6 ms·

The projects can be appreciated while also acknowledging that advertisements are part of the value exchange. There's nothing wrong with knowing that if your opt

The projects can be appreciated while also acknowledging that advertisements are part of the value exchange. There's nothing wrong with knowing that if your options are to either watch ads or pay for a service, and you privateer the service instead, that that is not as reasonable as it seems to some people. Note: this is very different from "but I want to block all ads", that's not what I'm writing here and also not what others might be writing. As for the audience, it varies, but this website is a VC thing, so it makes some sense that a bunch of visitors are from the VC ecosystem and as such might be very money-oriented.

kibwen 3y ago
> The projects can be appreciated while also acknowledging that advertisements are part of the value exchange. No, this is preposterous and I will continue to refute this silly idea every time it shows up here. It is not stealing from radio stations to change the station when ads come on. It is not stealing from TV channels to go get a drink when ads come on. There is no moral compunction to watch ads, from anyone, anywhere. Stop trying to normalize advertising, which is to say, stop trying to normalize the enshittification of the human mind. Meanwhile, a web browser is a user agent running on my machine. Youtube's content is a guest on my hardware. Once it's on my machine, I have the moral right to do whatever I please with it. If Google doesn't want to serve it to me, then it has the right to prevent me from accessing their server, such as in exchange for payment. But again, advertising is not payment, it's just corporate-sanctioned, socially-acceptable brainwashing.
- freshpots 3y ago
  PREACH. I love and 100% agree with your passion.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  > Once it's on my machine, I have the moral right to do whatever I please with it. Sure, but Google also has the moral right to do everything possible with their code to make it as hard as possible for you to skip ads on their videos. You both get to try as hard as you can, so good luck to you both. There's no brainwashing here. It's just a business trying to make money, and trying to outsmart the users trying to outsmart it.
  - aaomidi 3y ago
    > but Google also has the moral right to do everything possible with their code to make it as hard as possible for you to skip ads on their videos So, like use an entirely different part of the company like Chrome to push for WEI to make adblockers not run? Or maybe use chrome to push for manifest v3? Maybe the __moral right to do everything possible__ isn't actually moral when it's using its leverage in a separate market to protect another one of its assets. Maybe we should see this as something to anti-trust them?
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      I dunno -- you've still got the moral right to use Firefox or Safari or a Chromium fork. Ads and adblockers are always going to be a cat and mouse game, so I don't see any reason to complain. Antitrust doesn't really enter the picture. Chrome doesn't even come preinstalled on PCs or Macs anyways -- you've got to go out of your way to choose to install it. So just don't, if you don't like it.
      - aaomidi 3y ago
        > Antitrust doesn't really enter the picture. I don't think this is true. Google Meet, Youtube, etc all perform worse on non-Chrome/Chromium based browsers. I do think that the world's most popular browser, being owned by the same entity that owns Youtube, actively working to block adblockers (adblockers which, do *not* harm Chrome but do harm Youtube) is something for regulatory bodies to take into consideration.
  - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
    >There's no brainwashing here. Advertising is at least trying to make you think thoughts it feeds you. "Buy Brand X, you'll get women!" If the advertising is effective, you'll associate Brand X with something positive and want to buy it. It's kind of blanket brainwashing with extra steps because it's more indirect. Similar technological brainwashing might be joining an algorithmic social media site and becoming convinced of something the algorithm felt was the most engaging thing that day and spread, regardless of truth. Choosing to believe what social media or advertising tells without healthy skepticism you is willingly accepting some brainwashing. There are people who feel really strongly about ads, and I'm one of them. I hate them, they don't share my values, and they are only trying to extract value from me. I run ad blocker in my browser, but mute and skip any ads I can like a peasant on my TV or phone. So overall I end up watching more ads than not since I don't watch videos on my PC much.
- geodel 3y ago
  > Once it's on my machine, I have the moral right to do whatever I please with it. Huh, you can throw the guest out by not watching youtube. Ripping off guest seems strange moral right. > Stop trying to normalize advertising, which is to say, stop trying to normalize the enshittification of the human mind. Seems like you are deciding on everyone's behalf on what one should do with their mind.
  - martimarkov 3y ago
    The alternative is to leave to a for profit company. That company should not have that right. If the content is rendered in my browser I can manipulate the JS and HTML as much as like. If you don’t like that -> feel free to put protections. But the same way a browser interprets the code I can put stuff on top of that interpretation. So morally I’m okay to use a blocker if that’s what I want to do. It’s also immoral to track me but Google seems to be okay with it. If that is the relationship they want to establish so be it. I will act in the reciprocal manner. The idea is not to decide on what someone else is going to do with their mind. Hence the idea that everyone is free to do what they want. Ads are not a natural part of the world so making the argument that not watching them is somehow wrong is what is actually a decision being pushed on others. If companies didn’t try to normalize ads and tell you off for using adblockers then nobody would have a problem with it. But given that people say: You need to watch ads otherwise you are stealing is putting decisions in someone’s mind.
- TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
  Wow. Eloquent. Awesome!
- oneplane 3y ago
  You're wrong. Radio and TV from your example get paid anyway and you count as a watcher in the statistics so it doesn't matter if you're there for the broadcast or not, transaction complete either way. When you are an on-demand user where the transaction is media in exchange for something (advertisements or a paid subscription), and you weasel your way out of exchanging something you're not 'moral' or whatever measure you take. It also doesn't matter what you think or feel with this transaction since the rules are known ahead of time, and you either agree to them or don't, and there is no third option that entitles you to free content. That includes your mental gymnastics about who is a server, who is a client and who did what. The technical details do not matter, they never did and they never will. Is it a shit experience? Definitely. It doesn't mean that the rules you agreed to suddenly don't apply anymore.

kibwen 3y ago

> The projects can be appreciated while also acknowledging that advertisements are part of the value exchange. No, this is preposterous and I will continue to refute this silly idea every time it shows up here. It is not stealing from radio stations to change the station when ads come on. It is not stealing from TV channels to go get a drink when ads come on. There is no moral compunction to watch ads, from anyone, anywhere. Stop trying to normalize advertising, which is to say, stop trying to normalize the enshittification of the human mind. Meanwhile, a web browser is a user agent running on my machine. Youtube's content is a guest on my hardware. Once it's on my machine, I have the moral right to do whatever I please with it. If Google doesn't want to serve it to me, then it has the right to prevent me from accessing their server, such as in exchange for payment. But again, advertising is not payment, it's just corporate-sanctioned, socially-acceptable brainwashing.

freshpots 3y ago
PREACH. I love and 100% agree with your passion.
crazygringo 3y ago
> Once it's on my machine, I have the moral right to do whatever I please with it. Sure, but Google also has the moral right to do everything possible with their code to make it as hard as possible for you to skip ads on their videos. You both get to try as hard as you can, so good luck to you both. There's no brainwashing here. It's just a business trying to make money, and trying to outsmart the users trying to outsmart it.
- aaomidi 3y ago
  > but Google also has the moral right to do everything possible with their code to make it as hard as possible for you to skip ads on their videos So, like use an entirely different part of the company like Chrome to push for WEI to make adblockers not run? Or maybe use chrome to push for manifest v3? Maybe the __moral right to do everything possible__ isn't actually moral when it's using its leverage in a separate market to protect another one of its assets. Maybe we should see this as something to anti-trust them?
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    I dunno -- you've still got the moral right to use Firefox or Safari or a Chromium fork. Ads and adblockers are always going to be a cat and mouse game, so I don't see any reason to complain. Antitrust doesn't really enter the picture. Chrome doesn't even come preinstalled on PCs or Macs anyways -- you've got to go out of your way to choose to install it. So just don't, if you don't like it.
    - aaomidi 3y ago
      > Antitrust doesn't really enter the picture. I don't think this is true. Google Meet, Youtube, etc all perform worse on non-Chrome/Chromium based browsers. I do think that the world's most popular browser, being owned by the same entity that owns Youtube, actively working to block adblockers (adblockers which, do *not* harm Chrome but do harm Youtube) is something for regulatory bodies to take into consideration.
- I_Am_Nous 3y ago
  >There's no brainwashing here. Advertising is at least trying to make you think thoughts it feeds you. "Buy Brand X, you'll get women!" If the advertising is effective, you'll associate Brand X with something positive and want to buy it. It's kind of blanket brainwashing with extra steps because it's more indirect. Similar technological brainwashing might be joining an algorithmic social media site and becoming convinced of something the algorithm felt was the most engaging thing that day and spread, regardless of truth. Choosing to believe what social media or advertising tells without healthy skepticism you is willingly accepting some brainwashing. There are people who feel really strongly about ads, and I'm one of them. I hate them, they don't share my values, and they are only trying to extract value from me. I run ad blocker in my browser, but mute and skip any ads I can like a peasant on my TV or phone. So overall I end up watching more ads than not since I don't watch videos on my PC much.
geodel 3y ago
> Once it's on my machine, I have the moral right to do whatever I please with it. Huh, you can throw the guest out by not watching youtube. Ripping off guest seems strange moral right. > Stop trying to normalize advertising, which is to say, stop trying to normalize the enshittification of the human mind. Seems like you are deciding on everyone's behalf on what one should do with their mind.
- martimarkov 3y ago
  The alternative is to leave to a for profit company. That company should not have that right. If the content is rendered in my browser I can manipulate the JS and HTML as much as like. If you don’t like that -> feel free to put protections. But the same way a browser interprets the code I can put stuff on top of that interpretation. So morally I’m okay to use a blocker if that’s what I want to do. It’s also immoral to track me but Google seems to be okay with it. If that is the relationship they want to establish so be it. I will act in the reciprocal manner. The idea is not to decide on what someone else is going to do with their mind. Hence the idea that everyone is free to do what they want. Ads are not a natural part of the world so making the argument that not watching them is somehow wrong is what is actually a decision being pushed on others. If companies didn’t try to normalize ads and tell you off for using adblockers then nobody would have a problem with it. But given that people say: You need to watch ads otherwise you are stealing is putting decisions in someone’s mind.
TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
Wow. Eloquent. Awesome!
oneplane 3y ago
You're wrong. Radio and TV from your example get paid anyway and you count as a watcher in the statistics so it doesn't matter if you're there for the broadcast or not, transaction complete either way. When you are an on-demand user where the transaction is media in exchange for something (advertisements or a paid subscription), and you weasel your way out of exchanging something you're not 'moral' or whatever measure you take. It also doesn't matter what you think or feel with this transaction since the rules are known ahead of time, and you either agree to them or don't, and there is no third option that entitles you to free content. That includes your mental gymnastics about who is a server, who is a client and who did what. The technical details do not matter, they never did and they never will. Is it a shit experience? Definitely. It doesn't mean that the rules you agreed to suddenly don't apply anymore.