Hacker News Reader

Comment by 627467 | Hacker News Reader

I both pay for yt premium and use newpipe on older (degoogled) devices where using latest youtube.apk is not an option anymore. Also, where I live yt premium is a fraction of the cost of many developed countries, cheap for me but not for many in this country. In some countries yt premium is not even available.

I read a lot 'entitled' opinions in this thread pretending that the whole world should ignore their circumstances and just do whatever works for them (ie. Pay for yt premium). The internet is global: why would you think that using open source software to access bits off of global internet is unethical/illegitimate?

View on HN

> why would you think that using open source software to access bits off of global internet is unethical/illegitimate?

"It's just bits." That's a slippery slope.

One might argue that circumventing the intended purpose of a platform in this way uses technological advantage to take advantage of content creators who are vulnerable.

The kid who takes all the candy from the "Please take one." jack-o-lantern on Halloween is only taking a bit of atoms from their neighbor's porch.

Now let me get off my high horse and turn my ad blocker back on.

> One might argue that circumventing the intended purpose of a platform in this way uses technological advantage to take advantage of content creators who are vulnerable.

Youtube does not even run on a standard Android anymore (without Google proprietary bits) so that's not like some people have a choice anyways.

If you want to use Youtube on a standard Android, you either have to use a modded version of Youtube or a third-party app. I'd argue that modifying manually the official version sounds worse.

But it's not really a slippery slope anymore: the world has gone down that slippery slope since the web has been created and operated and it's been great for everyone so far.

Overall, the benefits of the "free bits" have enabled anyone to be a creator and create a audience for free, has enabled companies to become global in an instant reach potentially everyone with access to TCP/IP and DNS servers. But creators and operators are trying to shoehorn the global world into a handful of brands (YouTube, ig, fb...) and a handful of business models.

If you were content creators before this age you had to suck it up to several layers of middle men, to get your content on tv, on cinema, on a CD. Now, the free bits lets you operate single handly from your bedroom. But is has a cost: you rely on gatekeepers to distribute your content and track your audience in the name of ad optimization and those users who they are trying to track - who are sovereign over their devices and software - can and will decide how they engage with the bits that reach their hardware and software.

There are alternatives: aol used to operate a walled garden. Many countries try to operate their own walled gardens. I'm not making a judgment call, I know where I prefer to spend my time on. But people do have to climb down their high horses pretending the power dynamic on the open web is only favouring consumers and users

I just spent a few hours at an elderly relative's house checking over her computer.

She had her screen lock and a message on Chrome saying that she needed to "Call Microsoft" and she wasn't able to close the window, etc. So she called and "John Henderson" was able to talk her into installing LogMeIn. He then started about charging her $149 and she came to her senses and called me.

I'm 99% sure that she was served some Javascript via an ad network.

I installed uBlock Origin on both of her browsers. I tried changing her DNS to Adguard but it turns out that Comcast hasn't let people change DNS on their routers for many years. Even if you change it on your personal device, they'll force DNS on you.

I have been debating putting ad-blocking on their computer because I've worried about something like this happening. I'd also worried about some site not functioning properly because of ads being blocked. But we'll deal with that if and when.

Sorry but not sorry to sites that are doing 3rd party ad networks that they don't audit.

> Even if you change it on your personal device, they'll force DNS on you.

How does that work?

Firewall rule in the router to hijack port 53 traffic and send it to their own dns instead?

Firefox does DNS over HTTPS now. That should bypass DNS spoofing by any ISP.

I really appreciate the humorous self awareness. It's a breath of humanity that I don't often see on the internet.

> I read a lot 'entitled' opinions in this thread pretending that the whole world should ignore their circumstances

Come on, how many of the HN users bragging in this thread about blocking YT ads are in a similar situation? I'm glad you've come up with a convincing justification for your behavior, but you've built a mighty strawman there, no one is arguing that people who cannot afford a modern smartphone are the problem.

The convincing justification is only one part of the argument.

The other part is about freedom to challenge contemporary adtech and digital business models.. ie. Compute on my terms.

Content creators and YouTubers are welcome to not serve me their content if I don't accept their trackers.

It's not only about affording a modern smartphone: all these digital behemoths rely on us keeping up to date to their tech standards, chasing the latest phone, the latest firmware.

Software like newpipe lets us engage on our own terms.

> Content creators and YouTubers are welcome to not serve me their content

Except they are not. If you turn on an ad blocker and use YouTube, the creator of the content has no way to stop you.

That's odd. There's plenty of content creators that won't serve me anything unless I have: paid and/or have JavaScript turned on.

Sometimes I think of the freedom to challenge contemporary restaurant business models too.. you know, food on my terms. Restaurants are welcome not to serve me their food if I don't accept their bill, but I won't tell them upfront just like you.

Let's not pretend this is about high-minded freedom; like everyone else in a free market, you're free to not consume the fruits of labor from content creators and YouTube.

At least in your previous comment, I thought it was honest and interesting to raise the issue of self-interested piracy for low-income users. For all your talk of entitlement, how disappointing it is for you to end with "but I'm entitled to their work because I don't like their terms".

Bad analogy. Google doesn't charge so there is no bill to accept.

The bill is the ads which they enforce to the best of their ability, the analogy doesn't have to be literal. Google also offers a literal charge, in the form of YouTube Premium.

You can pretend that's the case, I won't. The only rights a company has towards its customers are to provide its services, charge money, and shut up otherwise. Demanding its customers to harm themselves is none of these things.

> Restaurants are welcome not to serve me their food if I don't accept their bill, but I won't tell them upfront just like you.

What's the restaurant equivalent to me having to turn on JavaScript or disable my ad blocker?

> thought it was honest and interesting to raise the issue of self-interested piracy for low-income users.

Well, I touched you on that point (inequality). But it seems that I failed to touch you on the fact that digital users are entitled to run whatever they want on their computer.

Creators have the right to set terms on the fruits of their labor. Your rights end where their rights begin. A restaurant's terms is their fee, YouTube and creators' terms are ads or Premium.

I don't know why some people think they can just make up the right to do whatever they want with other people's work. You can do what you want on your computer, but not with their stuff. Easy solution: don't use YouTube, but apparently you think you're entitled to it.

I am entitled not due to a sense of self entitlement, but because that's how the protocol for engagement on the web defines it: that's how tcp/ip works. I type in a url and my computer takes whatever bits the server sends my way.

Platforms and creators have pletora of other protocols to use that suit the model you're suggesting.

We're not entitled to do everything we're capable of doing. I'm capable of cheating and stealing, the protocol of physics allows me to do so. I'm also capable of trespassing, a fence or door lock doesn't really stop me. My fellow citizens have a plethora of other protections like electric barbed wire fence and reinforced titanium locks or armed guards to suit the model of entry that they want.

But the model of entry is not my right to decide. I do not freely infringe on others' rights because my tools allow me to do so. I do not infringe of others' rights because other people have a plethora of alternative rights to choose from.

Content creators and YouTube have agreed to a set of (legal) terms of entry, as is their right: watch ads or pay for Premium. It is not your right to deny them simply because you are capable of it.

Which country are you in? I’ve been looking for a list of prices per country for YT premium but couldn’t find any.

It’s interesting to see how prices vary, for example Netflix UHD costs around 20.- per month in Switzerland but only 3.- (equivalent) in Turkey.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com