131–140 of 155 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blocking ads is the same as stealing. You are very intelligent.
The reason it's not stealing is because the cost to the serve content is tiny (spare change) and the sites don't stop you from viewing it with ad-blocker (unlocked doors).
You are able to make your own définition though. The clear mark of a very intelligent mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be clear: I completely believe that Premium is a major source for many people. 100%. I just haven't seen many examples of it, outside tubers that have zero sponsorships (because they're small and/or not doing the low-value slightly-shady ones that get spammed everywhere). I'm thrilled that Premium seems to pay relatively well, it's better for everyone to move away from ads where possible. LTT though is a rather si…
I know a couple of other creators, and a YT Premium view for them is about 10x more lucrative than sponsorship+ads. It completely changes if we're talking about non-Premium views.
I can try to hunt mine down, but most of the examples I've had were from a couple years ago, and YouTube's history is rather hard to search for stuff like that :| Not high odds of success.
Happy YouTube Premium customer here
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason it's not stealing is because the cost to the serve content is tiny (spare change) and the sites don't stop you from viewing it with ad-blocker (unlocked doors).
The reason its not stealing is because stealing means to remove someone of the ownership of something they own. You are able to make your own définition though. The clear mark of a very intelligent mind.
But I suppose strictly speaking, theft is not the same word as stealing. I was not smart enough to get that. You're right, and I apologize.
Not that ad-blocking is illegal, it's not, but it does bypass payment to creators for content they provide. Which functionally acts the same as theft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YouTube is 10x the quality and 10x the quantity than any other video service. As for the ads, YouTube Premium now has built-in sponsor skip. They can't really block sponsored segments, as that is a freedom of speech issue and also something they can't easily determine. Creators can just omit that some product is sponsored.
>Creators can just omit that some product is sponsored. Not true in the US, where the FTC requires (and has required for decades) disclosure by the creator to the viewer whenever a payment has been made to the creator to promote anything. On Youtube, this is typically done by the creator's saying (in the video) "this video is sponsored by Foo Corporation", or, "I wish to thank the sponsor of this video, Foo Corporati…
Although I like your idea about creators themselves having to declare to YouTube their sponsored segments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason its not stealing is because stealing means to remove someone of the ownership of something they own. You are able to make your own définition though. The clear mark of a very intelligent mind.
I did not invent the definition of "IP theft" or the laws around it. But I suppose strictly speaking, theft is not the same word as stealing. I was not smart enough to get that. You're right, and I apologize. Not that ad-blocking is illegal, it's not, but it does bypass payment to creators for content they provide. Which functionally acts the same as theft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason its not stealing is because stealing means to remove someone of the ownership of something they own. You are able to make your own définition though. The clear mark of a very intelligent mind.
I did not invent the definition of "IP theft" or the laws around it. But I suppose strictly speaking, theft is not the same word as stealing. I was not smart enough to get that. You're right, and I apologize. Not that ad-blocking is illegal, it's not, but it does bypass payment to creators for content they provide. Which functionally acts the same as theft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Creators can just omit that some product is sponsored. Not true in the US, where the FTC requires (and has required for decades) disclosure by the creator to the viewer whenever a payment has been made to the creator to promote anything. On Youtube, this is typically done by the creator's saying (in the video) "this video is sponsored by Foo Corporation", or, "I wish to thank the sponsor of this video, Foo Corporati…
I don't think individual YouTube creators are too much concerned about FTC rules and regulations. Although I like your idea about creators themselves having to declare to YouTube their sponsored segments.
Also, if the creator doesn't follow the rule, the sponsor can be fined by the FTC, so even before the FTC notices the violation, the sponsor will probably notice and refuse to continue the relationship unless the creator's videos comes into compliance with the rule.
Again, this rule has been in effect for decades in the US. Advertisements in the US must be labeled as such. Ditto paid endorsements.
Announcement from the dev, in the project GitHub and Patreon: Friends, it seems that my digital signature has been exposed. This signature protects the app from fake and malicious updates, so there is a risk that someone may try to release counterfeit versions under my name. To completely eliminate any threats, I’ve decided to stop using the current signature and switch to a new one. Because of this, the app’s identi…
> To completely eliminate any threats, I’ve decided to stop using the current signature and switch to a new one. Because of this, the app’s identifier will also change. You don’t need to delete the old app (but it will no longer receive updates) I'm curious if this is the best idea? Like, if you don't read all the GitHub releases thoroughly or miss the HN material, and instead you just auto-install updates, you downl…
For those using sketchy devices without Play Protect and also installing random apks without an understanding of security or Android's trust-on-first-use model, there's not much anyone can do.