3 ms·

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 e

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.
    - PrimeMcFly 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. Whenever people are rallied to a cause, it starts with someone doing something. And if you take the issue to court, they have to listen to you. Besides, you still have alternatives to not viewing their ads and still obtaining the content, just requires a few hours work to set something up.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Good luck taking google to court. And sure, I can do a lot of work to get around this, but my much simpler solution is to day fuck you tube.
        PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        You wouldn't be taking Google to court, but your employer and/or school. And sure you can say fuck YouTube, but going back to whether or not you should have a right to deny ads...at the moment I would say no, since there isn't a need for it to be a right yet.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        > since there isn't a need for it to be a right yet My time is worth quite a bit for me, as is the hygiene of what goes on in my skull and advertisers are way too good at making people that think they are immune to that shit do their bidding. You too. Adblocking is a mental health thing, not a commercial thing.

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.
  - PrimeMcFly 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. Whenever people are rallied to a cause, it starts with someone doing something. And if you take the issue to court, they have to listen to you. Besides, you still have alternatives to not viewing their ads and still obtaining the content, just requires a few hours work to set something up.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Good luck taking google to court. And sure, I can do a lot of work to get around this, but my much simpler solution is to day fuck you tube.
      - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        You wouldn't be taking Google to court, but your employer and/or school. And sure you can say fuck YouTube, but going back to whether or not you should have a right to deny ads...at the moment I would say no, since there isn't a need for it to be a right yet.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        > since there isn't a need for it to be a right yet My time is worth quite a bit for me, as is the hygiene of what goes on in my skull and advertisers are way too good at making people that think they are immune to that shit do their bidding. You too. Adblocking is a mental health thing, not a commercial thing.