1342
Linus Tech Tips uploaded a video showing how to block ads on Youtube. Which was removed by Youtube for community guidelines violations. (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/technology@lemmy.world
424 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://files.catbox.moe/a6111d.png / https://nitter.poast.org/LinusTech/status/1825956050685800834

If you go the video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsjHMzGl-VY. You will see it's gone. So Youtube being Youtube.

Here's a Odysee mirror of the video, https://odysee.com/@jopec:7/linus-tech-tips-degoogle-your-life-part-2-adfree-youtube:0.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 2 years ago (14 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (13 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago* (5 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You are trying to put the onus on end users, while also simultainously pursuing some weird guilt based appeal to emotion.

    And still refuse to address the core issue, which is the lack of moderation and policing of content creating the essential need for adblockers in the first place.

    Ad companies don't get create this toxic hellscape, then blame end users with wrung hands and empty "Won't someone thing of the poor content creators" appeals to emotion to try and handwave the responsibility away.

    Why won't they think of the content creators? Why wont they do something to reduce the actual necessity for adblock in the interest of the poor, downtrodden content creators?

    Especially in a world where far better alternatives (like merch and patreon type sites) exists to give them money, directly, without having to deal with advertising hellscapes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    And still refuse to address the core issue, which is the lack of moderation and policing of content creating the essential need for adblockers in the first place.

    You are voluntarily consuming content that the content creators agreed to have the ads for. You can just not consume that content.

    Why won't they think of the content creators?

    For the upteenth time, they probably are thinking of them because the content creators agreed to have them as a revenue stream.

    You're acting like content creators are completely removed from this. guess who pays them? generally speaking, not you. It's the big bad ad companies. Why? BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN AGREEMENT.

    Especially in a world where far better alternatives (like merch and patreon type sites) exists to give them money, directly, without having to deal with advertising hellscapes.

    Great! Consume your content from those places! I'm in the patreons for a few podcasts myself for the ad-free versions.

    Be smart, use an ad blocker for your sanity, but at least acknowledge that you are likely at least a tiny bit cutting into a revenue stream that the creators utilize. Again, no guilt trip here, I've ran pi hole instances myself. In fact some folks definitely encourage their base to use ad blockers on their content, I believe Louis Rossman is one of them. But I don't delude myself into thinking this is their fault. That is truly some "LOOK AT WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!" reasoning.

    After all of this, do you see why it can be comparable to piracy? Because content creators agreed to have it as part of their revenue stream to be served alongside the content, so having it blocked cuts into that revenue stream.

    I'm not asking you to change behaviors. It just feels like I'm talking to a wall. Do you disagree with anything the previous paragraph?

    After all of this, do you see why it can be comparable to piracy? Because content creators agreed to have it as part of their revenue stream to be served alongside the content, so having it blocked cuts into that revenue stream.

    EDIT: so optimistically, it takes two parties to have poor communication. So I'm going to try and clear things up.

    I am NOT arguing that users have to be subjected to ads.

    I am arguing that content providers serve ads as a revenue stream, and blocking that cuts into that revenue stream. Boo hoo, I'll do it anyways and probably support them in other ways, like subscribing to them, buying their merch, sharing their articles or songs, etc.

    But I'm saying I understand why, from a content provider/creators standpoint, being deprived of that revenue stream that I intended to be served alongside my content, is comparable to piracy. Because as the content creator I agreed to financially benefit from ads being served alongside my content, and instead content is being consumed without that financial kickback.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent