Don’t …plenty of digital newspapers block you from reading the article if you don’t pay up?
Comment on YouTube cracking on ad blockers.
Synthead@lemmy.world 11 months agoImagine if a newspaper could block you from reading an article because you didn’t spend enough time looking at the ads.
After the content gets delivered to my browser, it’s up to me how I want to consume that content. Anything that happens beyond that point is client-side. If I choose to pay attention to ads on purpose, that’s my choice. If I accept the webserver’s response and choose to view only parts of what I got, then that’s my choice, too.
papertowels@lemmy.one 11 months ago
newIdentity@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Imagine if a newspaper could block you from reading an article because you didn’t spend enough time looking at the ads.
They do that though. Most even require you to accept their cookies, pay or not be able to read the article at all.
Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Imagine if a newspaper could block you from reading an article because you didn’t spend enough time looking at the ads.
That’s a bad comparison. Newspapers cost money so you either buy one or you don’t read the articles. Even in the case of free ones they’re littered with ads. You don’t need to watch them but they’re still there.
I hate what youtube s doing just as much as the next guy but I’m yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it should be free. Many of the people complaining about this are gladly paying for Spotify and Netflix. Why not demand those for free too?
sugartits@lemmy.world 11 months ago
but I’m yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it should be free
It is free.
Put up with the ads and get it for free or pay to make them go away. That’s the deal.
Kolanaki@yiffit.net 11 months ago
Imagine if a newspaper could block you from reading an article because you didn’t spend enough time looking at the ads.
I don’t have to imagine. Many newspaper websites are exactly like that.
Chozo@kbin.social 11 months ago
You pay for newspapers, though.