I know the topic of whether adblock is piracy is debated, but I am guessing there are a lot of adblock users here and I was wondering if anyone has seen the youtube adblock warning message in the wild. I use ublock origin and still haven’t seen it once.
I won’t use the term “piracy”. Just because the man says “up is down” doesn’t make it so. Piracy, historically is using threat of force and/or harm to force capitulation. In history past, pirates would fire across the bow to allow the target to choose to fight/flee or capitulate and pay the pirates, which is extortion. Technically, ransomware hackers are, by the historical definition, the true pirates. Individuals watching videos without ads is, by definition, individuals watching videos without ads.
Another issue which is connected to labeling users “pirates” is the data caps and bandwidth throttling by mobile carriers and ISPs. Users make agreements with carriers for data and bandwidth for x.x price, but YouTube “steals” data limits and bandwidth by ads. Shouldn’t we expect them to pay us for our lost bandwidth and data caps?
It can’t be a one way street for a corporation to label users as unethical reprobates or “pirates” while he steals my paid for data limits and bandwidth.
People typically associate piracy with actions that can land individuals in legal trouble due to it being law breaking. I don’t know that there is a country yet that sentences people for using Adblocker. Even the FBI recommends it.
Like I can see how companies don’t like people consuming their service without seeing ads, but this isn’t people copying or cracking and stealing account credentials to get access to something that is paywalled like some Netflix account. This is a flaw on their end and people are accessing it legally.
It’s like some drive in theater getting mad someone who lives across from there can just watch movies from their backyard without paying and then saying they are committing piracy. They aren’t sneaking into a theater.
It’s one of Lienus’s L takes. People are giving it the benefit of a doubt because he has a huge following.
I started parroting “using a VPN to bypass region block is privateering” in response. LMG taking any VPN sponsorships after that L take is hypocrisy in my book.
LTT also did videos about PiHole and YouTube Vanced, so I personally don’t think it’s hypocrisy advertising VPN’s (as long as those VPN ads don’t lie about it’s benefits).
I do believe that Linus once again uses words in ways not commonly used. I.e. if they define piracy as
consuming content without paying how the creator intended
then blcoking ads is piracy. But the commonly used definition is more like wikipedia’s
[…] Online piracy or software piracy is the practice of downloading and distributing copyrighted works digitally without permission […]
If blocking ads is enough to constitute piracy then piracy ceases to lose meaning since then every act of using any website with an Adblocker is an act of piracy. At that point piracy becomes a meaningless phrase when even the FBI endorses the piracy tool.
For Linus to insinuate that a crime is being committed by comparing it to piracy is ridiculous, since last I checked there isn’t a country where adblocking is a crime. He can argue it’s morally unfair for people to legally visit YouTube and legally not disable Adblock to view his channel, but it’s not a crime. He’s basically implying that people should be running around without Adblockers on the web, which itself is a security risk to do. But, hey blocking ads is piracy and you wouldn’t want to be a criminal would you?
I don’t remember whether Linus said blocking ads is a crime. It isn’t a crime, and that’s really important.
At that point piracy becomes a meaningless phrase when even the FBI endorses the piracy tool.
I don’t think it’s right to call something a piracy tool. We have the similar discussions about “hacking tools”. Nmap can be used for commuting crimes, just like BitTorrent, the Internet or my kitchen knifes.
With this it isn’t a problem for the FBI to promote “piracy tools”, since almost everything can be used for good and legal purposes. uBlock is one of the most important tools to be secure on the internet, just like nmap to make sure systems are secure.
He can argue it’s morally unfair for people to legally visit YouTube and legally not disable Adblock to view his channel, but it’s not a crime.
Yeah, I brought up the crime aspect, since piracy to me is an act where laws are being broken that can result in fines or imprisonment. Pirates were outlaws and hanged, so kind of reason why digital lawbreakers got the moniker pirate. Not really in the category of even legal malicious compliance.
Was meant to draw attention to how ridiculous it was to even label a completely legal action as an act of piracy just because he was upset about adblockers. Might as well call out Brave browser next with it blocking ads out the box.
Yeah it's even more ridiculous when you apply this logic to sponsored segments.
It's an ad, I skip it by seeking in the video, therefore it is piracy?
Also, people get arrested and fined for piracy where I live (because it is, well, illegal), so people blocking ads should go to prison?
When the face of LMG talks about things like this in a main channel video they should look into the consequences of the opinion they present.
Excuse the language, but what the actual fuck was Linus thinking?
Like what is the actual end goal here?
Linus says people should be punished for blocking ads, and the best way he thinks it should be executed is by law enforcement? Last time I checked that is how illegal actions are usually handled.
Exactly. You’re being fed HTML etc and then deciding how to render it (or part of it in the case of ad blocking). This isn’t piracy. There’s no rules that come with the HTML in terms of how to render it. Different browsers can render it a number of different ways so how is not rendering part of it any different?
Don’t give them any ideas. lol Otherwise, cable boxes around the world are likely to receive a firmware update that blocks you from changing channels during commercials.
All future displays will have built in cameras that start dimming and turn off the screen if it notices you aren’t paying attention. They’ll say it is a power saving feature, but not put in an option to disable it.
This kinda already exists. There’s that smart tv you can get for free by agreeing to built-in ads via a display underneath the main one or something. LTT discussed it recently; I think I saw a WAN show clip about it.
I use New Pipe on my phone, I also use ublock origin on Mozilla Firefox, but recently I’ve been watching more using mpv, don’t know if they can do something about it
Youtube’s ad policy is abusive, and online ads are not always safe. Regardless of whether adblocking is legal or fair to Youtube, not doing so puts you at greater risk of malware insertion so is a necessary safety precaution.
As YouTube profits from your engagement through more than ads, YouTube still benefits even when you watch videos without ads.
Edit: downvoted with 0 counter-arguments. Classic.
Personally, I don’t see how YouTube can be abusive. It is their platform and they can do whatever they want with it. It is your choice if you use it or not. If you think the ads are out of control, you can pay for their subscription or use free services.
If content creators are uploading their videos there, it is because YouTube can pay them more than other platforms… Thanks to the ads. So it’s not like there aren’t other options out there, it’s just that YouTube pays content creators more. Free market.
You’re getting an endless amount of information backed by amazing engineers that designed a service that never goes down and loads 4K videos at incredible speeds worldwide for millions of users concurrently… At the price of a few minutes of your life per day. Seems fair. They are not denying you the access to the information. They are using that money to pay content creators fairly so they are incentiviced to create more content that you can enjoy.
YouTube is a high quality service. Why is it bad to give them something back for the high quality service you’re receiving? It’s not like this is a mediocre click bait article with 50 ads attacking your screen. Plus, you’re also giving back to the content creators. If you didn’t like the content, you can downvote them or report them to tweak the algorithm.
I disagree with the “it’s their platform” argument, but I definitely agree with you that people should stop complaining about YouTube ads so much.
They give you an option to both remove the ads and support the creators you watch. They support billions of hours worth of content watching each year and millions of hours of content storage, across the world, for free if you so choose. Seems quite generous.
I’d bet most people watch YouTube almost as much as Netflix or Hulu, again for free, and still complain about YouTube serving ads. The solution is to just pay for premium. They even give you music streaming with it anyway.
Yeha and pirates say that content should be free and accessible, and that’s why piracy is ethical. YouTube is providing a way to keep content available for everyone while keeping a business running for millions of people around the globe.
Just look at all the posts in this community saying that piracy is THE ethical way.
So, they fucking hate it when content is paywalled and say that this is awful because content should be free for poor people. But they also hate it when content is free and they have to watch ads. They just hate every sustainable business model. Wtf.
This is just communism in disguise. They want private effort for free and hassle free anytime, anywhere. Probably looking at it on their Iphones or Samsung phones. Thst they were able to purchase because they were paid for their work.
Your definition of communism is flawed, but I actually agree with the rest of what you’re saying. Content creators are what makes yt worthwhile, and them earning money through ads is perfectly reasonable.
YouTube has some shady practices like showing ads on videos of creators that don’t have a contract with them, meaning YouTube makes money from those creators without the creators receiving anything in return. But for the most part I think that ads on YouTube are fine.
When they think it is morally correct, yeha. When they think piracy is morally correct and ethical, they are basically disregarding private property and private incentive. They think it is their right to have free access to information that others worked to create.
I wouldn’t have a problem if they accepted they are basically stealing, at least I’d respect that, but they won’t. They think piracy is freeing society from capitalism. If you don’t believe me, keep reading the posts in this community.
Are you implying I’m far right? If so, you’re so wrong. I’m not far left either.
They are literally giving them the content for free. FOR FREE!
But no… “watching ads!?? For a 4K stream with machine learning generated captions for accessibility, multi-language subtitles, minimal buffer time and worldwide low latency? Are they INSANE! They are exploiting us! We are the victims of a corporation! Everything should be totally free and ad-free for us to enjoy anytime from our Iphones. Also, don’t forget to give me my paycheck in time because I’m also anti-work and it is abusive if I don’t get paid a fair wage for my effort, you cheap corporate pig”.
No, I’m just pointing out the community you’re talking about. This is a piracy community, on Lemmy. If you’re surprised that this specific community is hostile to your arguments, I’m not sure what you were expecting.
Addressing the main point of your argument, the idea of the FOSS movement which many people in this community espouse is to have effectively a volunteer and donation-based society, just like Lemmy and the rest of the Fediverse. Peertube comes to mind as a specific example. For a significant portion of that population, communism and socialism are also not considered bad things. For others, the crux of their complaint is not against the monetization of content, but the degree to which said monetization interrupts their viewing experience - 30 second ads on a 10 second video, for instance, or multiple 10 second ads interspersed at 30 second intervals throughout a 2 minute video, with the lion’s share of the revenue going to YouTube and not directly to the creators - hence the creation of platforms such as Bitchute, Nebula and CuriosityStream.
And what specifically is wrong with being paid a fair wage on time for work and effort matching the job description exactly?
As the social media juggernauts, these companies are viewed as the embodiment of everything they see as wrong with a capitalist/corporatist society, and in their mind, by dismantling or fundamentally changing and challenging these juggernauts, they can inspire and bring about the change they want in society as a whole.
I also think these corporations are evil, but complaining about everything they do just because it is an inconvenience for them? They should complain and act on the shit that matters.
Also an unpopular opinion but I actually don’t mind paying for YouTube Premium to avoid the ads. Content creators get a bigger cut from my watching habits and it comes with a music streaming platform.
We are in piracy community though so it makes sense people are against paying for content that once upon a time was completely free.
But despite paying still remain the product since Google is still data mining users instead of opting paid users out. And doesn’t have options like sponsorblock built in, dislikes returned, or ability to combine subscriptions into custom groups.
I feel you could get the annual cost and divide it among channels you want to give the money and that’d be more money for them. Like I don’t see the official YouTube app being a better app than third parties personally.
Even YouTube front ends I’ve found better than the official YouTube site, since they can bypass region blocks.
Do you also not see how a Tyrant boss that screams and belittles their employees is being abusive? The employees are free to quit and find work elsewhere right? Oh wait, freedom to avoid abusive behaviour doesn’t make that behaviour non-abusive!
I’ll also add that Youtube’s ads aren’t the only way you ‘pay’ for the service. They gobble up all the data they can glean from your interactions with them. So much data most people don’t even really understand how much they’re giving away. This data is sold sure, but it is also used to inform the algorithm on how to make the service more addictive to the users. That is to say, some of the abuse is insidious. Are drug dealers paragons of virtue when they offer free samples?
No other service advertises as obtrusively as Youtube does. Twitch comes close. The reasons they get away with this are:
the service is designed to be addictive, and
they have an effective monopoly. No other free service (and paid for that matter) comes close.
Just because you think making you watch ads make it abusive doesn’t mean it is.
Why do you hold the voice of truth? I just told you, I don’t think it is abusive because that is giving more money to content creators. If you think it is abusive, stop using the service. Also, you knew about the data they are mining and you’re still using the service. Do you think others are blind to the fact Google collects data? They just don’t care, like you.
Do you also think the husband isn’t being abusive because the battered wife let the food get cold? ‘It is not abusive because he gets a hot meal out of it’. That’s what you sound like.
So you’re saying YouTube is an abusive husband and you’re a wife who can’t get away from that relation because you’re too afraid for your life or your children’s future?
I never saw it like that. I hope YouTube doesn’t kill you or take away your children.
You’re comparing very serious cases with the most ridiculous type of dependency ever. You’re comparing an abusive employer/employee relation with YouTube making you watch ads. Holy shit. A husband beating the shit out of his wife with YouTube making you watch ads.
What’s next, are you going to compare this with African-American slavery? A level 7 intergalactic species dominating the milky way and extracting resources from defenseless planetary systems?
Personally, I don’t see how YouTube can be abusive. It is their platform and they can do whatever they want with it. It is your choice if you use it or not. If you think the ads are out of control, you can pay for their subscription or use free services.
Personally, I don’t see how people using adblockers can be abusive. It is their computer and they can display whatever content they want with it. It is their choice whether an ad plays on it or not. If YouTube thinks the adblockers are out of control, they can start paying people money to watch content on YouTube’s computers.
It’s abusive because a 2min video will have 30sec of ads its absolute bullshit and worse than even cable fuckery.
And I’m really, REALLY sick if seeing this idiotic argument of company X can do anything they want, because free market.
This isn’t even youtube specific but I absolutely disagree with that line of reasoning. That same argument is used by people whenever a company does shady shit.
No company just materialized out of thin air pulling themselves out of the ether, they all exist and thrive because of the community WE all created! Our public infrastructure, education, tax codes and million other things WE contributed allows any corporation to exist at all.
So no, corporations don’t get to just do whatever the fuck they want, because “market”.
I personally would pay for YouTube for a reasonable price and 10$/month ain’t it. I don’t want youtube music or whatever shit they are bundling with it.
Yes, corporations get to do whatever they want with their property. If you don’t like it, you can choose other services, nobody is forcing you to stay there.
Well, if it is abusive or not will be determined by the majority of people. If their numbers start going down because of this, they’ll act on it. If not, it means the majority of people are willing to see the ads to get to the content. People also complained when YouTube implemented ads in the beginning, very short ones. Clearly, the majority of people were fine with it. Free market, supply & demand.
Personally, I run away from ads so I don’t use YouTube that much. I watch Veritasiun and 3Blue1Brown mostly and every time I see an ad come up, I like it because I know I’m giving money to the dudes giving me great content. It’s my way of giving back.
They’re still doing canary testing. Eventually they’ll block accounts from users that use adblock after they get a warning.
So you’ll have to choose if you want to keep using the service with ads or move on to something new. And the great news is that it is totally your choice and you’re free to make it.
Well, if it is abusive or not will be determined by the majority of people. If their numbers start going down because of this, they’ll act on it. If not, it means the majority of people are willing to see the ads to get to the content.
This is logical nonsense. If their numbers don’t go down, that doesn’t make their actions not abusive, it simply indicates that people are willing to put up with the abuse (because they get enough value out of the platform despite the abuse). Whether it is abusive or not is not a numbers game.
People also complained when YouTube implemented ads in the beginning, very short ones. Clearly, the majority of people were fine with it.
This means that people still derived enough value from the platform, despite the ads. That is, stopping using the platform would be more of a net loss than accepting ads on the platform. And yet, this doesn’t have anything to do with whether it is an abusive practice or not.
In fact, you’re touching on something here: ads were initially very brief and intermittent; they’ve gotten progressively worse and more invasive and so, just as boiling a frog, you can’t take peoples’ acceptance of the situation at face value. If you’ve conditioned someone to put up with (worsening) abuse, their seeming acceptance of the situation doesn’t mean you aren’t being abusive.
So please give me the objective definition of what is abusive. Because in my book that is totally subjective. I just told you they created an almost perfect service that let’s you stream infinite amounts of information with zero downtime and minimal buffer times, and they are asking a few minutes of your time per day, so they can make a profit and pay fairly to content creators and very smart engineers.
For me that is fair. For you, that’s abusive. Who is right? You because you agree with yourself?
I’m not sure if you’re constructing a strawman or if you think you’re replying to someone else.
I didn’t say whether or not it’s abusive.
All I said was that your logic of “if their user count doesn’t go down it’s not abuse” is bullshit. I went on to bring up the “boiling the frog scenario” to further explain how users can become accustomed to abuse.
It changes how extensions work in Chrome (and derived browsers), notably it modifies the API that adblockers use to block requests and dramatically restricts the number of rules they can support. It’s a change pretty clearly designed to limit the scope of adblockers and make it easier for companies like Google to work around them.
I use it on iOS with uYou+ and I haven’t seen it, I also used Video Lite’s Adblock as well as on Safari with normal ublock and haven’t seen it either. Maybe it’s not on mobile yet
I do the same. I also run pfSense with the pfBlockerNG module pulling in lists that block ad (and a tonne of other) sources. Also have a look at pihole as it can do a similar function.
From my understanding it has only been rolled out to Chrome users so far. Anyone using adblocks with Firefox will not have seen these yet.
However to ensure you don't, I suggest beginning your transition to some of the alternatives. I have been migrating to Piped which is essentially a scraper.
Add comment