Most active commenters
  • cwillu(4)

←back to thread

990 points smitop | 19 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
akersten ◴[] No.44333609[source]
Thank you for your important work fighting this battle, it must be exhausting.

The more Google insists on forcing advertising on us, the more we should look closely at the wildly inappropriate and downright scammy ads they are hosting. If they can't leave well enough alone and look the other way on ad blocking, (which is the only way to avoid exposing myself and family to these dangerous ads), they need to be under a lot more scrutiny for the ads they choose to run.

replies(14): >>44333634 #>>44333715 #>>44333722 #>>44333741 #>>44333772 #>>44333866 #>>44333880 #>>44334127 #>>44334295 #>>44334478 #>>44334895 #>>44336346 #>>44336472 #>>44339901 #
yugioh3 ◴[] No.44333722[source]
people deserve to get paid for the work they put into creating content and building platforms, no? books, movies, tv shows, news, etc, are all distributed in some way or another that costs the consumer either money or their time viewing advertising. if you don't want to watch ads, pay YouTube for a subscription.
replies(8): >>44333777 #>>44333915 #>>44334574 #>>44334637 #>>44336354 #>>44338465 #>>44344814 #>>44347536 #
mitthrowaway2 ◴[] No.44333777[source]
YouTube spent about a decade and a half running unintrusive banner ads. Until they secured enough of the market that network effects locked content creators and consumers together in a two-sided market where it's hard for either group to leave unilaterally. Then they ramped up the length and intrusiveness of their ads while flouting content regulations on what they're even allowed to advertise.

Why should I reward that by paying them?

replies(3): >>44333833 #>>44333907 #>>44338011 #
1. cebert ◴[] No.44333833[source]
Ok, well either pay or don’t use YouTube then if you don’t want ads.
replies(3): >>44333872 #>>44333936 #>>44335680 #
2. spencerflem ◴[] No.44333872[source]
My current thought re: piracy is that I never pirate unless I'd be happy if the company I'm pirating from went out of business.
3. cwillu ◴[] No.44333936[source]
The browser is my agent, and it will do my bidding, not google's. You building your company on something that can be legally circumvented is not my problem.
replies(3): >>44334273 #>>44335689 #>>44348145 #
4. apitman ◴[] No.44334273[source]
> The browser is my agent, and it will do my bidding, not google's

I've got bad news for you

replies(1): >>44335984 #
5. probably_wrong ◴[] No.44335680[source]
If YouTube agreed with this point of view they would put up a paywall, the same way neither Nebula nor Netflix are available for free.
6. StackRanker3000 ◴[] No.44335689[source]
”I can get away with it, therefore it’s OK” is an interesting moral philosophy
replies(6): >>44335975 #>>44336568 #>>44337608 #>>44338627 #>>44339027 #>>44339192 #
7. chii ◴[] No.44335975{3}[source]
It's how the world has worked for a very long time, and i dont think that has changed much today.
8. chii ◴[] No.44335984{3}[source]
and that's why people choosing chrome over firefox has that bad news.
replies(1): >>44343168 #
9. spaceribs ◴[] No.44336568{3}[source]
I'm enjoying this holier-than-thou attitude that seems to pervade a lot of comments, as though following the "rules" is all we need to do and is morally justifiable.

These "rules" weren't voted upon by either creators or consumers. Most of them are arbitrary and capricious. Features implemented by YouTube, like showing where people skip to the most, are also an attempt to cut into sponsorship dollars, was that within the "rules"?

Let me be clear: Following the "rules" under these monopolistic circumstances is the philosophy of cowardice in the face of power and doesn't hold as much intellectual merit as you might think.

replies(1): >>44337701 #
10. TheOtherHobbes ◴[] No.44337608{3}[source]
Not as interesting as "And that's 100% ok when the big people operate like that, but very very bad when the little people try to stop them."
11. StackRanker3000 ◴[] No.44337701{4}[source]
Did the person I was replying to say any of that? You’re putting words in both their mouth and mine

I’m receptive to various arguments here that invoke power differentials, pragmatism, even deliberately breaking the terms of a service to help affect change, etc. I’m not necessarily someone who always follows the rules, and even though I do pay for YouTube I don’t view it as a real moral failing to use the free service with an ad blocker turned on

The comment I responded to didn’t have any of that, it just boiled down to “I can do it and they can’t stop me, so they can suck a dick”. Maybe not the end of the world when it’s directed towards Alphabet, but I hope that mindset doesn’t extend to everyone they interact with

replies(3): >>44338692 #>>44338843 #>>44338998 #
12. ta1243 ◴[] No.44338627{3}[source]
That tends to be the approach large companies take, and are championed for it. "It's not their fault the tax code allows them to spend $50m on accountants and lawyers to find a $5b loophole" etc.
13. cwillu ◴[] No.44338692{5}[source]
I'm the person you were replying to, and I endorse spaceribs' comment.

My computer is my property, it will do what I ask it to just like my refrigerator, my tv, and my paper and pencil. I will remove corporate logos from my belongings, and entirely fail to look at the advertising that comes in my mail box. And if google tries to tell my computer to show me advertising, I am _entirely_ within my rights to tell my computer not to.

14. cwillu ◴[] No.44338843{5}[source]
Janie Crane: An off switch?

Metrocop: She'll get years for that. Off switches are illegal!

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Headroom_(TV_series)#The_B...

15. cwillu ◴[] No.44338998{5}[source]
I'm also amused that you equate “legally circumvented” with getting away with something.
16. moooo99 ◴[] No.44339027{3}[source]
Considering that is the framework FAANG in its entirety is based on, I find your reaction quite surprising
17. thowawatp302 ◴[] No.44339192{3}[source]
That’s how google set up this relationship with their users.

“What goes around comes around,” shouldn’t be surprising.”

18. ◴[] No.44343168{4}[source]
19. lxgr ◴[] No.44348145[source]
And that's how we'll eventually get mandatory DRM on all Youtube videos.

We're already halfway there with ad blocker blockers anyway; once the sum of "lost revenue due to collateral damage of blocked users on old/non-DRM-supporting browser versions" and "increased revenue due to finally defeating ad blockers" is positive, it'll happen.