5 ms·

If they didn't have such entitlement they wouldn't be blocking the ads in the first place.

by philipwhiuk 3y ago

hotnfresh 3y ago
"I sent you data so you have to use all of it exactly the way I want" is the entitled perspective.
- frebdo 3y ago
  As opposed to the so un-entitled "customers have no right to negotiate use of their data". ACCEPT THE EULA PLEB
- pohuing 3y ago
  Nonsense. I provide a service in exchange for payment, then not paying is entitlement.
  - wredue 3y ago
    The problem is that for YouTube to get that payment, I have to give them, and other ad networks a major view in to my whole life. Ad networks are currently scum of the earth, easily giving lawyers a good name. If ad networks were riddled with crime, invasion of privacy, and other bullshit, people would be much more willing to entertain them. Today though, they’re obnoxious AND invade your privacy AND may actually just a virus AND are of questionable legality or outright illegal. It’s not just about funding the platform. You’re not “getting a service in exchange for payment”. Or at least, that is massively understating the behaviour of the scum of the earth ad networks.
    - gwd 3y ago
      > The problem is that for YouTube to get that payment, I have to give them, and other ad networks a major view in to my whole life. Wait... does that mean, Google could offer "DoubleClick Premuim", where I pay to not see any DoubleClick ads whatsoever, anywhere on the web, but the websites I visited would still get their funding? I think I'd pay $10/mo for that.
      - ndriscoll 3y ago
        Pay-per-view creates a perverse incentive to make SEO noise and make it more difficult to find what you want. You would be mostly paying to make your life worse. Better to just block ads, encourage and help others to block ads, and hope those sites die.
        gwd 3y ago
        I certainly understand the perverse incentive, but that's already the incentive we're working under. And how do you propose we fairly compensate people for the value they've created when making content? How can we support artists, journalists, and so on to do the work that we enjoy? If everyone did as you suggest, spammy SEO sites will be the last to die, because the effort invested to make them is so much lower than the effort of quality content.
        ndriscoll 3y ago
        If they're worthwhile and looking to be paid, you pay them. If they're not worth paying, they go out of business, and SNR improves. From what I've seen on youtube, almost all professional "content creators" make very shallow entertainment (or thinly veiled ads), which at least personally usually just makes me feel disappointed in myself for having wasted my time if I indulge.
        matheusmoreira 3y ago
        > And how do you propose we fairly compensate people for the value they've created when making content? > How can we support artists, journalists, and so on to do the work that we enjoy? We either pay them before the work is completed or in an ongoing manner to support their activities. Patronage. Crowdfunding. Plenty of people seem to be achieving success via platforms like Patreon and GitHub Sponsors. This is ethical.
      - matheusmoreira 3y ago
        Don't fall for that scam. If you pay for such a service, it only increases the value of your attention even further. You're clearly demonstrating you have enough disposable income to pay their extortion fees. It only makes them want sell to you even more. You're paying to segment the market for them. There is no context where a rational businessman would choose not to advertise to you. Someone will at some point realize they're leaving money on the table and the policy will be reverted. They have no limits. They'd put ads under our eyelids if they could. In our dreams. The only way to deal with such people is to block their ads unconditionally and with extreme prejudice.
    - pohuing 3y ago
      Yep I agree, the ad supported Internet was a mistake and we should never have stopped paying for the services we use. I just hope that these changes will increase people's willingness to pay, then other platforms who aren't owned by the largest ad broker might have a chance.
  - ndriscoll 3y ago
    If your form of payment is running malware, don't be surprised that security software (recommended by the FBI mind you[0]) blocks it. Same as if your form of payment were running a crypto miner or exploiting local IoT devices to set up a botnet. Don't be surprised also that if your business is distributing malware that people won't be very sympathetic toward you when they take the bait you offer without running the payload. [0] https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221 https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221
    - pohuing 3y ago
      Aren't ads in YouTube locked down to displaying a video and some plain text you fill into a template. Doesn't sound like a great attack vector. I understand this for shady file sharing sites, but in the case of yt I'm not so sure.
      - ndriscoll 3y ago
        Adware and spyware are malware. Youtube delivers both. uBlock blocks them.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    Attention and personal information are not a valid payment methods. Either charge money up front or accept the risk we're going to delete your ads and block your tracking.
    - pohuing 3y ago
      Why aren't they valid payment methods?
      - matheusmoreira 3y ago
        Because our minds are sacred. They're not empty spaces they get to insert brands and products into at will. I consider that a form of violence. Their surveillance capitalism should be literally illegal. They should be scrambling to forget all about us the second we're done transacting with them, not amassing vast amounts of information into data lakes.
  - happytoexplain 3y ago
    You're implying that my not watching your short video that you sent to me is equivalent to my not paying for a service you just rendered. The fact that this extremist opinion is anything but ultra-fringe is evidence of the deeply greedy, entitled, irrational, antagonistic, dangerous, bully-ish relationship some businesses have with citizens. The internet is not a platform for exchanging services for the promise that the user viewed a short video. It is a general purpose platform, on which you happen to be able to almost implement said exchange. The fact that it's "almost" is not the user's fault - you are simply trying to do something at odds with the platform you are using. You are free to use a different platform, or adjust your strategy on the current platform in an honest manner. But trying to alter the premise of the internet in order to remove that "almost" is immoral. If you don't feel that way, that's a pretty fundamental disagreement that is likely unreconcilable.
    - pohuing 3y ago
      Most Internet traffic happens with the agreement that you watch ads alongside the content you actually want to see. This is not a fringe position, it's the absolute majority of all traffic. If you don't want to see the ads, you can just not use my service, what's so hard to understand there.
      - blooalien 3y ago
        That's actually a mentality that was "bolted on" by the advertising industry after the fact, once they realized how utterly wrong they were about their assertion that "The Internet is just a passing fad. Nobody will ever want to advertise on the Internet." (That's an almost exact quote from a lot of advertising folks I talked to back in the early days of the Internet, when websites were just starting to get popular.) Prior to their involvement in the Internet, it was purely just a network of networks, not a giant global advertising platform. They "jumped on the bandwagon" and corrupted it to their needs, and everyone else's wants and needs be damned, and then they convinced everyone "It's always been that way".
      - account42 3y ago
        There is no such agreement, only a one-sided demand. Don't be so surprised if more and more of those on the other side respond with "LOL. LMAO, even."
happytoexplain 3y ago
The technology that constitutes the internet is fundamentally incompatible with this opinion, despite that businesses would absolutely love if they could convince people otherwise. Trying to prevent me from modifying whatever you send me for my purely private use is mostly infeasible and potentially immoral, regardless of how that simple reality affects your business model. It is not the user's responsibility to alter their behavior to support a business's strategy. If a video hosting platform is mathematically unsustainable with the number of people who choose to view ads, along with any other sources of income, then that's just the way it is: Unsustainable (However, the answer to the question is: It's sustainable. Leadership just might not like what that means in practice).
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  It isn't incompatible actually. Remote attestation exists and platforms that allow rampant ad blocking will go the same way as PC gaming did due to rampant piracy and cheating: become a second tier platform that gets some stuff late and other stuff never :(
anonymousab 3y ago
Like those entitled tv viewers who switch the channel.
jasonboyd 3y ago
I allowed ads for a long time, believing a site should be able to earn revenue for the content they provide. I started blocking ads when ad networks failed to properly vet their ads and allowed malicious ads to be distributed.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Do you allow ads on sites with more responsible ads?
  - blooalien 3y ago
    Yep. All two of them. ;~)
  - jasonboyd 3y ago
    Honest answer, I have no interest in doing that research. I wouldn't know how to make that determination with any degree of confidence. Even if I could, I feel like it would require that I constantly monitor how a site delivers its ads. Fortunately, I am at a point in my life that if I really like something, and they offer an ad-free subscription, I can support them that way.
- account42 3y ago
  > when ad networks failed to properly vet their ads and allowed malicious ads to be distributed All ads are inherently malicious.
e2le 3y ago
As a user, I have a right to control what is executed and rendered on my devices. It's not the user's fault that internet advertisements have become a security threat, a significant visual nuisance, and now an environmental issue [1]. Additionally, for those with neurological issues, I imagine using a browser without content blocking must be unnecessarily difficult. It would be a tragedy if these users lost control over the content rendered in their browser. Additionally, for those with family members who struggle with discerning scams and other forms of manipulative advertising, content blocking is a legitimate tool for mitigating this risk. [1]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340321563_Energy_Conservation_with_Open_Source_Ad_Blockers https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340321563_Energy_Co...

If they didn't have such entitlement they wouldn't be blocking the ads in the first place.

hotnfresh 3y ago

"I sent you data so you have to use all of it exactly the way I want" is the entitled perspective.

frebdo 3y ago
As opposed to the so un-entitled "customers have no right to negotiate use of their data". ACCEPT THE EULA PLEB
pohuing 3y ago
Nonsense. I provide a service in exchange for payment, then not paying is entitlement.
- wredue 3y ago
  The problem is that for YouTube to get that payment, I have to give them, and other ad networks a major view in to my whole life. Ad networks are currently scum of the earth, easily giving lawyers a good name. If ad networks were riddled with crime, invasion of privacy, and other bullshit, people would be much more willing to entertain them. Today though, they’re obnoxious AND invade your privacy AND may actually just a virus AND are of questionable legality or outright illegal. It’s not just about funding the platform. You’re not “getting a service in exchange for payment”. Or at least, that is massively understating the behaviour of the scum of the earth ad networks.
  - gwd 3y ago
    > The problem is that for YouTube to get that payment, I have to give them, and other ad networks a major view in to my whole life. Wait... does that mean, Google could offer "DoubleClick Premuim", where I pay to not see any DoubleClick ads whatsoever, anywhere on the web, but the websites I visited would still get their funding? I think I'd pay $10/mo for that.
    - ndriscoll 3y ago
      Pay-per-view creates a perverse incentive to make SEO noise and make it more difficult to find what you want. You would be mostly paying to make your life worse. Better to just block ads, encourage and help others to block ads, and hope those sites die.
      - gwd 3y ago
        I certainly understand the perverse incentive, but that's already the incentive we're working under. And how do you propose we fairly compensate people for the value they've created when making content? How can we support artists, journalists, and so on to do the work that we enjoy? If everyone did as you suggest, spammy SEO sites will be the last to die, because the effort invested to make them is so much lower than the effort of quality content.
        ndriscoll 3y ago
        If they're worthwhile and looking to be paid, you pay them. If they're not worth paying, they go out of business, and SNR improves. From what I've seen on youtube, almost all professional "content creators" make very shallow entertainment (or thinly veiled ads), which at least personally usually just makes me feel disappointed in myself for having wasted my time if I indulge.
        matheusmoreira 3y ago
        > And how do you propose we fairly compensate people for the value they've created when making content? > How can we support artists, journalists, and so on to do the work that we enjoy? We either pay them before the work is completed or in an ongoing manner to support their activities. Patronage. Crowdfunding. Plenty of people seem to be achieving success via platforms like Patreon and GitHub Sponsors. This is ethical.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      Don't fall for that scam. If you pay for such a service, it only increases the value of your attention even further. You're clearly demonstrating you have enough disposable income to pay their extortion fees. It only makes them want sell to you even more. You're paying to segment the market for them. There is no context where a rational businessman would choose not to advertise to you. Someone will at some point realize they're leaving money on the table and the policy will be reverted. They have no limits. They'd put ads under our eyelids if they could. In our dreams. The only way to deal with such people is to block their ads unconditionally and with extreme prejudice.
  - pohuing 3y ago
    Yep I agree, the ad supported Internet was a mistake and we should never have stopped paying for the services we use. I just hope that these changes will increase people's willingness to pay, then other platforms who aren't owned by the largest ad broker might have a chance.
- ndriscoll 3y ago
  If your form of payment is running malware, don't be surprised that security software (recommended by the FBI mind you[0]) blocks it. Same as if your form of payment were running a crypto miner or exploiting local IoT devices to set up a botnet. Don't be surprised also that if your business is distributing malware that people won't be very sympathetic toward you when they take the bait you offer without running the payload. [0] https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221 https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221
  - pohuing 3y ago
    Aren't ads in YouTube locked down to displaying a video and some plain text you fill into a template. Doesn't sound like a great attack vector. I understand this for shady file sharing sites, but in the case of yt I'm not so sure.
    - ndriscoll 3y ago
      Adware and spyware are malware. Youtube delivers both. uBlock blocks them.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Attention and personal information are not a valid payment methods. Either charge money up front or accept the risk we're going to delete your ads and block your tracking.
  - pohuing 3y ago
    Why aren't they valid payment methods?
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      Because our minds are sacred. They're not empty spaces they get to insert brands and products into at will. I consider that a form of violence. Their surveillance capitalism should be literally illegal. They should be scrambling to forget all about us the second we're done transacting with them, not amassing vast amounts of information into data lakes.
- happytoexplain 3y ago
  You're implying that my not watching your short video that you sent to me is equivalent to my not paying for a service you just rendered. The fact that this extremist opinion is anything but ultra-fringe is evidence of the deeply greedy, entitled, irrational, antagonistic, dangerous, bully-ish relationship some businesses have with citizens. The internet is not a platform for exchanging services for the promise that the user viewed a short video. It is a general purpose platform, on which you happen to be able to almost implement said exchange. The fact that it's "almost" is not the user's fault - you are simply trying to do something at odds with the platform you are using. You are free to use a different platform, or adjust your strategy on the current platform in an honest manner. But trying to alter the premise of the internet in order to remove that "almost" is immoral. If you don't feel that way, that's a pretty fundamental disagreement that is likely unreconcilable.
  - pohuing 3y ago
    Most Internet traffic happens with the agreement that you watch ads alongside the content you actually want to see. This is not a fringe position, it's the absolute majority of all traffic. If you don't want to see the ads, you can just not use my service, what's so hard to understand there.
    - blooalien 3y ago
      That's actually a mentality that was "bolted on" by the advertising industry after the fact, once they realized how utterly wrong they were about their assertion that "The Internet is just a passing fad. Nobody will ever want to advertise on the Internet." (That's an almost exact quote from a lot of advertising folks I talked to back in the early days of the Internet, when websites were just starting to get popular.) Prior to their involvement in the Internet, it was purely just a network of networks, not a giant global advertising platform. They "jumped on the bandwagon" and corrupted it to their needs, and everyone else's wants and needs be damned, and then they convinced everyone "It's always been that way".
    - account42 3y ago
      There is no such agreement, only a one-sided demand. Don't be so surprised if more and more of those on the other side respond with "LOL. LMAO, even."

happytoexplain 3y ago

The technology that constitutes the internet is fundamentally incompatible with this opinion, despite that businesses would absolutely love if they could convince people otherwise. Trying to prevent me from modifying whatever you send me for my purely private use is mostly infeasible and potentially immoral, regardless of how that simple reality affects your business model. It is not the user's responsibility to alter their behavior to support a business's strategy. If a video hosting platform is mathematically unsustainable with the number of people who choose to view ads, along with any other sources of income, then that's just the way it is: Unsustainable (However, the answer to the question is: It's sustainable. Leadership just might not like what that means in practice).

nvm0n2 3y ago
It isn't incompatible actually. Remote attestation exists and platforms that allow rampant ad blocking will go the same way as PC gaming did due to rampant piracy and cheating: become a second tier platform that gets some stuff late and other stuff never :(

anonymousab 3y ago

Like those entitled tv viewers who switch the channel.

jasonboyd 3y ago

I allowed ads for a long time, believing a site should be able to earn revenue for the content they provide. I started blocking ads when ad networks failed to properly vet their ads and allowed malicious ads to be distributed.

paulryanrogers 3y ago
Do you allow ads on sites with more responsible ads?
- blooalien 3y ago
  Yep. All two of them. ;~)
- jasonboyd 3y ago
  Honest answer, I have no interest in doing that research. I wouldn't know how to make that determination with any degree of confidence. Even if I could, I feel like it would require that I constantly monitor how a site delivers its ads. Fortunately, I am at a point in my life that if I really like something, and they offer an ad-free subscription, I can support them that way.
account42 3y ago
> when ad networks failed to properly vet their ads and allowed malicious ads to be distributed All ads are inherently malicious.

e2le 3y ago

As a user, I have a right to control what is executed and rendered on my devices. It's not the user's fault that internet advertisements have become a security threat, a significant visual nuisance, and now an environmental issue [1]. Additionally, for those with neurological issues, I imagine using a browser without content blocking must be unnecessarily difficult. It would be a tragedy if these users lost control over the content rendered in their browser. Additionally, for those with family members who struggle with discerning scams and other forms of manipulative advertising, content blocking is a legitimate tool for mitigating this risk. [1]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340321563_Energy_Conservation_with_Open_Source_Ad_Blockers https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340321563_Energy_Co...