4 ms·

The “just buy premium” comment is usually the lone voice of reason in a sea of people jumping through hoops to justify why they like getting things for free wit

The “just buy premium” comment is usually the lone voice of reason in a sea of people jumping through hoops to justify why they like getting things for free without paying for them. There is value in reminding people that blocking ads when there is a paid ad free option is scummy behavior.

throwaway5959 3y ago
Thank you. I usually get downvoted to oblivion when I say “people should pay for products they use”. I don’t get it.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  They're totally free to configure their servers to return HTTP 402 Payment Required instead of a free web page. They keep sending us free stuff loaded with ads instead. Only have themselves to blame. Nobody's actually obligated to "pay" by looking at that junk.
  - throwaway5959 3y ago
    People that don’t have a lot of money should be able to choose to watch ads for content.
icy_deadposts 3y ago
Google added our web pages to their index without paying us. and probably trained AI on our content without paying us. Just returning the favor.
- abhi9u 3y ago
  Not really, you have an option to exclude your content from being indexed by Google (robots.txt). I don't care as much about Google losing money because of ad-blockers, they have plenty of money going around. The real people losing here are the ones who are creating the content. As it is they need to amass a large number of views to earn few dollars from a video. Depending on the type of content, a lot of time, money and effort goes into creating each of those videos.
chii 3y ago
> justify i don't need to justify my actions. I know adblocking is denying revenue to the platform. i don't care. The "just buy premium" crowd is assuming that people are rich enough to afford premium. May be they should consider how priviledged they are for having the spare money to dump on premium.
- wilsonnb3 3y ago
  Its $14 a month and cheaper in a lot of non-US countries, I don't think this is a "check your privilege" kind of situation
  - _emacsomancer_ 3y ago
    That you don't think so is evidence itself
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Even if you're rich, you're not obligated to see ads. Our attention belongs to us. It's part of our inalienable cognitive functions. They're not entitled to it.
  - recursive 3y ago
    That doesn't imply anything about youtube's ads. The way you exercise control over your attention is by closing the tab/app in this case.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      The way I excercise control is by blocking that ad, unconditionally, with extreme prejudice, no due process and no survivors.
      - recursive 3y ago
        That's fine, and quite reasonable, as long as it works. Google has no obligation to maintain that state of affairs. I agree that Google isn't entitled to your attention. My point is that, just because they're clamping down on ad-blockers, doesn't mean they think they're entitled to your attention.
travoc 3y ago
Do you pay for the books you read at the public library? Or should we block those too?
- BXlnt2EachOther 3y ago
  yes, via taxes
matheusmoreira 3y ago
We don't want to see ads. No further justification is necessary. If they don't like it, they should eliminate the "free" version of the service straight up. If they send us ads, we'll delete them. Nothing they can do about it. We won't lose a second of sleep over it either. Our attention is ours. It's not currency to pay for services with.
- recursive 3y ago
  > Nothing they can do about it. The article you're commenting on is all about something they're doing about it.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    You mean their little anti-adblock scripts? Plenty of "clever" websites have done that before. We'll block their blocker, it's that simple. https://drhyperion451.github.io/does-uBO-bypass-yt/ https://drhyperion451.github.io/does-uBO-bypass-yt/ Nothing they can do about it. We own the computer their code is running on. We decide if it runs.
    - recursive 3y ago
      Certainly you decide if it runs. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. However, I imagine the hard part, if it comes to that, will be determining which code is which. Imagine the UI presented in a canvas, updated by a proprietary VM. You can see server connections of course, but their purpose is opaque. Perhaps ad/non-ad content is mixed into the same response. The ad-blockers may make some breakthroughs, but Google's under no obligation to keep it as easy as it is now. I suspect they've barely begun to try.
      - matheusmoreira 3y ago
        > However, I imagine the hard part, if it comes to that, will be determining which code is which. One day someone much smarter than me will invent an AI ad blocker which will do stuff like that automatically. Just imagine it. An AI that automatically filters ads, brands and other forms of noise in real time. It'd even work on audio and video. Hell, it'd work on real life through augmented reality glasses or something. If I can imagine it, then it must be possible. > Google's under no obligation to keep it as easy as it is now Actually they kind of are due to accessibility laws. Everything you proposed means rolling back literally every single one of the hard won advances in web accessibility. Everything that enables assistive technology also enables bots, scripts, automated access. I bet they really hate those users because of that. > I suspect they've barely begun to try. Yawn. Trillion dollar copyright industry has been playing this exact same cat and mouse game with copyright infringement for literally decades now. You're telling me Google's gonna win this? Everyone who has any respect for the word "hacker" and what it stands for better hope they give up. There's only one way for them to win and that's by owning our computers. Devices must be literally physically cryptographically unable to run software that hurts their bottom line for them to win.

throwaway5959 3y ago

Thank you. I usually get downvoted to oblivion when I say “people should pay for products they use”. I don’t get it.

matheusmoreira 3y ago
They're totally free to configure their servers to return HTTP 402 Payment Required instead of a free web page. They keep sending us free stuff loaded with ads instead. Only have themselves to blame. Nobody's actually obligated to "pay" by looking at that junk.
- throwaway5959 3y ago
  People that don’t have a lot of money should be able to choose to watch ads for content.

icy_deadposts 3y ago

Google added our web pages to their index without paying us. and probably trained AI on our content without paying us. Just returning the favor.

abhi9u 3y ago
Not really, you have an option to exclude your content from being indexed by Google (robots.txt). I don't care as much about Google losing money because of ad-blockers, they have plenty of money going around. The real people losing here are the ones who are creating the content. As it is they need to amass a large number of views to earn few dollars from a video. Depending on the type of content, a lot of time, money and effort goes into creating each of those videos.

chii 3y ago

> justify i don't need to justify my actions. I know adblocking is denying revenue to the platform. i don't care. The "just buy premium" crowd is assuming that people are rich enough to afford premium. May be they should consider how priviledged they are for having the spare money to dump on premium.

wilsonnb3 3y ago
Its $14 a month and cheaper in a lot of non-US countries, I don't think this is a "check your privilege" kind of situation
- _emacsomancer_ 3y ago
  That you don't think so is evidence itself
matheusmoreira 3y ago
Even if you're rich, you're not obligated to see ads. Our attention belongs to us. It's part of our inalienable cognitive functions. They're not entitled to it.
- recursive 3y ago
  That doesn't imply anything about youtube's ads. The way you exercise control over your attention is by closing the tab/app in this case.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    The way I excercise control is by blocking that ad, unconditionally, with extreme prejudice, no due process and no survivors.
    - recursive 3y ago
      That's fine, and quite reasonable, as long as it works. Google has no obligation to maintain that state of affairs. I agree that Google isn't entitled to your attention. My point is that, just because they're clamping down on ad-blockers, doesn't mean they think they're entitled to your attention.

travoc 3y ago

Do you pay for the books you read at the public library? Or should we block those too?

BXlnt2EachOther 3y ago
yes, via taxes

matheusmoreira 3y ago

We don't want to see ads. No further justification is necessary. If they don't like it, they should eliminate the "free" version of the service straight up. If they send us ads, we'll delete them. Nothing they can do about it. We won't lose a second of sleep over it either. Our attention is ours. It's not currency to pay for services with.

recursive 3y ago
> Nothing they can do about it. The article you're commenting on is all about something they're doing about it.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  You mean their little anti-adblock scripts? Plenty of "clever" websites have done that before. We'll block their blocker, it's that simple. https://drhyperion451.github.io/does-uBO-bypass-yt/ https://drhyperion451.github.io/does-uBO-bypass-yt/ Nothing they can do about it. We own the computer their code is running on. We decide if it runs.
  - recursive 3y ago
    Certainly you decide if it runs. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. However, I imagine the hard part, if it comes to that, will be determining which code is which. Imagine the UI presented in a canvas, updated by a proprietary VM. You can see server connections of course, but their purpose is opaque. Perhaps ad/non-ad content is mixed into the same response. The ad-blockers may make some breakthroughs, but Google's under no obligation to keep it as easy as it is now. I suspect they've barely begun to try.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      > However, I imagine the hard part, if it comes to that, will be determining which code is which. One day someone much smarter than me will invent an AI ad blocker which will do stuff like that automatically. Just imagine it. An AI that automatically filters ads, brands and other forms of noise in real time. It'd even work on audio and video. Hell, it'd work on real life through augmented reality glasses or something. If I can imagine it, then it must be possible. > Google's under no obligation to keep it as easy as it is now Actually they kind of are due to accessibility laws. Everything you proposed means rolling back literally every single one of the hard won advances in web accessibility. Everything that enables assistive technology also enables bots, scripts, automated access. I bet they really hate those users because of that. > I suspect they've barely begun to try. Yawn. Trillion dollar copyright industry has been playing this exact same cat and mouse game with copyright infringement for literally decades now. You're telling me Google's gonna win this? Everyone who has any respect for the word "hacker" and what it stands for better hope they give up. There's only one way for them to win and that's by owning our computers. Devices must be literally physically cryptographically unable to run software that hurts their bottom line for them to win.