4 ms·

> IMO, there needs to be shift in understanding. They sent their information to my computer. Whatever I do with what they sent is my business, not theirs. It's

by squigz 3y ago

> IMO, there needs to be shift in understanding. They sent their information to my computer. Whatever I do with what they sent is my business, not theirs. It's on my computer. And yet they want it to stop. This is the whole thing to me. Companies like YT have no right to force me to see stuff I don't want to, or bypass what I say goes on in my browser (i.e., an adblocker) If they don't like it, they can not serve my requests. Simple.

appplication 3y ago
This is such a wildly first-amendment-forward take I couldn’t even begin to understand how you could construct a principled argument against it.
- idle_zealot 3y ago
  The argument against it is that by visiting a site you are initiating an exchange as determined by the site operator. In the case of YT, you are watching a video you want to, and must in return watch ads or pay for a premium subscription. The technical details, according to this argument, are invisible to most people and therefore irrelevant. This is, of course, a stance that only makes sense to someone without a real sense of ownership over their computing devices, i.e. to someone who views computers as appliances that are used to consume services.
  - iopq 3y ago
    I didn't sign a contract, so any exchange youtube perceives from my visit is their own hallucination because I didn't agree to their terms.
    - raizer88 3y ago
      Pretty sure today you can't visit YouTube without accepting a ToS.
      - iopq 3y ago
        Or else what? I didn't accept anything when I went to youtube.com Can you force me to keep to an agreement I didn't agree to?
      - DEADMINCE 3y ago
        Sure you can; I do it every day.
      - p_l 3y ago
        If the page content included the content that was supposed to be behind paywall, but you didn't agree to any ToS because you never had seen the paywall, how far in the forest does the pained cry of IP lawyer carry?
      - mvdtnz 3y ago
        Of course you can.
leetcrew 3y ago
> If they don't like it, they can not serve my requests. Simple. this can just as easily be flipped around. if you don't like it, why are you requesting the page? no one is forcing you to view ads on youtube. what they are trying very hard to do is make it difficult for you to consume the thing that costs them money serve without also viewing the ads that pay for it. I get it. I don't like ads either, and I also avoid viewing them whenever possible. I would prefer to pay whatever it costs to serve me the content plus a reasonable profit. but elevating this technical workaround to some sort of moral principle is not tenable. you're not entitled to make up whatever terms you want for consuming the work of others, and it's absurd to think otherwise.
- iopq 3y ago
  I don't know if I want to see the content or not until I request the page. What if I go on youtube, but some scammer replaced it with a page that says "your computer is hacked, send BTC to enable youtube, go to scamwebsite.com". My safe browsing add-on should be able to block the content of scamwebsite.com, or even block this message completely if the maintainers act more quickly than youtube To argue "you visited youtube.com and the scammer has the right to show you the scam message" is not logical, so why should "you visited youtube.com and Google has the right to show you advertisements" hold? You only argued from the act of visiting the website and it costing someone money. It costs the scammer money to serve the requests from billions of people hitting the website, that doesn't change from the perspective of your argument.
  - mvdtnz 3y ago
    You've invented a scenario that doesn't even make glancing contact with reality in order to rationalize your point of view. I'm actually on your side in this argument but not for this totally contrived reason.
    - iopq 3y ago
      It doesn't have to be youtube.com plenty of sites get hacked and hackers phish their users, it's very real

by squigz 3y ago

appplication 3y ago

This is such a wildly first-amendment-forward take I couldn’t even begin to understand how you could construct a principled argument against it.

idle_zealot 3y ago
The argument against it is that by visiting a site you are initiating an exchange as determined by the site operator. In the case of YT, you are watching a video you want to, and must in return watch ads or pay for a premium subscription. The technical details, according to this argument, are invisible to most people and therefore irrelevant. This is, of course, a stance that only makes sense to someone without a real sense of ownership over their computing devices, i.e. to someone who views computers as appliances that are used to consume services.
- iopq 3y ago
  I didn't sign a contract, so any exchange youtube perceives from my visit is their own hallucination because I didn't agree to their terms.
  - raizer88 3y ago
    Pretty sure today you can't visit YouTube without accepting a ToS.
    - iopq 3y ago
      Or else what? I didn't accept anything when I went to youtube.com Can you force me to keep to an agreement I didn't agree to?
    - DEADMINCE 3y ago
      Sure you can; I do it every day.
    - p_l 3y ago
      If the page content included the content that was supposed to be behind paywall, but you didn't agree to any ToS because you never had seen the paywall, how far in the forest does the pained cry of IP lawyer carry?
    - mvdtnz 3y ago
      Of course you can.

leetcrew 3y ago

> If they don't like it, they can not serve my requests. Simple. this can just as easily be flipped around. if you don't like it, why are you requesting the page? no one is forcing you to view ads on youtube. what they are trying very hard to do is make it difficult for you to consume the thing that costs them money serve without also viewing the ads that pay for it. I get it. I don't like ads either, and I also avoid viewing them whenever possible. I would prefer to pay whatever it costs to serve me the content plus a reasonable profit. but elevating this technical workaround to some sort of moral principle is not tenable. you're not entitled to make up whatever terms you want for consuming the work of others, and it's absurd to think otherwise.

iopq 3y ago
I don't know if I want to see the content or not until I request the page. What if I go on youtube, but some scammer replaced it with a page that says "your computer is hacked, send BTC to enable youtube, go to scamwebsite.com". My safe browsing add-on should be able to block the content of scamwebsite.com, or even block this message completely if the maintainers act more quickly than youtube To argue "you visited youtube.com and the scammer has the right to show you the scam message" is not logical, so why should "you visited youtube.com and Google has the right to show you advertisements" hold? You only argued from the act of visiting the website and it costing someone money. It costs the scammer money to serve the requests from billions of people hitting the website, that doesn't change from the perspective of your argument.
- mvdtnz 3y ago
  You've invented a scenario that doesn't even make glancing contact with reality in order to rationalize your point of view. I'm actually on your side in this argument but not for this totally contrived reason.
  - iopq 3y ago
    It doesn't have to be youtube.com plenty of sites get hacked and hackers phish their users, it's very real