241–250 of 316 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YouTube Premium is ad-free YouTube. That's literally "paying for YouTube". But it sure seems that you're trying to rationalize your unwillingness to pay for something and it does sound very entitled.
It isn’t adfree. It is “no ads inserted by Google”. In-video promotions are ads. You cannot pay to block them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. They insist on sending it to me for free with ads included.
Literally this entire thing is about Youtube refusing to send the video to non-premium users who are blocking ads. Do you even know what you're commenting on?
It's only a matter of time before they fix the "YouTube can detect uBlock Origin" bug.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. They insist on sending it to me for free with ads included.
Literally this entire thing is about Youtube refusing to send the video to non-premium users who are blocking ads. Do you even know what you're commenting on?
People will go on a massive tirade, over GPL violation... then turn around and completely disregard the license terms that content is being delivered to them with.
The irony of it all is that the whole IT community literally relies on strong copyright enforcement, including FOSS community... yet many fail to extend the same courtesy to people making videos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Literally this entire thing is about Youtube refusing to send the video to non-premium users who are blocking ads. Do you even know what you're commenting on?
I hate how hypocritical this whole issue is. People will go on a massive tirade, over GPL violation... then turn around and completely disregard the license terms that content is being delivered to them with. The irony of it all is that the whole IT community literally relies on strong copyright enforcement, including FOSS community... yet many fail to extend the same courtesy to people making videos.
By the way, we are under exactly zero obligation to watch any advertisements, moral or otherwise. Best they can do is hope we watch them. They're not entitled to our attention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> content caching services will strip out the ads, and play with a delay. To achieve this, you’ll need computation, storage, and bandwidth on the scale of YouTube. Do you think whoever offers that service will do so without ads or payment? Your whole scheme is based on hoping “kind” and knowledgeable volunteers do free labor for you. Good luck. I for one am tech savvy and am happy to pay $20 for the ad free service.…
If you play with a delay, then why would you need any more storage than what is required to play a single video? Personally I would not pay any amount to Google, as I believe it is unethical to support such a company. Google has a monopoly in several markets, to the point of being an unavoidable part of our lives. No single company should have that much power. Especially since due to its nature as a for-profit corpor…
As for myself - most of my subscription price goes to the creators and I'm happy with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine if you walk into a 7/11 and just fill your bottle with soda for free without paying. They eventually decide that too many people were doing this, so they decide to place their soda machine behind the counter, so you're required to pay. Then you complain that they're putting all the other convenience stores out of business because they used to give you soda for free. This is how entitled you sound.
> they decide to place their soda machine behind the counter, so you're required to pay Let's add another step before this: Understand that people are visiting the store because the soda is free in practice and allow the practice to continue until other stores don't see any business because they can't afford to offer free soda. Now we move the soda machine behind the counter because we don't like that people are gett…
My point is that people who were never intent on paying businesses for their services never cared about the sustainability of those businesses in the first place and are just using it to rationalize their anger. This sort of moral consistency matters with civil law where good and bad aren't trivially obvious.
Society collectively agrees that it's good for supermarkets to offer loss leader rotisserie chickens. An argument can be made that it's anticompetitive because it basically put Boston Market out of business, but I wouldn't be as receptive if that came from someone who was caught stealing supermarket rotisserie chickens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Netflix should also block movies with product placement. /s On a more serious note, that would be google editorializing the content which I don't want. If a channel is advertising their upcoming tour, or advertising Patreon or Nebula, should google block them too? Do you want google's content policy to prevent users from mentioning or showing any product? You're free to only watch creators that don't put ads in their…
> Netflix should also block movies with product placement. Absolutely. One day someone much smarter than me will create an AI ad blocker that removes that sort of thing in real time. > On a more serious note, that would be google editorializing the content which I don't want. Have users collectively catalogue segments of the videos then. Pretty much what Sponsor Block does. I'm sure the highly paid engineers at Googl…
Ah I got it. We should check with you what you consider an ad or not then inform google’s content policy based on that. That makes sense.
> I'm free to do any number of things.
You’re the one wanting to take that freedom from others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google is immorally trying to control the web, is a significant difference. I pay creators through patreon or their tip jars, and it's rather more than they'd make from me paying Google.
If you don’t want to support Google, you need to stop using YouTube even with an ad blocker. Your activity still counts in the usage stats and choosing to watch there tells the creators of the videos you watch that they have to stay on YouTube because it’s where their audience is.
It's amazing to me how Google is allowed to control every side of the market with no real repercussions. I don't want to be the cynic who says Google has been paying lots of money to "the right people" in order to keep the status quo, but.. Google has been paying lots of money.. That might be a moderate huge win for Firefox.. until someone at Google makes a phone call to Mozilla's offices. Worst case scenario it help…
Why are you consuming any YT videos, then? Why are so many people feel entitled to YT videos without ads?
Because we want to.
> Why are so many people feel entitled to YT videos without ads?
No one's "feeling entitled" to anything. They're the ones who send us free videos. No reason not to accept.
If anyone's "feeling entitled" here it's them. To our attention. We're not actually obligated to look at the noise they sent along with the video. It's that simple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google is immorally trying to control the web, is a significant difference. I pay creators through patreon or their tip jars, and it's rather more than they'd make from me paying Google.
So... Logically, you also don't use YouTube and watch their videos on Patreon... Because Patreon also hosts videos.
Edit: that's all set up now so it'll show me the patreon videos first. And creators are making many times more money off me than they were before. Google is unnecessary!