this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
1338 points (97.9% liked)
Technology
59174 readers
2961 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
I don't understand why people are all pro-piracy but then get offended when someone accuses them of piracy....
He never went on any "big rants". He's mentioned it a few times, and he's right. You're bypassing payment (in the form of watching ads) to watch the video. LTT doesn't really care because AdSense only makes up a small portion of their income, which is why he's shown many different times, many different ways to block/bypass advertising. I could make an argument about how he's "pulling up the ladder behind him" but I digress.
Regardless "piracy" is a fairly convoluted term with no concrete definition and it's a dumb argument for anyone to have.
Its not piracy though... its the same as if you recorded television and then... skip over the ads. TiVo was doing that 25 years ago. You have no obligation to watch ads.
If content relies purely on ad revenue and viewer ship disappears, perhaps its time to rethink the revenue stream.
We all fucking know what 'piracy' means in terms of software piracy and copyright infringement.
People like you are just being pedantic for the sake of derailing the argument.
Just admit you are a fucking leech and move on.
Except you do not know what copyright infringement is. One must be depriving the owner their rights, such as distributing copyright material. The real loser here is youtube. By not watching ads, youre costing them bandwidth and violates theyre ToS. But theyre a multi billion dollar tech giant that has no quams about fucking society over. So fuckem.
Me: stop being a pedantic twat, we all know what everyone means by piracy in this case
You: let me be even more pedantic
It's ok bro just admit you're a leech and move on.
You literally do not have to use YouTube.
And what exactly would not using youtube accomplish?
It'd make you less of a self righteous leech for a start.
A leech to who?
Let's just say I am not surprised you have no clue.
Not answering my question suggests you dont have any clue either.
It's the content creators you fucking single braincelled organism
Ah... so... you assume i dont directly support creators because i dont watch corporate marketing?
You certainly don't, considering you're crying about YouTube ads. If you were actually supporting the creators of the content you watch, you'd be able to watch their content on whichever platform you support them on, ad free.
Not if they only upload to youtube...
Lmao sure.
It's ok to be a leech man just admit it and move on.
you must been in marketing to be this upset noone wants to watch advertisement to shitty products.
No, but I understand how free content distribution works.
This is correct, he both explained how ad blocking hurts creators, and how ultimately he doesn't mind because purchasing merch is way more beneficial to them then the adsense money.
All he was saying is do what you want to do but don't pretend your actions don't impact other people. Do it with open eyes if you're going to do it.
To be clear, blocking ads isn't directly denying anyone money. YouTube decides how video creators are paid and they choose to not pay if ads are blocked. You can agree or disagree with that decision, but the user has no role in it.
Personally I think it's shitty that YouTube can just refuse to pay for the content people create for them.
I did not agree to anything. When I open the site they just start serving videos to me (even autoplay is activated by default). If they don't want me to watch their videos without ads they should stop serving them to me (ie, put them behind a paywall)
Ownership implies a device should be controlled by the user. I don't just mean not playing adverts but how about not recording my voice (or other data) to send it to Google servers for them to keep and exploit? You're free to believe in this implied agreement but I doubt that's in your best interests.
So...this is YouTube's fault because they chose not to be a charity? LOL that's some gold-winning mental gymnastics right there.
By this argument going to the bathroom during a commercial break is piracy.
This isnt "someone being offended when accused of piracy"
This is " People getting upset when an idiot tries to blame end users, instead of holding the people who created the problem accountable"
Cause adblock isnt a user problem.
Its an ad service problem. They created a hostile environment where people had to run adblockers to protect themselves against unmoderated and unpoliced content and malicious/infected advertising.
If you have issues, blame the people who caused it, not the end users trying to protect themselves.
Did Linus blame anyone though?
No. He simply stated a fact.
Only you didn't go to the bathroom. The ad just never appeared.
Chances of you getting up and leaving the room every time an ad comes on: 10%.
Chances of you blocking an ad with an ad-blocker: 100%.
I think it very clearly is.
Whether it is piracy or not has nothing to do with blame or responsibility. You're still just taking personal offense to being called a pirate and conjuring up nonsense arguments to combat it.
Actually I have a track record of 100% getting up to do stuff when ads happen
Like what are you even doing in your life bro?
Using ad blockers. What are you doing?
Ad blocker on a tv broadcast, sure.
I haven't watched TV since 2007...
Yeah, him calling it piracy or not doesn't matter, it's just a stupid semantic argument that doesn't matter at all to his overall point. And while I think it's a stupid take of him, it's also the reason people are still bringing up his opinion on the matter, so good job of him spreading his message I guess?
If they want payment, they can require registration, agreement to payment and authentication. Nothing's stopping them. If they put something on the open web and try to monetize it, nobody owes them a living. If I put a display in a shop window, and include wording that says that looking at the display means you're obligated to also hear a sales pitch, everyone will rightly tell me to fuck off.
Choosing not to load potential spyware, malware and bloatware while looking at free content is no more piracy than is crossing the street while shopping to avoid a tout.
It is not free content. You're just spreading disinformation. Just like the movies you download when pirating are not free content. The payment is watching ads. You're utilizing software to forego that payment (just like piracy).