So people don’t want to give data to Google. They also want to watch YouTube videos without “paying” for them. I’m sorry but I can’t take this kind of activism seriously.
Either you use YouTube and accept their term of service and/or start using alternatives. Maybe even contribute to their development/growth (I’ve been “investing” some time into LBRY for example)
Using tools like Invidious is basically stealing. Including from the content producers we all love to watch.
Huh… I never thought about it that way. Though, doesn’t Google (and other Internet giants for that matter) take your data even if you opt out of their services? I coulda sworn that many don’t even honor the “Do Not Track Me” option you pick on Firefox.
They probably do. But to me that is irrelevant on the point of stealing from the people who make the videos.
A discussion could be had about if 2 bads make good. I don’t care about that debate that much in this context.
Not wanting to see ads is not stealing. Removing ads from a platform that is paid with ads is stealing.
You didn’t explain what adbuster is but from what I understood its a collection of “magazines” that aren’t funded by advertisements. That is great and I would like the system to move in such direction. However I fail to see what that has to do with the YouTube case.
Whenever you watch a video on YouTube there is a contract that is implied: you can watch the video and we data mine you and show you the ads that make us the most money. If you don’t watch the ads, you just stole content.
This reminds me of the piracy debate. I still haven’t heard a convincing argument for how pirating media is not stealing. But boy do people try to argue (and very fiercely).
From time to time I do think about the advertising industry taking into account humanity’s interests. I’m not sure if it’s a net positive.
However, if you don’t agree with advertisement, the ethical decision to make is to not watch YouTube. Because you disagree with the “price” it doesn’t make it OK to access it for free.
I honestly think that the future of content funding will be a mix of ads, donations and subscriptions. LBRY is moving in that direction. With PeerTube it’s kind of a mess because an instance can have ads and even trackers so I’m a bit skeptical of that alternative. You will end up with many “YouTubes” if you don’t kill surveillance capitalism in its roots.
Ultimately I think alternatives to platforms like YT need to have good principles from the ground up if the internet is to improve.
So people don’t want to give data to Google. They also want to watch YouTube videos without “paying” for them. I’m sorry but I can’t take this kind of activism seriously.
Either you use YouTube and accept their term of service and/or start using alternatives. Maybe even contribute to their development/growth (I’ve been “investing” some time into LBRY for example)
Using tools like Invidious is basically stealing. Including from the content producers we all love to watch.
Huh… I never thought about it that way. Though, doesn’t Google (and other Internet giants for that matter) take your data even if you opt out of their services? I coulda sworn that many don’t even honor the “Do Not Track Me” option you pick on Firefox.
They probably do. But to me that is irrelevant on the point of stealing from the people who make the videos. A discussion could be had about if 2 bads make good. I don’t care about that debate that much in this context.
I see. The real loser here is the creator… Thank you for pointing that out.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Not wanting to see ads is not stealing. Removing ads from a platform that is paid with ads is stealing.
You didn’t explain what adbuster is but from what I understood its a collection of “magazines” that aren’t funded by advertisements. That is great and I would like the system to move in such direction. However I fail to see what that has to do with the YouTube case.
Whenever you watch a video on YouTube there is a contract that is implied: you can watch the video and we data mine you and show you the ads that make us the most money. If you don’t watch the ads, you just stole content.
This reminds me of the piracy debate. I still haven’t heard a convincing argument for how pirating media is not stealing. But boy do people try to argue (and very fiercely).
deleted by creator
I agree, it’s almost like a type of… manipulation. Especially targeted ads.
deleted by creator
From time to time I do think about the advertising industry taking into account humanity’s interests. I’m not sure if it’s a net positive.
However, if you don’t agree with advertisement, the ethical decision to make is to not watch YouTube. Because you disagree with the “price” it doesn’t make it OK to access it for free.
I honestly think that the future of content funding will be a mix of ads, donations and subscriptions. LBRY is moving in that direction. With PeerTube it’s kind of a mess because an instance can have ads and even trackers so I’m a bit skeptical of that alternative. You will end up with many “YouTubes” if you don’t kill surveillance capitalism in its roots.
Ultimately I think alternatives to platforms like YT need to have good principles from the ground up if the internet is to improve.