3 ms·
The right in question isn't "to refuse ad exposure", it's to run, or not run, any arbitrary bit of code on our property, whether it serves ads, or fosters or pr
by ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
The right in question isn't "to refuse ad exposure", it's to run, or not run, any arbitrary bit of code on our property, whether it serves ads, or fosters or prevents hacking, piracy, cheating, lawbreaking, unethical behavior, or antisocial behavior. Or generates kitten pictures.
Google is within their rights to want people to view ads, and even within their rights to attempt technical measures to ensure viewership. But we all have the right to circumvent those technical measures, if they're running on our property, in addition to viewing, inspecting, saving, and copying them.
- epgui 3y agoI could get behind that.
- dylan604 3y agoYT ads are different from other ads on websites though. They are not running additional code. They are just different bits of video. The ads that run code, absofuckinglutely block them all and banish them to the void they belong. If I'm wrong with this assumption, please enlighten me on what they are doing
- nathanlied 3y agoI believe "code" here is being used in the sense that you retrieve YouTube (the website - made of code) with the intent of watching X video. But you don't want some parts of YouTube's code (the bits that display ads) to run on your machine. One could argue that you should, indeed, have the right to block whatever parts of YouTube's 'code' from running on your machine. Currently, this is the case.