insist on paying them through YouTube.

izzydata 3y ago

>If you don't like ads, buy a YT subscription I won't buy a YouTube subscription precisely because I don't like ads. Buying a YouTube subscription is directly in support of ads. If you give Google money for a YouTube subscription you have just let Google know that ads are a great way for them to make money. They are now incentivized to implement more ads in the future. Paying to remove ads only causes more ads in the world.