Hacker News Reader

Comment by AuthError | Hacker News Reader

consuming content for free where creators expect to get paid is polite way of stealing if you really think about it

-google ads before the video -google ads after the video -google ads DURING the video, if it's too long. -At least one "this video sponsored by our sponsor, sponsor sponsor".

There's a limit to how many ads I'm willing to sit through to watch someone tell me why Harbor Freight tools are [The Greatest Thing Ever || Worthless Garbage]

Generating money by forcing ads to be shown on someone else's device, using the power and internet connection that they pay for, is also stealing if you really think about it.

Very similar to cryptojacking malware.

In my country a publisher is liable for anything they say unless they have a license, and the license require that they abide to local laws. Youtube do not do this since they think they do not need to follow those laws, nor do they take responsibility for anything they publish (including advertisement). They don't even pay value gain taxes when selling this content in return for the service of me watching the ad.

I will respect their expectations when they respect mine.

That sounds pretty bleak, honestly. While you can disagree with Youtube and its policies, the idea of open free speech should appear, at first blush, more important than strict protections against libel or hate speech.

The kind of speech that is limited would be things like publishing malware, or doing illegal advertisement. No advertisement to kids, no alcohol, no tobacco, no prescription medicine, no guns, and no fraudulent messages.

Taxes is also pretty much defined by the expectation of compensation. If a speaker talks on a conferences and get paid to do so, they will need to pay taxes. They have as much open free speech they can get, but they are not free to demand compensation for it without paying taxes.

I thought about it more and realized it wasn't stealing.

What do we do now?

No, if you really think about it, that’s not remotely true here. A creator — myself included — is paid by Google for their content, which Google uses to attract the eyeballs that the advertisers are paying them to serve ads to… the creator doesn’t actually have any interest (financial or otherwise) in whether or not those ads are actually being watched (as opposed to being served). Since virtually all creators rely on non-Google-served advertising income streams (PayPal, merch, sponsorships, etc) for their real income, and invasive ads merely impede that, anything that Google does to drive people to ad blockers really just hurts creators. No stealing is occurring.

This is some truly incredible mental gymnastics.

No gymnastics required at all.

I produce media and I sell it to Google. Google in turn produces an interested audience for that media and sells their views to advertisers in the form of ads served. Advertising agencies in turn produce ads to sell to (for example) GM… GM is the ONLY party with a material interest in the ad actually being viewed by the (potential) consumer, as they’re the only party who can convert my media into a GM vehicle being sold. If anyone in that chain can consider an ad blocker theft, it’s GM… that’d still be wrong, of course, for the same reason ignoring a billboard on the freeway isn’t theft.

When you lay a trap and your prey refuses to be caught they aren’t harming you.

I support my creators directly. Few if any make enough from youtube to produce videos. All are either sponsored or patreon supported.

Many of the creators I listen to sell their content, and when they do, I pay for it if I can. (some do not sell their content on a service which allows for non-DRM audio purchases.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com