5 ms·

We're a while aways from YouTube being considered a protected public good in the way, say Internet access kind of is. Should it be? Probably, yes. No reason th

We're a while aways from YouTube being considered a protected public good in the way, say Internet access kind of is. Should it be? Probably, yes. No reason there can't be oversight of the industry the way there is with TV stations and radio. Should that oversight extend to letting people deny ads in their homes? That's a trickier question.

jacquesm 3y ago
When did the rights of advertisers trump the rights of individuals? Why should I be forced to consume advertising? This is my brain, my eyeballs, I and only I decide what goes in. It's like forcing someone to breathe poison gas just because they also need your oxygen and you happen to be the only oxygen provider in town.
- epgui 3y ago
  Pardon me for the tangent, but I suspect that at least part of the issue is that people tend to think they are not affected by "bad information" (eg.: propaganda, mis/dis-information, information-noise...). I think most people would probably intuitively reject the idea that they could be influenced by their information consumption. So I don't think it's that surprising that the full costs of advertising are not taken very seriously; it's much easier to see the commercial motivation for advertising.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    And that is exactly why I don't want advertising in my life. I don't think I'm smart enough to outwit an army of psychologists, marketeers and other vermin that have institutional knowledge dating back decades in order to know exactly what buttons to press in me to make me behave in a certain way. It's a personal hygiene thing.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  It's not about forcing you to consume advertising directly. At the moment, the thinking is you choose to do so as a consequence of choosing to view something else, e.g. a TV show or a YouTube video. It's the cost of doing so, and the cost is generally known about upfront. The question then is, should you have the right to still consume a free optional service and not be forced to view those ads?
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    The cost is not in viewing the advertising or my time but in the pollution of my brain and that's something I take rather personal. But my government posts their stuff on youtube, as does my kids' school, as do the manufacturers of the gear I use, as do the courses that I have already paid for. So it's not like I have much of a choice here. On top of that youtube monetizes my own content which I do not monetize. I'd be happy to pay for the hosting but they don't offer that option, they just want to have their eyeballs.
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      > The cost is not in viewing the advertising or my time but in the pollution of my brain and that's something I take rather personal. Sure, but at the moment you can avoid using the service. > But my government posts their stuff on youtube, as does my kids' school, as do the manufacturers of the gear I use, as do the courses that I have already paid for. So it's not like I have much of a choice here. You could petition the government and school to not put stuff on YouTube, maybe even take the issue to court. You could also rally other people. But if not enough people care, then there probably is not ever going to become any sort right that would protect you against having to view ads. Rights don't get introduced to protect things that people don't care about. At the moment you can also bypass youtube completely downloading the videos to view offline, and there are various solutions that will do that and then serve it back for viewing in a browser. So with a little more work you do still have an option to avoid their ads completely. Which brings us back to the question being should you have the right to do that?
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        If you think they're going to listen to me then you are ascribing an amount of pull that I simply don't have. Nobody will change their ways because I don't want to disable my adblocker. The best bit: I already pay google a whole bunch of money for other services, and it isn't rare that their support sucks to the point that the only thing that I can find to help out with some issue is - tadaa - a youtube video.
- geodel 3y ago
  > When did the rights of advertisers trump the rights of individuals? Around same time when individuals decided that everything on internet should be free.

jacquesm 3y ago

When did the rights of advertisers trump the rights of individuals? Why should I be forced to consume advertising? This is my brain, my eyeballs, I and only I decide what goes in. It's like forcing someone to breathe poison gas just because they also need your oxygen and you happen to be the only oxygen provider in town.

epgui 3y ago
Pardon me for the tangent, but I suspect that at least part of the issue is that people tend to think they are not affected by "bad information" (eg.: propaganda, mis/dis-information, information-noise...). I think most people would probably intuitively reject the idea that they could be influenced by their information consumption. So I don't think it's that surprising that the full costs of advertising are not taken very seriously; it's much easier to see the commercial motivation for advertising.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  And that is exactly why I don't want advertising in my life. I don't think I'm smart enough to outwit an army of psychologists, marketeers and other vermin that have institutional knowledge dating back decades in order to know exactly what buttons to press in me to make me behave in a certain way. It's a personal hygiene thing.
PrimeMcFly 3y ago
It's not about forcing you to consume advertising directly. At the moment, the thinking is you choose to do so as a consequence of choosing to view something else, e.g. a TV show or a YouTube video. It's the cost of doing so, and the cost is generally known about upfront. The question then is, should you have the right to still consume a free optional service and not be forced to view those ads?
- jacquesm 3y ago
  The cost is not in viewing the advertising or my time but in the pollution of my brain and that's something I take rather personal. But my government posts their stuff on youtube, as does my kids' school, as do the manufacturers of the gear I use, as do the courses that I have already paid for. So it's not like I have much of a choice here. On top of that youtube monetizes my own content which I do not monetize. I'd be happy to pay for the hosting but they don't offer that option, they just want to have their eyeballs.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    > The cost is not in viewing the advertising or my time but in the pollution of my brain and that's something I take rather personal. Sure, but at the moment you can avoid using the service. > But my government posts their stuff on youtube, as does my kids' school, as do the manufacturers of the gear I use, as do the courses that I have already paid for. So it's not like I have much of a choice here. You could petition the government and school to not put stuff on YouTube, maybe even take the issue to court. You could also rally other people. But if not enough people care, then there probably is not ever going to become any sort right that would protect you against having to view ads. Rights don't get introduced to protect things that people don't care about. At the moment you can also bypass youtube completely downloading the videos to view offline, and there are various solutions that will do that and then serve it back for viewing in a browser. So with a little more work you do still have an option to avoid their ads completely. Which brings us back to the question being should you have the right to do that?
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      If you think they're going to listen to me then you are ascribing an amount of pull that I simply don't have. Nobody will change their ways because I don't want to disable my adblocker. The best bit: I already pay google a whole bunch of money for other services, and it isn't rare that their support sucks to the point that the only thing that I can find to help out with some issue is - tadaa - a youtube video.
geodel 3y ago
> When did the rights of advertisers trump the rights of individuals? Around same time when individuals decided that everything on internet should be free.