8 ms·

It cracks me up how some people think giving advertisers your time is a moral issue. The hell it is, I don't have to look at billboards while driving down the

It cracks me up how some people think giving advertisers your time is a moral issue. The hell it is, I don't have to look at billboards while driving down the highway, I sure as shit don't have to look at ads while surfing the internet. It's one of the biggest marketing scams ever.

dleslie 3y ago
Indeed; it's my computer, and I choose what software it runs and what data it receives over the internet. If Google doesn't like how I utilize the data it sends to my Computer then they can simply stop sending it.
- lxgr 3y ago
  On one hand, I really see your point – on the other, that leads us directly to DRM, doesn’t it? Only strong DRM actually gives Google full control over the video playback environment, and that comes with huge (but different) downsides too.
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    I don't see why you would need DRM when you can just send HTTP 403
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      That would make them less popular. Part of the point being missed by those who think it's a moral issue is that these companies _also_ have alternatives but those alternatives have downsides.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      How would they know when to send a 403 and when to deliver the video content?
      - paulryanrogers 3y ago
        When you haven't paid for access with fiat.
  - asadotzler 3y ago
    You act as if we have no agency here. Google doesn't own the Internet and Google's ad needs shouldn't determine the future of the Internet. That you so easily concede Google's ultimate authority is sad to me.
- wilsonnb3 3y ago
  Legally you are correct of course but you are not engaging with the moral aspects of free-rider problems at all, just side stepping them with a tangentially related technical argument.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    Imagine if someone said that with a straight face about ones own property.
    - paulryanrogers 3y ago
      Many property owners compromise in non-monetary ways for the benefit of access. Consider sidewalks crossing private property, we tend them yet don't always use them ourselves. They make us all richer for a bit of inconvenience and intrusion into our space. Likewise ad supported distribution makes us richer by broadening what is available and to whom for a portion of our attention. We can disagree about how much is too much, or how careful or careless any given system is. Yet I'm thankful the model exists and has democratized video, despite it's downsides.
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        That's a complete mischaracterization of the law, at least in the US. If a trail has been setup and maintained for the public good, new owners cannot remove the public access. They are _legally required_ to maintain them. Just as they are legally required to maintain the sidewalks in front of their property.
Pulcinella 3y ago
But it is a moral issue! Ignoring and blocking advertisements is not morally neutral, it's morally good, correct, and should be encouraged!
wilsonnb3 3y ago
Nobody cares if you don’t give advertisers your time, the problem is when you both do that and consume whatever the ads are supposed to be funding. Just don’t use YouTube if you don’t want to pay or see ads. It is not complicated.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  just don't drive on the highway if you don't want to see ads! and yet, many places have actually banned them, with good reason. Think of ad blockers as banning ads.
  - wilsonnb3 3y ago
    Billboards don’t fund the highway
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      ads don't fund the purchase of my device or the internet I pay for.
      - wilsonnb3 3y ago
        Yes, rather obviously they fund the servers hosting and sending you the content you want
        PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        my neighbor also funds their own vehicles, yet I see no one claiming I'm morally obligated to look at it, acknowledge it, or spend any time on it whatsoever. The fact that they're spending money on resources is on them and has nothing to do with me. Them spending money on servers does not obviate or override my ownership of devices I paid for.
- hightrix 3y ago
  To YouTube, just don’t give away content for free if you don’t want people to consume it for free. As long as the content is 100% free, users like me will continue to take it for free while blocking any content we don’t want to see aka ads. It is quite simple.
alpaca128 3y ago
> I don't have to look at billboards while driving down the highway Those ads don't stop you from driving for half a minute per billboard.
- Zambyte 3y ago
  They also don't fund the road maintenance. Tax dollars do.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  As if the only way a billboard can be obnoxious is if it forces you to stop driving. https://movia.media/moving-billboard-blog/why-are-billboards-banned-in-certain-states/ https://movia.media/moving-billboard-blog/why-are-billboards... > In 1997, the Legislature made an exception for tourism advertising billboards in Alaska which surprised many. However, the following year, 72 percent of Alaskan residents voted on the ballot measure to reverse the exception. There's an old book called "The Little Red Book of Selling" and one of its points it that people love to buy but they don't want to be sold to. I may or may not partake in whatever it is you're advertising, but I sure as shit do not want to see it while driving down the road or trying to watch a video.
dspillett 3y ago
Time is only part of the problem. A significant part as the irritation is automatically visible with no conscious thought, but not the only one. The other key problem is the stalking & tracking of activity and linking it to other personal data. If adverts were not as intimately linked with this as they are, I'd be far less inclined to block ads. I don't block sponsor segments with the tools that are easily available to do that – they can't stalk the way other types of ads do. I skip them, just as I used to fast-forward adverts on VHS or go make a drink during ads on TV, when after a few seconds it is obvious I've heard that one before (often many times) or it is otherwise irrelevant to me, but I don't outright block them.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  For me it's much simpler than that. I don't want to be advertised to and I have no moral obligation to give you my time. It's like walking into a grocery store and someone wants to give you a sample of some sausage or cheese or whatnot. I can continue to partake of that store while refusing to partake of the advertisement. Those options are to stop making it publicly available, but they won't do that because that threatens their dominance. ad blockers is the cost of doing business using that model.
  - acdha 3y ago
    The grocery store does that because you pay for your groceries. If you tried to make your diet 100% free samples, they’d ask you to leave and never come back. YouTube has an option to pay for your usage, too, and you’ll never see an ad if you use it.
    - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
      >YouTube has an option to pay for your usage, too, and you’ll never see an ad if you use it. Not exactly true anymore, because ad revenue direct from Youtube sucks, creators were forced to start taking sponsorship deals and advertise directly in the videos. Raid Shadow Legends being the meme sponsor points to how prevalent this practice is now.
I_Am_Nous 3y ago
If the only way a platform continues to exist is by leeching as much from the users as it can (as Youtube does) I definitely have no obligation to allow them to leech off me because they purport to have content I want or need. Sure there are costs associated with servers and data, but they are only running those servers to facilitate leeching off me. Not my problem. If anything it's immoral to pretend that you must watch ads to support the creator or they might starve, which is the corner Youtube is trying to back people into.
throw0101b 3y ago
> The hell it is, I don't have to look at billboards while driving down the highway, I sure as shit don't have to look at ads while surfing the internet. So how are web site owners supposed to pay their bills? Don't want watch ads, but still get content? Create a paid account and login. If you don't want to watch the ads that are posted, that's your right. But someone has to fork over cash for hosting and bandwidth (and paying staff, so they can pay their bills), and I'm guessing you're not that person.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  Someone has to pay for a mailbox too but I would never rent a home that didn't provide one. Someone elses business model is not my problem. I also very rarely shop wal-mart and the primary reason is your stop-loss prevention issues are not my problem, you feeling the need to treat me as a potential thief is. theft is a cost of doing business, ad blockers are a cost of doing business. These companies have alternatives that don't involve treating their users like shit, but the alternatives aren't as profitable. If you were to tell me youtube would go out of business if I continue to use an adblocker then they would go out of business. Someone else will figure out how to make it work or it was never going to work. Some things are more important than youtubes preferred business model working.
  - yunohn 3y ago
    > These companies have alternatives that don't involve treating their users like shit, but the alternatives aren't as profitable. So I assume you pay for YouTube Premium?
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      Do I pay for the little sausage samples they give away for free at the super market?
  - throw0101b 3y ago
    > Some things are more important than youtubes preferred business model working. Is you following the law and acting ethicaly by using a company's services as outlined by their terms of service important? * https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14129599 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14129599 * https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#c3e2907ca8 https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#c3e2907ca8 The ToS says that if you want to watch vides (without paying for Premium) you have to not block ads. Why can't you just either (a) follow the ToS, or (b) stop using the service? I just don't understand why you feel entitled to cheat the system.
yunohn 3y ago
The highway is paid for by taxes, the Internet by Ads. I assumed this was obvious, but maybe not?

dleslie 3y ago

Indeed; it's my computer, and I choose what software it runs and what data it receives over the internet. If Google doesn't like how I utilize the data it sends to my Computer then they can simply stop sending it.

lxgr 3y ago
On one hand, I really see your point – on the other, that leads us directly to DRM, doesn’t it? Only strong DRM actually gives Google full control over the video playback environment, and that comes with huge (but different) downsides too.
- Zambyte 3y ago
  I don't see why you would need DRM when you can just send HTTP 403
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    That would make them less popular. Part of the point being missed by those who think it's a moral issue is that these companies _also_ have alternatives but those alternatives have downsides.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    How would they know when to send a 403 and when to deliver the video content?
    - paulryanrogers 3y ago
      When you haven't paid for access with fiat.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  You act as if we have no agency here. Google doesn't own the Internet and Google's ad needs shouldn't determine the future of the Internet. That you so easily concede Google's ultimate authority is sad to me.
wilsonnb3 3y ago
Legally you are correct of course but you are not engaging with the moral aspects of free-rider problems at all, just side stepping them with a tangentially related technical argument.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  Imagine if someone said that with a straight face about ones own property.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    Many property owners compromise in non-monetary ways for the benefit of access. Consider sidewalks crossing private property, we tend them yet don't always use them ourselves. They make us all richer for a bit of inconvenience and intrusion into our space. Likewise ad supported distribution makes us richer by broadening what is available and to whom for a portion of our attention. We can disagree about how much is too much, or how careful or careless any given system is. Yet I'm thankful the model exists and has democratized video, despite it's downsides.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      That's a complete mischaracterization of the law, at least in the US. If a trail has been setup and maintained for the public good, new owners cannot remove the public access. They are _legally required_ to maintain them. Just as they are legally required to maintain the sidewalks in front of their property.

Pulcinella 3y ago

But it is a moral issue! Ignoring and blocking advertisements is not morally neutral, it's morally good, correct, and should be encouraged!

wilsonnb3 3y ago

Nobody cares if you don’t give advertisers your time, the problem is when you both do that and consume whatever the ads are supposed to be funding. Just don’t use YouTube if you don’t want to pay or see ads. It is not complicated.

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
just don't drive on the highway if you don't want to see ads! and yet, many places have actually banned them, with good reason. Think of ad blockers as banning ads.
- wilsonnb3 3y ago
  Billboards don’t fund the highway
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    ads don't fund the purchase of my device or the internet I pay for.
    - wilsonnb3 3y ago
      Yes, rather obviously they fund the servers hosting and sending you the content you want
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        my neighbor also funds their own vehicles, yet I see no one claiming I'm morally obligated to look at it, acknowledge it, or spend any time on it whatsoever. The fact that they're spending money on resources is on them and has nothing to do with me. Them spending money on servers does not obviate or override my ownership of devices I paid for.
hightrix 3y ago
To YouTube, just don’t give away content for free if you don’t want people to consume it for free. As long as the content is 100% free, users like me will continue to take it for free while blocking any content we don’t want to see aka ads. It is quite simple.

alpaca128 3y ago

> I don't have to look at billboards while driving down the highway Those ads don't stop you from driving for half a minute per billboard.

Zambyte 3y ago
They also don't fund the road maintenance. Tax dollars do.
PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
As if the only way a billboard can be obnoxious is if it forces you to stop driving. https://movia.media/moving-billboard-blog/why-are-billboards-banned-in-certain-states/ https://movia.media/moving-billboard-blog/why-are-billboards... > In 1997, the Legislature made an exception for tourism advertising billboards in Alaska which surprised many. However, the following year, 72 percent of Alaskan residents voted on the ballot measure to reverse the exception. There's an old book called "The Little Red Book of Selling" and one of its points it that people love to buy but they don't want to be sold to. I may or may not partake in whatever it is you're advertising, but I sure as shit do not want to see it while driving down the road or trying to watch a video.

dspillett 3y ago

Time is only part of the problem. A significant part as the irritation is automatically visible with no conscious thought, but not the only one. The other key problem is the stalking & tracking of activity and linking it to other personal data. If adverts were not as intimately linked with this as they are, I'd be far less inclined to block ads. I don't block sponsor segments with the tools that are easily available to do that – they can't stalk the way other types of ads do. I skip them, just as I used to fast-forward adverts on VHS or go make a drink during ads on TV, when after a few seconds it is obvious I've heard that one before (often many times) or it is otherwise irrelevant to me, but I don't outright block them.

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
For me it's much simpler than that. I don't want to be advertised to and I have no moral obligation to give you my time. It's like walking into a grocery store and someone wants to give you a sample of some sausage or cheese or whatnot. I can continue to partake of that store while refusing to partake of the advertisement. Those options are to stop making it publicly available, but they won't do that because that threatens their dominance. ad blockers is the cost of doing business using that model.
- acdha 3y ago
  The grocery store does that because you pay for your groceries. If you tried to make your diet 100% free samples, they’d ask you to leave and never come back. YouTube has an option to pay for your usage, too, and you’ll never see an ad if you use it.
  - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
    >YouTube has an option to pay for your usage, too, and you’ll never see an ad if you use it. Not exactly true anymore, because ad revenue direct from Youtube sucks, creators were forced to start taking sponsorship deals and advertise directly in the videos. Raid Shadow Legends being the meme sponsor points to how prevalent this practice is now.

I_Am_Nous 3y ago

If the only way a platform continues to exist is by leeching as much from the users as it can (as Youtube does) I definitely have no obligation to allow them to leech off me because they purport to have content I want or need. Sure there are costs associated with servers and data, but they are only running those servers to facilitate leeching off me. Not my problem. If anything it's immoral to pretend that you must watch ads to support the creator or they might starve, which is the corner Youtube is trying to back people into.

throw0101b 3y ago

> The hell it is, I don't have to look at billboards while driving down the highway, I sure as shit don't have to look at ads while surfing the internet. So how are web site owners supposed to pay their bills? Don't want watch ads, but still get content? Create a paid account and login. If you don't want to watch the ads that are posted, that's your right. But someone has to fork over cash for hosting and bandwidth (and paying staff, so they can pay their bills), and I'm guessing you're not that person.

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
Someone has to pay for a mailbox too but I would never rent a home that didn't provide one. Someone elses business model is not my problem. I also very rarely shop wal-mart and the primary reason is your stop-loss prevention issues are not my problem, you feeling the need to treat me as a potential thief is. theft is a cost of doing business, ad blockers are a cost of doing business. These companies have alternatives that don't involve treating their users like shit, but the alternatives aren't as profitable. If you were to tell me youtube would go out of business if I continue to use an adblocker then they would go out of business. Someone else will figure out how to make it work or it was never going to work. Some things are more important than youtubes preferred business model working.
- yunohn 3y ago
  > These companies have alternatives that don't involve treating their users like shit, but the alternatives aren't as profitable. So I assume you pay for YouTube Premium?
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    Do I pay for the little sausage samples they give away for free at the super market?
- throw0101b 3y ago
  > Some things are more important than youtubes preferred business model working. Is you following the law and acting ethicaly by using a company's services as outlined by their terms of service important? * https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14129599 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14129599 * https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#c3e2907ca8 https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#c3e2907ca8 The ToS says that if you want to watch vides (without paying for Premium) you have to not block ads. Why can't you just either (a) follow the ToS, or (b) stop using the service? I just don't understand why you feel entitled to cheat the system.

yunohn 3y ago

The highway is paid for by taxes, the Internet by Ads. I assumed this was obvious, but maybe not?