this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
1338 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

59174 readers
2122 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

The thing being stolen is the advertisers ability to advertise, which in turn pays for the platform. So, it is stealing from the platform.

FUUUUUUUUUUUUCK THIS! You seem to think they are somehow entitled to force people to view their shit. They are NOT! I have sovereignty over my computer and my eyeballs, and I have every right to control what happens to them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Okay, and you are not entitled to use the platform. How do you suppose people are to keep it running? Charity? Good luck with that. In the case of Youtube or Twitch, video streaming is more expensive than you can imagine.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Requesting users play ads but giving them the content even if they don't means it's more like asking for a charitable donation than a transaction. They could paywall it but they don't, and it's not like there's a competitor with the same content.

Also, Google feel entitled to record your voice on your phone and send it to their servers. Do they think their users are a charity, or worse?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Youtube can't paywall the site, since that would create an even bigger outrage than longer ads. But they are already working on unskippable ads, so people won't be able to block them with conventional means. So to them, it's not a simple request. Either you watch ads or you pay. I'm personally not a big fan of that, since it feels way too intrusive and dystopian.

And yeah, Google as a whole sucks ass, we all know that. Again, I'm not arguing against stealing from them, but just that it IS indead still stealing/piracy to block ads. If you want to do that or not is a personal decision, but people still need to be aware of what they're doing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Google can make it more difficult but it's like anti-cheat, a losing arms race. In the end users control if adverts play even if Google controls the computer as strictly as North Korea OS.

Words do not have innate definitions and "piracy" can mean whatever you want (when not in a court of law). If people understand what you mean then no direct issue. Due to the association with stealing and murder on boats I won't call copyright infringement "piracy" (thanks music industry propaganda) or when blocking adverts. If you insist on calling me a pirate I will respond with pirate talk, ye landlubber.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Arrr, matey! I think we have an understanding! Ye may sail the seven seas, I don' see a thing wrong with it!

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They are not entitled to force people to look at them, but they are entitled to load them in the browser and display them.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

No they're fucking not! My browser on my computer is my property, not theirs! I have every right to control what it does!

Where the fuck do you get off, claiming that corporations have some sort of right to colonize my computer and subvert it against me? Why do you hate property rights?

Let me spell it out for you even more explicitly: you're arguing that a fake corporate "person's" fake "right" (i.e. privilege) to their fake "property" (i.e. temporary monopoly) is somehow superior to an actual person's actual right to their actual property. (In fact, it's even worse than that: what you're really arguing here is that fucking website terms of service -- which barely even qualify as a contract! -- are superior to property rights.) Do you comprehend, at all, how fundamentally ass-backwards your argument is‽

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 months ago

Yes, you may pirate with your computer and vote for your local pirate party. No, it does not cease to be piracy. You think money just fell out of a coconut tree? Edit: I often do it, and it is piracy, plain and simple.