Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gyrre]

Any law put forward by some shrieking "Won't somebody think of the children" should be heavily scrutinized as it's likely meant as a way to slip in tyrranical and draconian things.

[N.N. Marf]

I walked out of YouTube a long time ago---never looked back. It was the video ads, I think. I'd like to know, whether using tools like invidious, or youtube-dl, which allow one to get the video content, without any advertisements, would qualify as `scab.'
Anyway, I think this raises a deeper concern, about how we rely on third-parties, who, in principle, should have absolute freedom over how they provide a service---that, due to our reliance on them, it becomes dangerous to let them that freedom. I remember long ago, there were many video-sharing sites, more-or-less level. If one of them did something like this, the others would still be there, independent of that tyrant.
But now it's mainly just YouTube. How did this monopolish status arise? One might argue that it's a natural monopoly. I think that's lazy. I'm inclined to consider it an accident of our inchoate techniques, rather than something inherent, that necessitated there coming to be only one service of a kind. One YouTube. One Facebook. One Twitter.
I think there's gotta be a way, for competition to be a stable property of computer services. A problem that needs to be technically solved. Hell if I know how, though. I'm not entirely sure how I came to the idea, that it can be technically solved. I'd like to think my memories of many competing instances of similar things, aren't fabrications. So the question would be, how to make competition inherent, next time. (Will there be a next time?)

[Gyrre]

This one's between the utter horseshit that is COPPA (including draconian censorship), and their recent move to advertise and collect revenue on videos from non-partnered channels.

[LTK]

Everything related to this is from 2019. No one has used this hashtag since then. What makes you think it's going to happen now?

[sitnspin]

People watch YT without adblockers?

[Cornelius]

Well, sometimes I put it on as background at work - and for some reason or other, our admin has decided ad blockers are potentially harmful, and has banned them. So, yes.

[Theta9]

Everything related to this is from 2019. No one has used this hashtag since then. What makes you think it's going to happen now?

Did it even happen last year? My wife watches a few channels who do a "vlogmas" thing, posting every day of December at least until Christmas, and she didn't mention any of them blacking out from the 10th thru 13th.

[cybersmurf]

People watch YT without adblockers?

Some stuff works smoother in the smartphone app. And you can't use adblock there. And I get annoyed every time I use it.

[Tova]

People watch YT without adblockers?

I guess you're not aware that YouTube generates $15 billion per year?

Ads don't generate that kind of money without at least a few eyeballs.

[BenRG]

YouTube is a commercial business and I recognise that the ads (as horribly intrusive and annoying as they can be) are a legitimate way of creating revenue to keep the service working and fund its parent company too. So, no, I wouldn't watch YouTube with an ad blocker as that's basically video piracy from my perspective.

[N.N. Marf]

YouTube is a commercial business and I recognise that the ads (as horribly intrusive and annoying as they can be) are a legitimate way of creating revenue to keep the service working and fund its parent company too. So, no, I wouldn't watch YouTube with an ad blocker as that's basically video piracy from my perspective.

Really, there should be an ad-clicker instead. To load and play though the ads, occasionally clicking them, and browsing around the target website---all in the background, so you won't be annoyed by any of it. Who would be hurt by that? There are some marketing departments that care about effectiveness---they'll quickly learn to not advertise in annoying or intrusive ways, because those will be blocked. On the other hand, there are marketing departments who don't care about the company's profit---are able to present some persuasive `statistic' like n new users---not saying that most will never return after they got their meager sign-up bonus. Such marketing departments, too, won't suffer by it---maybe they'll show how much `clickthrough' they're getting, or whatever else would develop in the marketing market. Then, it's the company with such an awful marketing department that suffers? Sure, their suffering is increased---at their own damn fault, for blindly trusting their marketing department.
i'd be interested in understanding how a horribly intrusive practice can be legitimate. Were there nothing better---fine, but there are business models that don't rely on horribly intrusive practices. Were everyone informed about how their data could be used against them---fine, but they're not, so are being exploited. That doesn't look like a legitimate practice to me.
I'd also be interested in understanding your ideas about copyright restriction.

[LTK]

YouTube is a commercial business and I recognise that the ads (as horribly intrusive and annoying as they can be) are a legitimate way of creating revenue to keep the service working and fund its parent company too. So, no, I wouldn't watch YouTube with an ad blocker as that's basically video piracy from my perspective.

Google is a multibillion dollar company. They make their ad revenue on the backs of the people making videos who receive a pittance in return, all the while subjecting everyone trying to make a living off of it to the whims of an algorithm that they might not even understand. Given that ads also make the browsing/watching experience universally and objectively worse, I see absolutely no moral issue with blocking ads.

[oddtail]

YouTube is a commercial business and I recognise that the ads (as horribly intrusive and annoying as they can be) are a legitimate way of creating revenue to keep the service working and fund its parent company too. So, no, I wouldn't watch YouTube with an ad blocker as that's basically video piracy from my perspective.

Google is a multibillion dollar company. They make their ad revenue on the backs of the people making videos who receive a pittance in return, all the while subjecting everyone trying to make a living off of it to the whims of an algorithm that they might not even understand. Given that ads also make the browsing/watching experience universally and objectively worse, I see absolutely no moral issue with blocking ads.

Yeah, same, especially as I've supported many Youtubers via Patreon in the past, to the extent that it's orders of magnitude more money for them than if they got whatever money is awarded to them from the ads I watch. Even though my Patreon contributions were very small as a rule.

[Torlek]

Google is a multibillion dollar company. They make their ad revenue on the backs of the people making videos who receive a pittance in return, all the while subjecting everyone trying to make a living off of it to the whims of an algorithm that they might not even understand. Given that ads also make the browsing/watching experience universally and objectively worse, I see absolutely no moral issue with blocking ads.

"This person has more money than I do and it is therefore morally acceptable for me to steal from them."

[sitnspin]

Youtube is not a person. And, yes.

[Cornelius]

More like This persoon makes a lot of money on the backs of the people who actually make what I come to see.

[Tova]

You know that the creator also loses revenue when you skip or block ads, right?

[Cornelius]

Just rephrasing what I thought was the gist of the argument above.

We could discuss the merit of leaving it on or not for creators, but don't forget there's also a lot of content that's not original on there. Consuming which, adblock or not, takes away revenue from the creator in the first place.

Now of course, in some cases, it's also material that's not available anywhere else anymore. But using that argument to condone it, though tempting, is not that easy. Sometimes content is not available any more exactly because there's a dispute about just recompense in the first place.

[LTK]

"This person has more money than I do and it is therefore morally acceptable for me to steal from them."

I don't think you could have made a worse straw man argument if you tried.

[oddtail]

You know that the creator also loses revenue when you skip or block ads, right?

That's true. But that's (a per a quick Googling) about half a cent per video watched (at most). I absolutely think it's a great idea to compensate them (as I said, I support a lot of people on Patreon via small sums), but even if you give them, like, a dollar once, you're probably giving them more than by months and months of watching their content with ads.

[N.N. Marf]

Youtube is not a person.

I'm sorry if you think that. I'd be interested to know who else you consider not a person.

[Theta9]

Youtube is not a person.

I'm sorry if you think that. I'd be interested to know who else you consider not a person.

I would be interested to know why you consider YouTube to be a person.
Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United notwithstanding, corporations are not people.

[Tova]

You know that the creator also loses revenue when you skip or block ads, right?

That's true. But that's (a per a quick Googling) about half a cent per video watched (at most). I absolutely think it's a great idea to compensate them (as I said, I support a lot of people on Patreon via small sums), but even if you give them, like, a dollar once, you're probably giving them more than by months and months of watching their content with ads.

Yes. Of course becoming a Patreon is a stronger form of support than simply watching ads on the channel.

But if you're not a Patreon and you're also blocking ads, then you're depriving the creator of even the pittance of revenue that comes from advertising, and so it's disingenuous to claim there's no moral issue with that.

I have also blocked and skipped ads BTW, so I'm not making myself out to be morally superior somehow.

BTW I also don't see how whether YouTube is a person or not is germane to the discussion.

[Gyrre]

Goddammit.

Apparently this walkout was from last year and either someone thought they'd have a laugh reblogging the post or they're protesting YT's new ToS that allows them to just delete people's accounts without warning.
I'm embarrassed I didn't clock the date in that first twitter screencap.

[LTK]

To be honest, I didn't notice the date either, it took someone else to point it out to me too.

[sitnspin]

If the choice is between watching YT with ads or not watching at all, I am not going to watch it at all, so nothing is really being lost. And honestly, I rarely do watch anything on YT. I don't even remember the last time I was on the site.

[N.N. Marf]

Youtube is not a person.

I'm sorry if you think that. I'd be interested to know who else you consider not a person.

I would be interested to know why you consider YouTube to be a person.

Generally, that they can transact---economically, that's a person. More concretely, they're an entity with a mind (management) and body (equipment), goals (profit), who can be harmed, feel and respond to---even false---pain,, They're animate.
We could look at a corporation as a machine, or a force of nature, but that disregards many characteristics that we tend to consider the preserve of persons---that is to say, at present, humans. It'd be difficult to imagine a machine wincing at some it's part crashing---a factory would.
They're sapient, more than the sum of their parts---in case you'd like to think that their person-like qualities are exclusively from participating humans---more: were it's sapient parts replaced to a different organization, there'd be a different synergy. It may be that without humans, a corporation would cease having sufficient person-like qualities---cease being a person, I'd say---would your personhood survive the removal of your microbiome?
There are, of course, distinctions between humans v persons generally. A corporation, for example, can be set up to adjust for mental biases much better and much faster than a human.
This tangent is getting much off-topic---perhaps there's a better thread for it somewhere.

[Theta9]

Goddammit.

Apparently this walkout was from last year and either someone thought they'd have a laugh reblogging the post or they're protesting YT's new ToS that allows them to just delete people's accounts without warning.
I'm embarrassed I didn't clock the date in that first twitter screencap.

https://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,34785.msg1455602.html#msg1455602

LTK pointed that out upthread.

[Gyrre]

Youtube is not a person.

I'm sorry if you think that. I'd be interested to know who else you consider not a person.

I would be interested to know why you consider YouTube to be a person.

Generally, that they can transact---economically, that's a person. More concretely, they're an entity with a mind (management) and body (equipment), goals (profit), who can be harmed, feel and respond to---even false---pain,, They're animate.
We could look at a corporation as a machine, or a force of nature, but that disregards many characteristics that we tend to consider the preserve of persons---that is to say, at present, humans. It'd be difficult to imagine a machine wincing at some it's part crashing---a factory would.
They're sapient, more than the sum of their parts---in case you'd like to think that their person-like qualities are exclusively from participating humans---more: were it's sapient parts replaced to a different organization, there'd be a different synergy. It may be that without humans, a corporation would cease having sufficient person-like qualities---cease being a person, I'd say---would your personhood survive the removal of your microbiome?
There are, of course, distinctions between humans v persons generally. A corporation, for example, can be set up to adjust for mental biases much better and much faster than a human.
This tangent is getting much off-topic---perhaps there's a better thread for it somewhere.

Ah, the argument used to defang that campaign donation reform bill back in the late 2000s.