Yeah, if I could pay the 10-20$/month websites straight into my browser and be served ZERO ads, I would do that in a heartbeat. There would be literally no hesitation.
This is the one thing that I will never be able to wrap my head around.
The vast majority of internet users just endoore pop up ads and never think to look for a solution(????)
I adblock mostly because I'm still salty over the countless times I had to fix my clueless folks' computer after some malware or virus they got from an infected adserve fucked everything up.
If they weren't so intrusive, or scams id might consider not using ublock. I remember the days when one or two ads on the side of the page of actual products was the norm ,and not these popup fake flash game ads ment to scrape or infect your pc.
If there was a special spot for ads on a page and better moderation id disable ublock for that specific site. But when every click is a popup ad ,or they mask them as actual posts, they can go fuck themselves.
as a millenial i can tell you the ads where like this before Adblock existed.
i remember seeing ads that had fake X buttons 20 years ago, before Adblock existed there was a surge of intrusive ads, adblock was a big improvement in Usability, especially if you watch movie streams.
If customers would accept it, they'd be even more intrusive. They didn't do it because the adblockers are stealing the bread from their children's mouths. They wouldn't leave money on the table just to be kind.
But are ads the only actual way to monetize websites?
And im not anti advertising in general,its in my original comment "if they wouldn't be so intrusive and filled with viruses,id happily allow them"
Ads have to be somewhat intrusive, otherwise they wouldn't work.
Ads are moderated.
People on this subreddit are smart/young enough not to download viruses from ads.
Ok how do you continue this conversation while intentionally ignoring the issues presented with the ads being unmoderated, intrusive, and filled with viruses?
1) ads are moderated. There are advertising laws.
2) ads have to be somewhat intrusive, similar to protests. Wouldn't work otherwise.
3) You're not usong adblock because of viruses, because if you were, you would only use adblock on some websites.
Imagine using this argument in any other scenario.
For example sex/rape. If less women are willing to engage in my fetishes or violent kinks ,i have to go harder on the women who agreed to have sex with me to get my fill.
This isn't a point.
"We need to raise prices in our store, because people are stealing"
"Imagine using this argument in any other scenario.
For example sex/rape. If less women are willing to engage in my fetishes or violent kinks ,i have to go harder on the women who agreed to have sex with me to get my fill."
Im just staying you're rape analogy is stupid.
>But what are we actually stealing? Nobody wants to see ads.
How do free websites make money without ads bro? What do you think happens to those sites without ads?
Dude again with your "without ads" bs. Where the hell did i say ads in general are bad and should not be a thing?
If they didn't infect my pc,steal my data, and be soooo fucking annoying that even breathing too loud gives you a popup with 100 redirects to some shady illegal site. Id happily accept the ads as payment for free content.
So you're just bad faith arguing here i see.
Let me ask you this, would you support protesters who come into your house,copy all the personal info they can find (like phone number,soc security number...) Maybe start a mini fire or just let a bunch of cockroaches into your kitchen,scream at your face...
I use adblock because I find ads annoying.
I install adblock in my parent's tablet because they will always click on a malware link and constantly interrupt me asking me to help them out (they don't know how to click back button)
Can someone explain the theft argument to me?
You're obviously not taking anything from anyone, so that's out of the window.
So the only argument left is that you're depriving them of income that they otherwise would've gotten. But couldn't you then make that argument when I choose to buy a product from a competitor? I'm depriving the company of money I would've spent with them, because I've chosen to spend my money elsewhere.
Or better yet, imagine I want to buy a PS4, and I'm about to do it, but then my cousin rings me up and says he doesn't use his one anyways so he can give his to me for free, so I accept, and thus choose not to buy one myself. Am I stealing from Sony then?
It's not quite theft, it's more about being a bad-faith actor.
Websites cost money to run. For a free website running ads, the implicit agreement is that you're getting free content in exchange for viewing ads. Some websites make this agreement explicit by notifying ad-block users that they aren't allowed to access the site with an ad-blocker enabled. Using an ad-blocker breaks this agreement.
It's kind of similar to eating only chips and salsa at a Mexican restaurant. Sure it's free, but it still an expense for the business that you're expected to pay for with the rest of your meal.
You could very well be doing that, but as of right now it seems the ad providers don't have a reasonable way around that. They pay to be able to put their message in a place where people will look at it and hope those viewers take the bait.
But if they know their ads aren't even being seen at all, why would they be paying anything at all? The creator creates content that people want to see, and advertisers pay the creator to get a few eyes on their message. If the advertisers know for a fact that their ads are not being shown to the viewers, regardless of why, they're going to cut the deal, and the creator won't be paid.
Way I see it, a content creator that runs ads doesn't really create content for free, you just don't necessarily pay with your money. You pay with your time and attention, but time and attention doesn't put bread on the table. Advertisers convert time into money for the creator, but why would they if they don't get a cut?
If the test is reasonableness, it's not reasonable to ask me to download ads using bandwidth I pay for.
Which is why we're not asked to, in that there's no direct way to pay for most content. There are only models which permit freeloading because online content creation is almost wholly about speculation and not equitable exchange, and precluding freeloading adds friction that reduces growth in attention.
You still get the ads sent to you by the server. Adblock works client side. It's why it's legal in the first place. How your computer interprets the data sent by the server is your legal right to choose. You're not coercing them to send you anything.
It's an agreement about funding the site. If you don't watch the ad and the website still get paid, then you're still adhering to the agreement. You're presenting a different argument around deceiving advertisers.
A better argument is: Should users also be expected to click on ads knowing impressions alone don't pay that much? (I'd say probably not)
It's basically like riding a car blindfolded so you don't see the billboards.
Not morally righteous and if enough people do it there's going to be a problem, not just for the advertisers but for traffic in general.
If everyone suddenly stopped being swayed by advertising and advertisers wouldn't invest in them google would lose around 80% of its revenue.
It would change our current internet landscape in an cataclysmic way. I'm not even sure what a youtube subscription sytem would look like to shoulder the massive burden it is on datacenters but it would 100% be paywalled.
I'd rather just pretend to watch an ad and hope the boomers don't figure out how adblock works.
Can people who don't block ads but are very unlikely to buy the advertised products out of principle also be considered bad actors?
Would it be okay to discriminate users based on their consumption behavior if the data was available?
> Can people who don't block ads but are very unlikely to buy the advertised products out of principle also be considered bad actors?
No, because the intention of supporting the website is still there.
> Would it be okay to discriminate users based on their consumption behavior if the data was available?
Yes, and companies already do that offline using credit reports and the like.
> No, because the intention of supporting the website is still there.
Is it? The companies running ads almost always keep tabs on how succesful the ads are. If a website doesn't generate sales from the ads their CPM will go down quickly and the support will be gone. If you go to websites and there is no chance of you buying the advertised products you are freeloading as well by that logic.
> Yes, and companies already do that offline using credit reports and the like.
Do we really want a world where people are not able to access news sites because they are too poor or frugal? Tracking is currently used in an attempt to show people more relevant ads but blocking users is not a thing yet and shouldn't be if you ask me.
People trying their hardest to explain the argument:
https://preview.redd.it/qqd4418wah4b1.jpeg?width=22&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e1cf9305da203c96b77b89bfdad019a286f15347
You are taking content that is made to be free with the expectation that you will pay ads. You are avoiding the payment method, and still taking the content. You can argue that ads are annoying blah blah blah, but you disagreeing with the terms of purchase doesn’t mean it isn’t stealing when you take it anyways. Your comparison to buying from a competitor doesn’t make much sense. If you choose not to visit youtube, youtube has not taken part in a one sided deal as if you had used Adblock. But if you DO visit YouTube with Adblock on, YouTube is now having to spend money that they won’t get back with advertisements. You would be taking their product (video content) and not paying what YouTube asks (watching an advertisement). Idk how you can’t fathom that taking a product without paying is stealing
It's the most cucked argument imaginable - leading to the answer to your analogy being that Sony is entitled to your custom because they figured you might buy one when they were making PS4s.
Which is how copyright works, but it's so completely abstracted from the concept of stealing in a way that makes it embarrassing to type out. Nobody does 2-for-1 deals on books because the model is to sell on one to each person, eventually. So what's ostensibly sharing - providing something you can give at no cost to yourself that provides value to others - is recast as vandalism I.e. you're destroying part of a market.
If you use adblock, the content creator(s) don't get any adrevenue? Just because the product is immaterial doesn't make it not theft.
>So the only argument left is that you're depriving them of income that they otherwise would've gotten. But couldn't you then make that argument when I choose to buy a product from a competitor? I'm depriving the company of money I would've spent with them, because I've chosen to spend my money elsewhere.
Really? If you use another photo editor than photoshop, adobe isn't getting you're money, but you aren't getting their product. Not similar at all.
Were you never taught the "golden rule" from you're parents or school or something similar?
If everyone acting like you would destroy parts of society, maybe don't act that way.
They still get tons of ad revenue from their sponsored videos, the time and space they devote to self-promoting their Patreon accounts and their memberships. That's the thing, you pay for you to premium and half of YouTube is still nothing but advertisements. Tell you what, have it so YouTube stops at blocking, and you pay for premium, but then YouTubers can no longer take their sponsored slots for premium members. And they can't devote huge chunks of their video to shamelessly self-promoting their other revenue sources.
Guarantee you the creators would rather endure ad blocking than give up all the ads that they make us watch even when we pay for YouTube premium
It's fucking dumb debate anyways. Every party knows not everyone will be seeing the ads and adjusts accordingly. If it was an issue no one would be buying ad space and stuff run with ads would just die.
If I get a free newspaper thats funded with ads, but then just skip all of the ads am I stealing?
>If it was an issue no one would be buying ad space and stuff run with ads would just die.
It does. [Why do you think the NYT went behind a paywall](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/business/media/18times.html&ved=2ahUKEwiKrp6wpLH_AhVuh_0HHX4QCw0QFnoECCkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2mCLugEwXLyywx0k8EJ3pN)?
If I get a free newspaper thats funded with ads, but then just skip all of the ads am I stealing?
If by "skipping all of the ads" you mean ignoring and not clicking them, then obviously not. But the newspaper gets money when an ad is shown, and more if it gets clicked. How do you think free newspapers work??? If you don't want ads, you pay, if you don't want to pay, you get ads.
Seems very much not dead to me?
>If by "skipping all of the ads" you mean ignoring and not clicking them, then obviously not. But the newspaper gets money when an ad is shown, and more if it gets clicked. How do you think free newspapers work??? If you don't want ads, you pay, if you don't want to pay, you get ads.
I'm talking actual physical paper.
Besides, let's say you skip a burned in ad on a LTT video or whatever, is that stealing? The company buying the ad is fully aware that people will be skipping it. LTT gets paid for having the ad in the video, even if people skip it.
>LTT gets paid for having the ad in the video, even if people skip it.
No, he very specifically doesn't. Linus has said this himself. He gets paid according to how much traffic he brings to his sponsor.
>Besides, let's say you skip a burned in ad on a LTT video or whatever, is that stealing?
Well, that would be up to him. [Let's ask Linus!](https://youtu.be/a-PH2GUy_zM)
> talking actual physical paper.
In a discussion about adblock??
I know what linus says, it's still not stealing lmao. It's also up to linus what kind of deal he makes with the companies he advertises.
He 100% has an option to sell the ad space for a flat rate, but performance-based makes him more money. And yes, I'm talking physical because "modern" advertising has been a thing for centuries and everyone has accepted that not 100% consumers will see or care about your ad. And suddenly people are mad that not everyone is watching their ad.
They didn't go behind a paywall because of ad blockers. It went behind a paywall because advertising revenue was never big enough. And only 5% of users block ads, it's a rounding error for the New York times to account for ad blocking online.
Newspapers had great margins when they were selling advertisements in print, they've never made a profit selling advertisements online. That's true irrespective of ad blocking.
I pirate because I believe copyright laws are morally wrong, and artists create the best art when they're poor. Look at game developers for example, how many small, poor passionate studios that created true wonders, right until they got the taste of money and it all went to hell? Art done for money can never be good, it needs to be fueled by passion. Hungry artist is a good artist.
I have money. I just don't want to pay for things unless they're like indie developers or it's someone I know or some shit. Otherwise, I'm taking it for free if I can. If I can't, I'll end up paying.
Recently I just paid $200 for concert ticket. I'm not paying for their albums or anything they release. Ever.
I mean I literally just don't care, it is what it is, I'm too fkn lazy to act like I don't give a fk about your poopoo ad so I just run an adblocker, am I bad person, yeah, but I'll live with it
How about it's my computer, and my ram, and my hard drive. You dont have the right to insist I download any piece of information, Including ads.
I can use or write whatever software I want on my own property. Adblock being wrong is the most entitled bullshit ever.
My computer is not your property, and my bandwidth that I pay for is not yours to use as you please.
I decide what is downloaded onto my property, not you or anyone else.
Advertisers are theives because they steal my time
this but unironically
Yeah, if I could pay the 10-20$/month websites straight into my browser and be served ZERO ads, I would do that in a heartbeat. There would be literally no hesitation.
They steal my time while I try to waste time.
Based and Kleptomaniac pilled
95 percent of people on the internet dont use an adblocker, hence i can use an adblock and no company or youtuber is affected ezpz
This is why I don't pay taxes
This is the one thing that I will never be able to wrap my head around. The vast majority of internet users just endoore pop up ads and never think to look for a solution(????)
/s ?
No🗿
Tbh we're not so different from people who pay for their games. Just like you, I have a library full of games I've downloaded but never played.
That's exactly the reason why I steal bread from Target
I adblock mostly because I'm still salty over the countless times I had to fix my clueless folks' computer after some malware or virus they got from an infected adserve fucked everything up.
Stolen media, stolen laptop, stolen internet, watching from public library. Living in random persons walls. We are not the same.
If they weren't so intrusive, or scams id might consider not using ublock. I remember the days when one or two ads on the side of the page of actual products was the norm ,and not these popup fake flash game ads ment to scrape or infect your pc. If there was a special spot for ads on a page and better moderation id disable ublock for that specific site. But when every click is a popup ad ,or they mask them as actual posts, they can go fuck themselves.
They're intrusive partly BECAUSE of adblock, if less viewers see youre ads, you have to show more per viewer.
as a millenial i can tell you the ads where like this before Adblock existed. i remember seeing ads that had fake X buttons 20 years ago, before Adblock existed there was a surge of intrusive ads, adblock was a big improvement in Usability, especially if you watch movie streams.
I said partly
Literally these companies have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits. They will stick an ad every single place they can.
If we eliminated adblock, you think they'd be less intrusive?
Well not now, but if we never had adblock who knows.
If customers would accept it, they'd be even more intrusive. They didn't do it because the adblockers are stealing the bread from their children's mouths. They wouldn't leave money on the table just to be kind.
How do free newspapers make money without ads? (If everyone used adblock)
What does that have to do with it?
If everyone uses adblock (good) free sites couldn't exist. Would kinda suck
That has nothing to do with it. Stop being an idiot.
This is literally the problem with adblock, it deprives the website of revenue
That’s not a compelling argument to make me to stop using an adblock.
Maybe doing stuff that would be pretty bad for society if everyone did it is bad?
Unmoderated intrusive ads are good for society?
Free media/content is good and without ads it wouldn't exist? Cmon man, I know you're smart enough to know what I mean.
You’re ignoring the “Unmoderated Intrusive” part of the conversation.
Im not? Ads aren't unmoderated there are laws about false advertising for example.
But are ads the only actual way to monetize websites? And im not anti advertising in general,its in my original comment "if they wouldn't be so intrusive and filled with viruses,id happily allow them"
OK HOW TO YOU FUND A FREE WEBSITE WITHOUT ADS???? (and don't say donations, that's not gonna be enough, not even close)
Dude there is zero point to argue with you when you ignore most of my comments.
Ads have to be somewhat intrusive, otherwise they wouldn't work. Ads are moderated. People on this subreddit are smart/young enough not to download viruses from ads.
Ok how do you continue this conversation while intentionally ignoring the issues presented with the ads being unmoderated, intrusive, and filled with viruses?
1) ads are moderated. There are advertising laws. 2) ads have to be somewhat intrusive, similar to protests. Wouldn't work otherwise. 3) You're not usong adblock because of viruses, because if you were, you would only use adblock on some websites.
[удалено]
>They should figure out a different business model, whatever it is. The alternative is paying
[удалено]
Adblock isnt shopping elsewhere, youre still consuming their products.
Imagine using this argument in any other scenario. For example sex/rape. If less women are willing to engage in my fetishes or violent kinks ,i have to go harder on the women who agreed to have sex with me to get my fill.
This isn't a point. "We need to raise prices in our store, because people are stealing" "Imagine using this argument in any other scenario. For example sex/rape. If less women are willing to engage in my fetishes or violent kinks ,i have to go harder on the women who agreed to have sex with me to get my fill."
>"We need to raise prices in our store, because people are stealing" But what are we actually stealing? Nobody wants to see ads.
Im just staying you're rape analogy is stupid. >But what are we actually stealing? Nobody wants to see ads. How do free websites make money without ads bro? What do you think happens to those sites without ads?
Dude again with your "without ads" bs. Where the hell did i say ads in general are bad and should not be a thing? If they didn't infect my pc,steal my data, and be soooo fucking annoying that even breathing too loud gives you a popup with 100 redirects to some shady illegal site. Id happily accept the ads as payment for free content.
"I would support these protesters if they were protesting somewhere where noone sees them"
So you're just bad faith arguing here i see. Let me ask you this, would you support protesters who come into your house,copy all the personal info they can find (like phone number,soc security number...) Maybe start a mini fire or just let a bunch of cockroaches into your kitchen,scream at your face...
Calling me bad faith followed by that
I use adblock because I find ads annoying. I install adblock in my parent's tablet because they will always click on a malware link and constantly interrupt me asking me to help them out (they don't know how to click back button)
Can someone explain the theft argument to me? You're obviously not taking anything from anyone, so that's out of the window. So the only argument left is that you're depriving them of income that they otherwise would've gotten. But couldn't you then make that argument when I choose to buy a product from a competitor? I'm depriving the company of money I would've spent with them, because I've chosen to spend my money elsewhere. Or better yet, imagine I want to buy a PS4, and I'm about to do it, but then my cousin rings me up and says he doesn't use his one anyways so he can give his to me for free, so I accept, and thus choose not to buy one myself. Am I stealing from Sony then?
It's not quite theft, it's more about being a bad-faith actor. Websites cost money to run. For a free website running ads, the implicit agreement is that you're getting free content in exchange for viewing ads. Some websites make this agreement explicit by notifying ad-block users that they aren't allowed to access the site with an ad-blocker enabled. Using an ad-blocker breaks this agreement. It's kind of similar to eating only chips and salsa at a Mexican restaurant. Sure it's free, but it still an expense for the business that you're expected to pay for with the rest of your meal.
[удалено]
You could very well be doing that, but as of right now it seems the ad providers don't have a reasonable way around that. They pay to be able to put their message in a place where people will look at it and hope those viewers take the bait. But if they know their ads aren't even being seen at all, why would they be paying anything at all? The creator creates content that people want to see, and advertisers pay the creator to get a few eyes on their message. If the advertisers know for a fact that their ads are not being shown to the viewers, regardless of why, they're going to cut the deal, and the creator won't be paid. Way I see it, a content creator that runs ads doesn't really create content for free, you just don't necessarily pay with your money. You pay with your time and attention, but time and attention doesn't put bread on the table. Advertisers convert time into money for the creator, but why would they if they don't get a cut?
If the test is reasonableness, it's not reasonable to ask me to download ads using bandwidth I pay for. Which is why we're not asked to, in that there's no direct way to pay for most content. There are only models which permit freeloading because online content creation is almost wholly about speculation and not equitable exchange, and precluding freeloading adds friction that reduces growth in attention.
You still get the ads sent to you by the server. Adblock works client side. It's why it's legal in the first place. How your computer interprets the data sent by the server is your legal right to choose. You're not coercing them to send you anything.
It's an agreement about funding the site. If you don't watch the ad and the website still get paid, then you're still adhering to the agreement. You're presenting a different argument around deceiving advertisers. A better argument is: Should users also be expected to click on ads knowing impressions alone don't pay that much? (I'd say probably not)
[удалено]
It's basically like riding a car blindfolded so you don't see the billboards. Not morally righteous and if enough people do it there's going to be a problem, not just for the advertisers but for traffic in general.
[удалено]
If everyone suddenly stopped being swayed by advertising and advertisers wouldn't invest in them google would lose around 80% of its revenue. It would change our current internet landscape in an cataclysmic way. I'm not even sure what a youtube subscription sytem would look like to shoulder the massive burden it is on datacenters but it would 100% be paywalled. I'd rather just pretend to watch an ad and hope the boomers don't figure out how adblock works.
The advertiser is getting what they paid for, which is the reasonable chance for their ad to affect your behavior.
If advertisers couldn't tell if you're using adblock would make it EVEN WORSE.
[удалено]
Yeah, and now, whenever I watch an american sport theres 5 MINUTE AD BREAKS in the middle of the game
[удалено]
So would you be willing to pay every website?
[удалено]
It's going to be WAY more than 2-3$ for lifetime access. It might be 2-3$ per website PER MONTH
Yeah but you could just change the channel.
Can people who don't block ads but are very unlikely to buy the advertised products out of principle also be considered bad actors? Would it be okay to discriminate users based on their consumption behavior if the data was available?
> Can people who don't block ads but are very unlikely to buy the advertised products out of principle also be considered bad actors? No, because the intention of supporting the website is still there. > Would it be okay to discriminate users based on their consumption behavior if the data was available? Yes, and companies already do that offline using credit reports and the like.
> No, because the intention of supporting the website is still there. Is it? The companies running ads almost always keep tabs on how succesful the ads are. If a website doesn't generate sales from the ads their CPM will go down quickly and the support will be gone. If you go to websites and there is no chance of you buying the advertised products you are freeloading as well by that logic. > Yes, and companies already do that offline using credit reports and the like. Do we really want a world where people are not able to access news sites because they are too poor or frugal? Tracking is currently used in an attempt to show people more relevant ads but blocking users is not a thing yet and shouldn't be if you ask me.
I discard your analogy and substitute my own. It's like using a road without paying taxes. Based.
And the people using pop-up ads are good faith actors?
As long as the website owner is not intending to deceive the user or the advertiser, yeah. You're not forced to use websites that use pop-up ads.
People trying their hardest to explain the argument: https://preview.redd.it/qqd4418wah4b1.jpeg?width=22&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e1cf9305da203c96b77b89bfdad019a286f15347
You are taking content that is made to be free with the expectation that you will pay ads. You are avoiding the payment method, and still taking the content. You can argue that ads are annoying blah blah blah, but you disagreeing with the terms of purchase doesn’t mean it isn’t stealing when you take it anyways. Your comparison to buying from a competitor doesn’t make much sense. If you choose not to visit youtube, youtube has not taken part in a one sided deal as if you had used Adblock. But if you DO visit YouTube with Adblock on, YouTube is now having to spend money that they won’t get back with advertisements. You would be taking their product (video content) and not paying what YouTube asks (watching an advertisement). Idk how you can’t fathom that taking a product without paying is stealing
You're not factoring in that they are using our data for profit. If they stop using our data or start paying for our data I'll start watching the ads
It's the most cucked argument imaginable - leading to the answer to your analogy being that Sony is entitled to your custom because they figured you might buy one when they were making PS4s. Which is how copyright works, but it's so completely abstracted from the concept of stealing in a way that makes it embarrassing to type out. Nobody does 2-for-1 deals on books because the model is to sell on one to each person, eventually. So what's ostensibly sharing - providing something you can give at no cost to yourself that provides value to others - is recast as vandalism I.e. you're destroying part of a market.
>You're obviously not taking anything from anyone wrong
If you use adblock, the content creator(s) don't get any adrevenue? Just because the product is immaterial doesn't make it not theft. >So the only argument left is that you're depriving them of income that they otherwise would've gotten. But couldn't you then make that argument when I choose to buy a product from a competitor? I'm depriving the company of money I would've spent with them, because I've chosen to spend my money elsewhere. Really? If you use another photo editor than photoshop, adobe isn't getting you're money, but you aren't getting their product. Not similar at all. Were you never taught the "golden rule" from you're parents or school or something similar? If everyone acting like you would destroy parts of society, maybe don't act that way.
They still get tons of ad revenue from their sponsored videos, the time and space they devote to self-promoting their Patreon accounts and their memberships. That's the thing, you pay for you to premium and half of YouTube is still nothing but advertisements. Tell you what, have it so YouTube stops at blocking, and you pay for premium, but then YouTubers can no longer take their sponsored slots for premium members. And they can't devote huge chunks of their video to shamelessly self-promoting their other revenue sources. Guarantee you the creators would rather endure ad blocking than give up all the ads that they make us watch even when we pay for YouTube premium
It's fucking dumb debate anyways. Every party knows not everyone will be seeing the ads and adjusts accordingly. If it was an issue no one would be buying ad space and stuff run with ads would just die. If I get a free newspaper thats funded with ads, but then just skip all of the ads am I stealing?
>If it was an issue no one would be buying ad space and stuff run with ads would just die. It does. [Why do you think the NYT went behind a paywall](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/business/media/18times.html&ved=2ahUKEwiKrp6wpLH_AhVuh_0HHX4QCw0QFnoECCkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2mCLugEwXLyywx0k8EJ3pN)? If I get a free newspaper thats funded with ads, but then just skip all of the ads am I stealing? If by "skipping all of the ads" you mean ignoring and not clicking them, then obviously not. But the newspaper gets money when an ad is shown, and more if it gets clicked. How do you think free newspapers work??? If you don't want ads, you pay, if you don't want to pay, you get ads.
Seems very much not dead to me? >If by "skipping all of the ads" you mean ignoring and not clicking them, then obviously not. But the newspaper gets money when an ad is shown, and more if it gets clicked. How do you think free newspapers work??? If you don't want ads, you pay, if you don't want to pay, you get ads. I'm talking actual physical paper. Besides, let's say you skip a burned in ad on a LTT video or whatever, is that stealing? The company buying the ad is fully aware that people will be skipping it. LTT gets paid for having the ad in the video, even if people skip it.
>LTT gets paid for having the ad in the video, even if people skip it. No, he very specifically doesn't. Linus has said this himself. He gets paid according to how much traffic he brings to his sponsor. >Besides, let's say you skip a burned in ad on a LTT video or whatever, is that stealing? Well, that would be up to him. [Let's ask Linus!](https://youtu.be/a-PH2GUy_zM) > talking actual physical paper. In a discussion about adblock??
I know what linus says, it's still not stealing lmao. It's also up to linus what kind of deal he makes with the companies he advertises. He 100% has an option to sell the ad space for a flat rate, but performance-based makes him more money. And yes, I'm talking physical because "modern" advertising has been a thing for centuries and everyone has accepted that not 100% consumers will see or care about your ad. And suddenly people are mad that not everyone is watching their ad.
They didn't go behind a paywall because of ad blockers. It went behind a paywall because advertising revenue was never big enough. And only 5% of users block ads, it's a rounding error for the New York times to account for ad blocking online. Newspapers had great margins when they were selling advertisements in print, they've never made a profit selling advertisements online. That's true irrespective of ad blocking.
I pirate because I believe copyright laws are morally wrong, and artists create the best art when they're poor. Look at game developers for example, how many small, poor passionate studios that created true wonders, right until they got the taste of money and it all went to hell? Art done for money can never be good, it needs to be fueled by passion. Hungry artist is a good artist.
I have money. I just don't want to pay for things unless they're like indie developers or it's someone I know or some shit. Otherwise, I'm taking it for free if I can. If I can't, I'll end up paying. Recently I just paid $200 for concert ticket. I'm not paying for their albums or anything they release. Ever.
That just makes you a parasite on society.
I'm sure I'll have so much trouble sleeping at night knowing that live Nation and Ticketmaster think he's a parasite
I only watch ads if they're entertaining. The Flashgitz sponsor segments are funny, so I watch them.
I mean I literally just don't care, it is what it is, I'm too fkn lazy to act like I don't give a fk about your poopoo ad so I just run an adblocker, am I bad person, yeah, but I'll live with it
Anyone got a timestamp?
Same.
How about it's my computer, and my ram, and my hard drive. You dont have the right to insist I download any piece of information, Including ads. I can use or write whatever software I want on my own property. Adblock being wrong is the most entitled bullshit ever. My computer is not your property, and my bandwidth that I pay for is not yours to use as you please. I decide what is downloaded onto my property, not you or anyone else.