• tb_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    I really don’t get the hate he got for that take.

    Circumventing the method of payment could be argued as being a form of piracy. From that point of view, adblock is piracy.

    Like them or not, YouTube is not a charity and requires the serving of ads to continue funding the service. You could argue about how they go about it, but it’s a fact they need some sort of income to continue to exist.
    Same goes for YouTubers. They get a percentage of that ad revenue. And they also need some form of income.

    But just because he said so doesn’t mean he doesn’t understand why adblock is used. He didn’t say “don’t use adblock.” He’s shown how to use adblock before and since. He’s also mentioned that buying something from their webshop gives them a lot more money than turning off adblock.

    Saying “watching movies for free is pirating” isn’t the same as saying “you shouldn’t pirate movies”.
    Using adblock isn’t engaging with YouTube on YouTube’s terms.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Adblocking isnt piracy, from any point of view.

      Its protection. Protection from sudden loud noises and visual diarrhea. Protection from malware and viruses from random website ads, and protection from Right Wing Extremist Propaganda like PragerU videos detailing how the black man should be grateful for the history of slavery and oppression (which has had a documented, factual effect on driving people into right wing extremist behavior, and the violent rhetoric and actions that inevitably follow)

      As long as all of that exists, Adblocking will never be piracy. Adblocking is, and will be, mandatory protection.

      And if Linus, or anyone else, wants to clutch pearls and cry about adblocking… They can take their complaints to Google/Facebook/Other Ad services, because their lack of moderation and inability to policing content on their services are directly responsible for creating the necessity for adblocking.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        Adblocking isnt piracy…Its protection…from sudden loud noises and visual diarrhea.

        I don’t understand how these are mutually exclusive? It’s both.

      • papertowels@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        To tack onto your list, ad blocking also deprives a source from an intended revenue stream associated with the content, which is probably why it’s being compared to piracy.

        I’m all on board with ad blockers, let’s just at least acknowledge the economic reality surrounding their use.

        • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          The economic reality is that I have to use adblocking because ad services refuse to police and moderate their system. Thats the economic reality that they created.

          Having a problem with the end user protecting themselves from what the advertisers and their ad services created is just trying to shift blame.

          • 60fpsrefugee@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            That’s where Youtube premium comes in. To protect you from ads with a cost per month.

          • tb_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            But that doesn’t mean it isn’t piracy?

            Downloading old Nintendo ROMs because the company refuses to redistribute them is also piracy, even though I would say it’s morally justified.

            • dustyData@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              This has been argued in courts ad nauseum. It is not piracy. Just downloading is not piracy. If you download a ROM from a site, the site is guilty of piracy. You are not. If you download from a torrent though, you’re guilty because you’re also participating in the distribution. There’s also nuance with profit depending on the jurisdiction. But, just like throwing away a pamphlet is not piracy, refusing to download and ad is not piracy.

          • papertowels@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            You…really don’t have to.

            Again, I’m all for ad blockers, I use Firefox, I’ve ran my own pihole instance, etc.

            I’m just going to be frank, you’re being a little melodramatic. Do you just get vaporized when you use someone else’s computer and an ad blocker isn’t installed? Likely not.

            Ironically, by framing what is just a quality of life thing as a mandatory reaction to content providers actions, it sounds like you’re the one trying to shift blame onto them. Your entire argument has very strong “LOOK AT WHAT YOU MADE ME DO” energy.

            All I’m saying is call a spade a spade. I acknowledge that by using an ad blocker, I’m economically negatively affecting the content provider. I’m okay with that. On some websites I’ll disable the ad blocker, if it’s one I use a lot with reasonable constraints.

            • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Your entire post is trying to frame end users for the responsibility of what the advertising companies have done (or more like failed to do) and caused as a result.

              You’re trying to hold a fork up and demand everyone acknowledge as a spade, and ridicule anyone who doesnt agree with a very dismissive attitude.

              • papertowels@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Do you agree that “What the advertising companies have done” was in agreement with the providers of the content you’re consuming?

                Meaning, the providers of the content you’re consuming intended for the advertising to be a revenue stream?

                Meaning it’s not “the big bad advertisers” - it’s really the providers of the content you’re voluntarily consuming who you’re trying to frame as the bad guys?

                • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  I don’t voluntarily consume malware, malicious software, or hate speech/propaganda.

                  Its just forced upon me when I don’t protect myself.

                  Are you really happy with yourself, white knighting for the poor defenseless advertising companies? The ones who serve this shit, without policing or moderation? The lack of which is precisely why adblocking, the thing you are trying to blame users for with your disingenuous “You criticize society, yet you exist in society… interesting” type argument, exists in the first place.

                  All the ad companies have to do to get rid of adblocking is police and moderate their content that they serve. Something they actively refuse to do.

                  And yet you don’t have a single criticism for that. You have nothing but vigorous defense of it, and shifting of blame to the users, for it.

                  • papertowels@lemmy.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    You’re missing my point - the creators of the content you voluntarily consume have an agreement with advertising companies, under which they get financial compensation when people view the ads.

                    Therefore, when you use an ad blocker, you are depriving them of that expected financial compensation.

                    This is why it can be comparable to piracy. You are voluntarily consuming content while depriving the content creators of an intended revenue stream.

                    Do you have any criticism against that line of reasoning, or are you just going to try and criticize me instead?

      • tb_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Its protection.

        From your point of view, yeah. Not from the point of view of the creator and the platform.

        Linus isn’t clutching his pearls nor is he crying, he’s just pointing out you are circumventing the method of payment to the platform. It is detrimental to both the platform and the creator. That is a fact. Your choice has an impact and you should be aware of that.
        But at no point did he say “you’re a bad person if you use adblock”.

        What has got you so worried?