51–60 of 67 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you bought the news paper (or someone else did). FYI I use revenced as well, it's just your argument doesn't sound very sane.
You could argue that paying for the internet service to reach a website is equivalent to buying the newspaper.
I pay for YouTube Premium and saw a full browser screen ad for adding the MAX channel. I wasn’t sure if I clicked on something or if this is a new thing they’re doing. I’ll be pretty unhappy if the latter.
It takes my breath away every time someone says they're paying for YouTube.
I pay for content I like.
the idea of "revenue and profit shouldn't/can't go up forever and that's OK" is not a concept the CEO will accept.
I pay for YouTube Premium and saw a full browser screen ad for adding the MAX channel. I wasn’t sure if I clicked on something or if this is a new thing they’re doing. I’ll be pretty unhappy if the latter.
Regardless, that was way over the line and so I am finally leaving YouTube entirely. Screw them.
I pay for YouTube Premium and saw a full browser screen ad for adding the MAX channel. I wasn’t sure if I clicked on something or if this is a new thing they’re doing. I’ll be pretty unhappy if the latter.
It takes my breath away every time someone says they're paying for YouTube.
Before you tell me about all the ways to just block the YouTube ads, I know about them. They just aren't for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could argue that paying for the internet service to reach a website is equivalent to buying the newspaper.
It's funny that this poor argument is used as a justification for the use of poor arguments.
But I think you've highlighted exactly why net neutrality is terrible in practice (people effectively stealing bandwidth by blocking ads).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you bought the news paper (or someone else did). FYI I use revenced as well, it's just your argument doesn't sound very sane.
You could argue that paying for the internet service to reach a website is equivalent to buying the newspaper.
It's like saying stealing from stores is okay because paying taxes for the upkeep of roads is equivalent to paying for the stores.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More like cutting out the funnies from a newspaper and trashing the ads.
But you bought the news paper (or someone else did). FYI I use revenced as well, it's just your argument doesn't sound very sane.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could argue that paying for the internet service to reach a website is equivalent to buying the newspaper.
How? Buying the newspaper pays the people printing the newspaper and making the paper. Whereas not a cent from paying for internet service goes to third party websites like YouTube. It's like saying stealing from stores is okay because paying taxes for the upkeep of roads is equivalent to paying for the stores.
I pay for YouTube Premium and saw a full browser screen ad for adding the MAX channel. I wasn’t sure if I clicked on something or if this is a new thing they’re doing. I’ll be pretty unhappy if the latter.
It takes my breath away every time someone says they're paying for YouTube.