7 ms·

They harvest everything I do online without my consent or permission without paying me. Fair is fair

by oaththrowaway 3y ago

dangus 3y ago
You consented by using the service. You don’t have to use YouTube.
- oaththrowaway 3y ago
  I don't consent on every other site that uses google analytics? And last time I checked, consent isn't implied.
  - recursive 3y ago
    Disable third party cookies.
    - oaththrowaway 3y ago
      But then Google won't know everything about me so that would be immoral of me to do
      - recursive 3y ago
        If that's what you believe, then I'm not sure what the original problem was.
        oaththrowaway 3y ago
        /s
        recursive 3y ago
        Ok, then disable third party cookies, unironically.
  - Sebb767 3y ago
    You are free to use an adblocker. But it's completely fair for Google to refuse their services if you do.
    - LegibleCrimson 3y ago
      Then they should. They are perfectly capable of actually making YouTube unusable without watching ads. When they actually force me, I'm perfectly happy to mute my TV during ads and do something else, which is the exact same moral area as blocking ads.
      - oaththrowaway 3y ago
        > Drink verification can
  - dangus 3y ago
    Google analytics isn’t relevant to this subject.
- jraph 3y ago
  It's more complicated than that because of the network effect. Few people host their videos elsewhere. Google did this to themselves and they are the one imposing everybody to play by their rules. Nobody asked them to kill their competitors. Besides, I'm not really concerned for them. It's not like they are struggling.
  - Sebb767 3y ago
    > It's more complicated than that because of the network effect. Few people host their videos elsewhere. Yes, but these things are far from essential. Most of YouTube is entertainment, which is as fungible as it gets, and what isn't (for example repair tutorials) can usually be solved by buying repair guides or hiring professionals. There are alternatives. You might not like them, but they exist. > Google did this to themselves and they are the one imposing everybody to play by their rules. This is really peak absurdity. "Google made me use their service for free". > Nobody asked them to kill their competitors. YouTube has competition in all of its areas. They might be the leader, but they are not the singular source.
    - spaceribs 3y ago
      > YouTube has competition in all of its areas. They might be the leader, but they are not the singular source. This is like saying Microsoft didn't have a monopoly on the PC market in the 90s because Apple had 5% of the market. They only feel comfortable designing serious limitations in MV3 because chrome owns 90% of the browser landscape. > This is really peak absurdity. "Google made me use their service for free". This is not absurd, they got to where they wanted through massive investor led subsidies and buying out their admittedly better competitor (remember google video?) What they performed on the on-demand video market was a form of predatory dumping, and when all the competition was gone they used that position as well as other positions to extract "value" and cash out. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/predatorydumping.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/predatorydumping.asp
      - dangus 3y ago
        Only if we ignore facts. Chrome only has a 64% market share, not 90%. Nobody has ever dominated a consumer tech market in the same way that Microsoft dominated the 90s. https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/ https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/ On top of that, YouTube is only one choice of many for user created videos. Sites like TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and Reddit are all top 20 sites that host user created videos. A number of YouTube creators mirror their content to Nebula and other creator platforms. Twitch is yet another alternative and is likely more popular than YouTube’s live feature. We also have to count every streaming video service from the legacy media companies and Netflix/Amazon/Apple as competition as well. In the 90s you couldn’t complete basic computing tasks without Internet Explorer and Office. Even while fully admitting to YouTube’s relative dominance of its niche, the situation is not the same.
- isaacremuant 3y ago
  YouTube is a service that competes unethically with others and censors wildly to further its political interests. Some of us control our computers, instead of letting every third party do it.
- scotty79 3y ago
  No, I did not. The fact that somebody somewhere wrote "You consent to ...." doesn't mean I actually consented.
  - dangus 3y ago
    If you went to the site and continued to use it, you consented. That’s how EULAs work. Your consent was given by the fact that you directed your browser to interact with the service continually, if that’s something that you did. You can’t say you didn’t consent to be searched if you walked into an airport. You can’t say you didn’t consent to be splashed with water if you got on the log flume ride. Your own ignorance or disagreement with the fact that you can get searched at an airport or wet on a lot flume ride isn’t really an excuse.
    - scotty79 3y ago
      EULA is just a wishlist of a service or software provider. Nothing more unless it's upheld in court. And sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't: https://superuser.com/questions/30940/is-an-eula-enforceable#30959 https://superuser.com/questions/30940/is-an-eula-enforceable... Comparison to real world situations when the trigger is physical presence are not a good example exactly because they require physical presence, something unachievable in the virtual world of software and internet.
- rockskon 3y ago
  I have no sympathy for a company that operated at a loss for enough years to price out competitors to the point it was the only real game in town. You kill competitors and now want to dictate the price (including attention) everyone pays to see user-generated content? Yeah no. Got zero sympathy. None. You do not command my attention - a resource I am less and less willing to pay with these days. If that results in YouTube becoming unsustainable and collapsing and something more sustainable emerging charging a price consumers are willing to pay? Well then that sounds acceptable.
Jensson 3y ago
That has almost no value to them unless they can use that to show you ads. They use that data to target ads to you, that is the whole point. Do you think they care about what you do or who you are for any other reason?
- oaththrowaway 3y ago
  If it has no value then why don't they stop?
  - Jensson 3y ago
    Because they show ads to people. Do you think they should stop collecting your data just because you block their ads? I don't see why that would make any sense, they have no reason to incentivize ad block use.
    - oaththrowaway 3y ago
      But even if I pay them, they still collect my data. I lose either way. I'll pick the way that is better for me in that situation
      - Jensson 3y ago
        But that isn't a fair trade, you argued that your data is worth enough to them that you should be allowed to use their server resources without anything extra from you. But that isn't true, every user like you costs them much more money than they earn. In such a situation where one part pays for the other parts benefits, you should expect the part that just loses out to try to end the trade. And that is what we see happening here, youtube tries to block you since youtube doesn't want you as a user, since you lose them money.
        oaththrowaway 3y ago
        No, you argued that my data wasn't worth anything. I argued that if it wasn't they wouldn't desperately try and get all my credit, medical, schooling, and browsing history. What they do is incredibly immoral and despicable. There is no opt-out (even if I pay them money). Even if I never use their services they still try to vacuum up all my data. Me watching a few YouTube videos a week is a better deal for them than it is for me.

They harvest everything I do online without my consent or permission without paying me. Fair is fair

dangus 3y ago

You consented by using the service. You don’t have to use YouTube.

oaththrowaway 3y ago
I don't consent on every other site that uses google analytics? And last time I checked, consent isn't implied.
- recursive 3y ago
  Disable third party cookies.
  - oaththrowaway 3y ago
    But then Google won't know everything about me so that would be immoral of me to do
    - recursive 3y ago
      If that's what you believe, then I'm not sure what the original problem was.
      - oaththrowaway 3y ago
        /s
        recursive 3y ago
        Ok, then disable third party cookies, unironically.
- Sebb767 3y ago
  You are free to use an adblocker. But it's completely fair for Google to refuse their services if you do.
  - LegibleCrimson 3y ago
    Then they should. They are perfectly capable of actually making YouTube unusable without watching ads. When they actually force me, I'm perfectly happy to mute my TV during ads and do something else, which is the exact same moral area as blocking ads.
    - oaththrowaway 3y ago
      > Drink verification can
- dangus 3y ago
  Google analytics isn’t relevant to this subject.
jraph 3y ago
It's more complicated than that because of the network effect. Few people host their videos elsewhere. Google did this to themselves and they are the one imposing everybody to play by their rules. Nobody asked them to kill their competitors. Besides, I'm not really concerned for them. It's not like they are struggling.
- Sebb767 3y ago
  > It's more complicated than that because of the network effect. Few people host their videos elsewhere. Yes, but these things are far from essential. Most of YouTube is entertainment, which is as fungible as it gets, and what isn't (for example repair tutorials) can usually be solved by buying repair guides or hiring professionals. There are alternatives. You might not like them, but they exist. > Google did this to themselves and they are the one imposing everybody to play by their rules. This is really peak absurdity. "Google made me use their service for free". > Nobody asked them to kill their competitors. YouTube has competition in all of its areas. They might be the leader, but they are not the singular source.
  - spaceribs 3y ago
    > YouTube has competition in all of its areas. They might be the leader, but they are not the singular source. This is like saying Microsoft didn't have a monopoly on the PC market in the 90s because Apple had 5% of the market. They only feel comfortable designing serious limitations in MV3 because chrome owns 90% of the browser landscape. > This is really peak absurdity. "Google made me use their service for free". This is not absurd, they got to where they wanted through massive investor led subsidies and buying out their admittedly better competitor (remember google video?) What they performed on the on-demand video market was a form of predatory dumping, and when all the competition was gone they used that position as well as other positions to extract "value" and cash out. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/predatorydumping.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/predatorydumping.asp
    - dangus 3y ago
      Only if we ignore facts. Chrome only has a 64% market share, not 90%. Nobody has ever dominated a consumer tech market in the same way that Microsoft dominated the 90s. https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/ https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/ On top of that, YouTube is only one choice of many for user created videos. Sites like TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and Reddit are all top 20 sites that host user created videos. A number of YouTube creators mirror their content to Nebula and other creator platforms. Twitch is yet another alternative and is likely more popular than YouTube’s live feature. We also have to count every streaming video service from the legacy media companies and Netflix/Amazon/Apple as competition as well. In the 90s you couldn’t complete basic computing tasks without Internet Explorer and Office. Even while fully admitting to YouTube’s relative dominance of its niche, the situation is not the same.
isaacremuant 3y ago
YouTube is a service that competes unethically with others and censors wildly to further its political interests. Some of us control our computers, instead of letting every third party do it.
scotty79 3y ago
No, I did not. The fact that somebody somewhere wrote "You consent to ...." doesn't mean I actually consented.
- dangus 3y ago
  If you went to the site and continued to use it, you consented. That’s how EULAs work. Your consent was given by the fact that you directed your browser to interact with the service continually, if that’s something that you did. You can’t say you didn’t consent to be searched if you walked into an airport. You can’t say you didn’t consent to be splashed with water if you got on the log flume ride. Your own ignorance or disagreement with the fact that you can get searched at an airport or wet on a lot flume ride isn’t really an excuse.
  - scotty79 3y ago
    EULA is just a wishlist of a service or software provider. Nothing more unless it's upheld in court. And sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't: https://superuser.com/questions/30940/is-an-eula-enforceable#30959 https://superuser.com/questions/30940/is-an-eula-enforceable... Comparison to real world situations when the trigger is physical presence are not a good example exactly because they require physical presence, something unachievable in the virtual world of software and internet.
rockskon 3y ago
I have no sympathy for a company that operated at a loss for enough years to price out competitors to the point it was the only real game in town. You kill competitors and now want to dictate the price (including attention) everyone pays to see user-generated content? Yeah no. Got zero sympathy. None. You do not command my attention - a resource I am less and less willing to pay with these days. If that results in YouTube becoming unsustainable and collapsing and something more sustainable emerging charging a price consumers are willing to pay? Well then that sounds acceptable.

Jensson 3y ago

That has almost no value to them unless they can use that to show you ads. They use that data to target ads to you, that is the whole point. Do you think they care about what you do or who you are for any other reason?

oaththrowaway 3y ago
If it has no value then why don't they stop?
- Jensson 3y ago
  Because they show ads to people. Do you think they should stop collecting your data just because you block their ads? I don't see why that would make any sense, they have no reason to incentivize ad block use.
  - oaththrowaway 3y ago
    But even if I pay them, they still collect my data. I lose either way. I'll pick the way that is better for me in that situation
    - Jensson 3y ago
      But that isn't a fair trade, you argued that your data is worth enough to them that you should be allowed to use their server resources without anything extra from you. But that isn't true, every user like you costs them much more money than they earn. In such a situation where one part pays for the other parts benefits, you should expect the part that just loses out to try to end the trade. And that is what we see happening here, youtube tries to block you since youtube doesn't want you as a user, since you lose them money.
      - oaththrowaway 3y ago
        No, you argued that my data wasn't worth anything. I argued that if it wasn't they wouldn't desperately try and get all my credit, medical, schooling, and browsing history. What they do is incredibly immoral and despicable. There is no opt-out (even if I pay them money). Even if I never use their services they still try to vacuum up all my data. Me watching a few YouTube videos a week is a better deal for them than it is for me.