←back to thread

Grayjay Desktop App

(grayjay.app)
510 points pierrelf | 8 comments | 20 Dec 24 17:33 UTC | HN request time: 0.406s | source | bottom
Show context
pxoe ◴[21 Dec 24 14:33 UTC] No.42479914[source]▶
Does this app has any creator monetization in mind, or does 'your way' means 'fuck you, i'm not paying you for shit, i'm just taking it'? None of it is "your content", or their content, it's just someone else's content they're leeching on. "full ownership" - of what?

literally just, what are their thoughts on that. do people deserve being paid? or don't? and if they don't and it's not worth paying for, how is it still worth watching? what is this bizarre mix of disdain and yet desire and entitlement to things, that they'll try to get them in whatever roundabout way, instead of just not watching the thing?

replies(7): >>42479994 #>>42480062 #>>42480127 #>>42480138 #>>42480276 #>>42480325 #>>42480346 #
Liquix ◴[21 Dec 24 14:50 UTC] No.42479994[source]▶
creators deserve to be paid. viewers deserve to not be psychologically manipulated by advertisements and algorithms.

insisting viewers "pay" by subjecting themselves to ads is an unethical business model; refusing to support the practice is a rational reaction.

replies(1): >>42480057 #
pxoe ◴[21 Dec 24 15:01 UTC] No.42480057[source]▶
"rational" as in, rationalizing the contradiction of "not paying" and "getting content anyway". just don't watch. don't support the practice entirely. it's not really as much of a stance as it is just a contrived way to excuse away getting the thing you simultaneously hate and crave. like, the content has already manipulated you even without you paying for it and refusing to pay for it, by making you do this little dance, of trying to get it and trying to rationalize getting it.
replies(2): >>42480228 #>>42480397 #
1. cxr ◴[21 Dec 24 16:03 UTC] No.42480397[source]▶
> a contrived way to excuse away getting the thing you simultaneously hate and crave

> just don't watch

Is your position a value judgement on the morality of not watching ads + technology that enables you to watch as few as possible? Or on the societal fixation to consume junk?

If the former, please elaborate on your position as it relates to VCRs and DVRs of the sort that are built-in to DirecTV receivers.

replies(1): >>42480481 #
2. pxoe ◴[21 Dec 24 16:19 UTC] No.42480481[source]▶
i just find the tension and contradictions of piracy kinda fascinating. "i hate this so much but i have to get it cause i apparently need it so badly". something being deserving to be obtained, yet not deserving to be paid for. and most of all, somebody feeling so entitled to it that they just can't actually refuse it completely.
replies(1): >>42480743 #
3. cxr ◴[21 Dec 24 17:00 UTC] No.42480743[source]▶
You didn't answer the question, and overall you're being very mercurial in this thread. Write coherently.

> i just find the tension and contradictions of piracy kinda fascinating

You're calling watching a TV show without watching the commercials "piracy"? That's a very broad definition of "piracy" that I'd venture has almost no support outside of your comments here.

replies(2): >>42481698 #>>42482896 #
4. speff ◴[21 Dec 24 19:37 UTC] No.42481698{3}[source]▶
I'd call it piracy in a way. Ads are how that specific piece of content is made available - whether it be for paying file hosting costs, creator living expenses, video production, etc. Consuming media without providing compensation for it (through ad views in this case) would meet my definition of new-age piracy.
replies(2): >>42482292 #>>42482382 #
5. ◴[21 Dec 24 21:06 UTC] No.42482292{4}[source]▶
6. wahnfrieden ◴[21 Dec 24 21:17 UTC] No.42482382{4}[source]▶
You want adblock developers to be caged by the state, like piracy site providers?
replies(1): >>42483181 #
7. pxoe ◴[21 Dec 24 22:37 UTC] No.42482896{3}[source]▶
If anything, i'd say that your interpretations and subsequent tangents are incoherent. It's really very simple. Get better at understanding.
8. speff ◴[21 Dec 24 23:29 UTC] No.42483181{5}[source]▶
No