this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
1550 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
59596 readers
3570 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Trying to monetise the fraction of a percent of users who actively avoid your advertising and wouldn't engage with it or purchase products from the advertisers even if forced to watch them is the epitome of corporate greed. Pathetic, money grubbing billionaire corporations deserve to burn to the ground rather than be supported by the societies they leech off like the cancer they are.
There ! I have nothing to add
That's like saying Walmart trying to stop the small percentage of people who shoplift is the epitome of corporate greed. YouTube is a paid service. It costs money to run, regardless of how much you hate them. You pay either with money, or with ads. I could get the anger towards them blocking ad blockers if they did not have a way to remove them. But they literally have an option to legitimately remove them, and it also directly supports the creates you watch a lot more than ad revenue.
Am I defending Google? No. I am doing everything in my power to get away from Big Brother being ever present and seeing everything. But I am also not blind to reality. I also use ad blockers on any website I go on. But if any service denies me entry for using one, that's their right. I shouldn't get to consume whatever content I want for free while they take the financial hit.
They make a profit, operating costs are covered. You do know that right? Profit is surplus? You're not so poorly educated to not understand the most basic principal of capitalism?
Yes.
Regardless of what you may say, nobody is up in arms about Walmart's, or any other commercial retailer's, anti-theft changes. Adding ink tags to merchandise, locking things up in whatever method they chose, camera's out the wazoo. Nobody is up in arms because nobody thinks it's bad that they are trying to stop people from stealing.
You can try and dismiss me by saying I am defending Google, but it doesn't make what you're saying correct. YouTube is a paid service. To block the ads means to get that paid service for free. The content you are freely consuming is actively costing YouTube money. For them to stop you from freely consuming their product is very much so similar to Walmart making measures to stop shoplifters. You can view physical stealing and digital stealing as different, but they are the same thing. One is just less likely to get caught.
And just to be clear, I steal online content all the time. From digital movies/shows, to using AdBlockers on sites. Stealing is wrong, therefore what I am doing is wrong. Though it certainly is difficult to feel bad that the billion dollar corporations are missing out on my couple of bucks, or a random site didn't get $0.001 from my ad view. Regardless, just how a shoplifter can understand why Walmart would make it harder to shoplift, I can understand why YouTube would make it harder to AdBlock. Do I like it? Obviously not. But it's silly to sit here and suggest them fighting adblockers is what makes them evil, and not all the hidden tracking and absurd data collection.
Huh. They really drill the capitalist shill into you with that American "education" system, don't they?
As long as a company is making a profit all costs have been covered, all employees, suppliers, and producers have been paid. Those in society who have the means and the will have ensured this product exists and has been paid for and I thank them for their contribution. That allows the rest of humanity to enjoy the socialisation of their contribution to the masses, who have not the means or the will, but who ensure the rest of the system is available and working to support everyone’s ability to contribute.
If you want to argue that employees, suppliers, or producers aren’t adequately paid, then why is there a profit margin?
Capitalism as an idea is not bad. America's current state of capitalism is very bad. This idea you just suggested also is not bad. But I think would be even worse than our current state of capitalism if it were attempted to be implemented. Greed would be present in any system, including this idealistic one where people pay for the costs of a service if able, to allow those who cannot to enjoy it also.
The argument I am making is in regards to stealing. I assume your argument also applied to other corporations in regards to the distribution and payment of goods/services, though regardless most people agree stealing is wrong. Most people see the prevention of theft as acceptable. I am merely pointing out the double standard most people up in arms are placing on this change. Most people do not see AdBlocking as stealing, though by definition they are using a paid service for free without the services consent. That seems to me like stealing. I am not here to discuss alternatives to our state capitalism, that is for a different thread. And stealing as a way to accomplish this new system also seems to be extremely, shall we say, ineffective?
Are you a stand-up comedian?
You know the internet isn't actually magic, right? You know that storing and distributing data costs real money, and doesn't just magically appear on your computer screen. Video hosting is quite literally, insanely fucking expensive. That's the reality of it. The absolute absurd amount of storage it takes to host YouTube is truly mind boggling. Then they have to have who knows how much money in data transfer to both upload the videos, and then stream them out to however many users. That's not even including the fact that they do actually give money to their creators. Some of them make quite a substantial amount of it, no less. I haven't even mentioned the team with YouTube developing, maintaining, servicing, their technical equipment. All the customer support, the relations managers, the YouTube partner managers, and all the other hundreds of behind the scenes staff.
YouTube costs money. I think you don't disagree with that. Perhaps the part you have a problem with is thinking you, a single person, aren't costing them money. And sure, if you were literally the only person doing it, it really wouldn't be noticeable. But given all the uproar, it's very clear it's not just you. By how many people are upset, it's clear it's actually quite a substantial amount of people. So if you think all of those people aren't costing YouTube money, then I really cannot help teach you basic money any further.
If you're argument is instead that all these people mad about AdBlocker blocking are costing YouTube money, but not enough for them to lose money or even substantial profits, then I really don't know what to tell you. If that is your argument, then you are trying to argue that YouTube should eat the profits so users can steal more. Which really just doesn't make any fucking sense. Again, that's very similar to getting pissed that Walmart is making it harder to shoplift because Walmart make so much money. And yet nobody is suggesting Walmart make it easier to shoplift, because people as a whole see shoplifting as stealing, but don't see AdBlock as stealing. Quite frankly, that's just a result of an ignorance as to how technology works and what things actually cost.
And if you're suggesting something else, then I don't know what it is and you'll need to further clarify if you want me to better understand.