3 ms·

The original claim was that there was some kind of a "everything for free without ads" promise and that blocking adblockers was "going back on a promise". The f

by jsnell 2y ago

The original claim was that there was some kind of a "everything for free without ads" promise and that blocking adblockers was "going back on a promise". The first claim is demonstrably untrue. The second seems pretty inconsistent with your view that they're "free to not send you data". It seems pretty clear the OP was saying that YouTube had no right to try to prevent adblocking, and that the reason was that since there was a time they didn't prevent adblocking, it created some kind of implicit promise to allow it for ever. In that context, I think the analogy to shoplifting is pretty fair. I'm not saying that you're a thief. I'm sure you're not. I'm saying that you taking something for no compensation doesn't create an obligation for the target to continue allowing you to do continue taking it for free, forever.

samatman 2y ago
> In that context, I think the analogy to shoplifting is pretty fair. I don't. A fair analogy would be that just because a credit union had free donuts and coffee for the first six months it operated, doesn't oblige them to still offer that twenty years later. Shoplifting is criminal behavior which someone might get away with, when YouTube was (briefly) giving out product without ads, gratis. Nor is it illegal to block ads, nor should it be illegal. Do I agree that it's weird to expect YouTube to still be ad-free just because it briefly was? Yeah, sure.
- ndriscoll 2y ago
  Not only is ad-blocking not illegal and not immoral, but US the federal government's cyber crime division actively recommends it as a good security practice to avoid being defrauded: https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221 https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221 For anyone that considers ads to be a legitimate form of "payment", consider whether you feel the same about a site running a background crypto miner without your explicit consent. If you find the crypto miner worse for some reason (my sense is most people seem to think that'd be wrong), note that the crypto miner is a much more direct form of payment that doesn't also spy on you and does not seek to manipulate you. Also note that the same company that's running that expensive infrastructure pretty much completely controls the direction of the web, and could overnight make it so that almost everyone's browser has built-in torrent support and allows magnet links as a src for video tags. Or they can choose to have that not be true so that you must distribute media through expensive centralized platforms that only a multi-trillion dollar corporation like them could afford.

by jsnell 2y ago

samatman 2y ago

> In that context, I think the analogy to shoplifting is pretty fair. I don't. A fair analogy would be that just because a credit union had free donuts and coffee for the first six months it operated, doesn't oblige them to still offer that twenty years later. Shoplifting is criminal behavior which someone might get away with, when YouTube was (briefly) giving out product without ads, gratis. Nor is it illegal to block ads, nor should it be illegal. Do I agree that it's weird to expect YouTube to still be ad-free just because it briefly was? Yeah, sure.

ndriscoll 2y ago
Not only is ad-blocking not illegal and not immoral, but US the federal government's cyber crime division actively recommends it as a good security practice to avoid being defrauded: https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221 https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221 For anyone that considers ads to be a legitimate form of "payment", consider whether you feel the same about a site running a background crypto miner without your explicit consent. If you find the crypto miner worse for some reason (my sense is most people seem to think that'd be wrong), note that the crypto miner is a much more direct form of payment that doesn't also spy on you and does not seek to manipulate you. Also note that the same company that's running that expensive infrastructure pretty much completely controls the direction of the web, and could overnight make it so that almost everyone's browser has built-in torrent support and allows magnet links as a src for video tags. Or they can choose to have that not be true so that you must distribute media through expensive centralized platforms that only a multi-trillion dollar corporation like them could afford.