230
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
230 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37724 readers
393 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Possibly a hot take, but as I understand it, content creators of his size should be viewed that the viewer is the product, content creator is the seller, and the sponsor/advertiser is the buyer. It's the content creators job to sell our eye balls and brain space. However, just as a fish resists being captured by a fisher, I resist being sold. Adblocking is my resistance as a product. So producers of said product need to work harder to get enough of their product to be profitable. Should their be a drought, or if my tools are not maintained properly, then is it stealing if my crops die? Did my wheat fields steal from me when they didn't grow enough for me to be a profitable farmer? I am the product being sold, I don't "owe" them anything for harvesting me. It's up to THEM to make my eyes and data worth harvesting to be sold to advertisers.
I see what you mean but I don’t agree. The deal being made here is obvious and you’re signing up to give them data in exchange for watching a video. You’re also signing up to view their ads. You have an option not to be the product at all. You already have the wheat, but you’re giving the middleman less than what was arranged, not just producing less.
And if you view it as okay to not give them what they’re asking for while getting the content anyways, that’s chill. Just recognize that you’re paying less for the content than they’re asking. This is even more enforced by YouTube and news papers who charge for ad free experiences.
I don't buy this rhetoric. By your view, then if I don't watch an ad, then I don't get the content. Yet on YouTube I get the content inspite of declining to view the ad. Some websites do not let me see the content, unless I see their ads. That's fine, I just go to a different site or spend my time doing something else. This rhetoric is to help businesses make money, which is fine, but I have no interest in furthering their narrative. If websites block me from using ad block, then it is entirely within their right to deny me access to their content. *
If you are not paying for a good or service, you are the product. That is my claim. The ad is not the price paid, it is the medium someone is using to collect my market value. Were I to walk to a store, and tell them I wanted something in exchange for seeing their billboard on the highway I'd be laughed out the building.
*Yes there are ways around this, but I think that is outside the scope of this discussion on ads.
I want to be clear still, piracy isn’t a problem or wrong necessarily. I’m not pushing a corporate narrative by saying this, I’m more concerned about creators and other sites that use ads for revenue such as newspapers. So if you want to “pay” a site without money, don’t pirate their content. That’s all. That’s similar to what Linus has said.
But I think this is somewhat similar to asking you for a ticket at the door for a movie. If the “ticket” is watching the ad and they’re asking you to buy the ticket (with premium) or get it from ads, bypassing the doorman would mean it’s piracy. Doesn’t even matter if the doorman doesn’t try to stop you. Doesn’t matter if they don’t pull you out of the movie.
You being the product is irrelevant to the piracy thing. But it is relevant to the moral thing
I don't think you understand my position. I've no argument about piracy or not.
If they don't want me to view their content, then don't allow me to. Netflix has no problem keeping me off their service, because I don't pay the fee. Several other sites block me from viewing their site if I block their ads. That's fine, I leave knowing they don't want me consuming their content. 100% A okay by me. I pay for services I like, and creators I like.
My argument is that watching an ad, is not a form of payment. If it not a payment, it can't be piracy. To take your movie analogy. Let's say a park has a movie screen setup so that anyone can watch the movie, and before the movies starts, someone comes in front and tells everyone about the company sponsoring this public viewing. In the context of youtube, it is not a ticketed event. If I, in the audience, am typing on my phone with my headphones on so that I don't see/hear their sponsor, did I pirate the movie? What if I purposely show up a few minutes late, knowing in advance they would have the sponsor at the start? Is that piracy? I would claim no, but as I understand you, you would say yes.
If YouTube blocks a video from playing because I blocked the ad, then I don't watch the video. If it doesnt, then I can watch the video. My argument is specifically, that what is being sold is not the content. Content creators are creating audiences, with which to capture and sell to advertisers. Advertisers have spent uncountable amounts of money, and decades on propaganda to convince you of your current position, as I understand it, because it benefits them the most.
An advertiser is buying my time, that the content creator is selling. I am not paying a content creator by watching an ad. Full stop. I am paying an advertiser my time, then an advertiser pays the content creator. There is a complete fundamental difference between this relationship, and a simple pay a fee to watch a video, and that complexity is very profitable.
You’re not wrong. But I was just pointing out the validity of talking about the semantics of piracy. I ultimately don’t care what people decide to do, just be aware of what it is you’re doing by blocking ads. Which is most of what Linus was saying.
If I DuckDuckGo something and a video pops up and I watch it, I made no affirmative assent to giving them any data. Even if I go to YouTube.com, I made no agreement. Only if I make an account do I make any sort of contractual agreement with Google. If they only want to show their videos to those who agree to their policies, that’s their perogative. That they haven’t done so suggests that they know and allow people who haven’t done so to watch anyway.
Purchasing and pirating don’t have contractural agreements. You don’t have to have a ToS to pirate something.
If DuckDuckGo does block the ad in their browser, they’ve done the work for you. And if they do not but instead Google decides to serve it to you without ads in a browser, it’s not piracy to not have ads.
As long as the intended revenue of the content you’re viewing is being blocked, you’re pretty much pirating it. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong, it’s just a definitional thing.