jamielife

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by jamielife 3y ago

   Hey man, sorry forgot about this thread. Anyway, calling something ridiculous, as in it's easily open to ridicule, is not necessarily an insult when the specific thing is exactly that. Try not to be so easily offended. Especially onlin
2. 2.▲
   by jamielife 3y ago

   Blind people would be fine as they wouldn't be wearing the glasses. Being physically unable to see the ads and purposely hiding them, are two different things.
3. 3.▲
   by jamielife 3y ago

   That's a ridiculous take. The Internet isn't just free infrastructure that anyone can use. The data has to live somewhere. 2,500 people work at YT. They pay salaries, have offices, manage servers to store the videos, pay their
4. 4.▲
   by jamielife 3y ago

   I agree. But services should also be able to require that you remove those types of glasses to use their service. In that case, if you ride the bus for free, you see the ads or you don't ride the bus.
5. 5.▲
   by jamielife 3y ago

   Because it costs them money to host the videos on their servers, you're not paying for the protocol to deliver the content, just like you're not paying for the roads when you ride the bus. Additionally it cost the content creators
6. 6.▲
   by jamielife 3y ago

   Not really a fair comparison. The equivalent to "looking the other way," on YouTube would be exactly that, looking somewhere other than the ad (opening another browser, going to the bathroom, etc.). Ad Blockers are essential paint