Comment on YouTube’s ad blocker crackdown now includes third-party apps
Bookmeat@lemmy.world 5 months agoI hear you, buddy and I would 100% agree if not for the fact that they have a paid option where you can skip all the ads.
Content creator gets paid. YouTube gets paid. You don’t get ads.
It’s not rocket surgery.
kadu@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I don’t see how that’s relevant. If you want to engage in the paid YouTube subscription, go for it, it’s an entirely different thing though.
My computer requests from YouTube servers a video, the server gives me a stream of data - I didn’t steal it, I didn’t hack it, the server provided me this because it wanted to - and this stream contains an ad and a video. What I do with this stream is only my concern, you can’t force me to watch the ad. That would be like walking in the street and somebody says you’re unethical because you didn’t look at an outdoor advertisement banner, and that you will be forced to either pay a fee or look at the ad.
Bookmeat@lemmy.world 5 months ago
But it is unethical because the ethics isn’t in the wires, it’s in the social contract.
You didn’t have a social contract with anyone on the street walking past ads. I agree with you that those are annoying and are an eye sore, etc.
But from YouTube you are getting a service for which you have not paid. The social contract is that you pay for services you consume regardless how they are presented. Whether it’s a TV show or groceries or online content doesn’t matter.
They make the content available to you publicly just as a physical storefront would. You come into the shop and start loading your basket. They even have free samples. The staff are helpful and find things for you. Then you pay before leaving. That’s the contract. It’s not different because it’s on the Internet.
kadu@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I have no social contract with YouTube. The whole “if you access this site, you agree with this ToS” isn’t even legally valid here.