[flagged]
Why does Google want to charge advertisers to show ads to someone so determined to ignore them? If anything, if they force me to watch their ads and I ignore them, then Google is the one stealing from the advertisers.
I'm not going to buy an advertiser's product regardless of whether or not I'm forced to see its advertisement, and any counterargument to that must be built on the premise that advertisements can nonconsensually convince me to take action, in which case we're back to the beginning arguing about psychological warfare, where I certainly have a right to defend myself.
Users don't 'allow' anything: YouTube send data, the owner of the receiving device can choose what to do with that data (modulo copyright infringement, hate speech laws, etc.).
YouTube's business model is to bet that adspace included alongside videos can be sold for a profit. The price they can charge for that adspace depends on market conditions, which includes factors like the prevalence of adblocking. Blocking ads is not 'stealing', in the same way that using coupons isn't 'stealing'.
> YouTube has every right to try to punish this behavior or stop providing their service to you - such as by blocking ads, or even by deleting your account.
Obviously. That's why it's never 'your' account; it's owned by them, they can do what they want (modulo copyright infringement, hate speech laws, etc.).
I don't remember signing a contract with YouTube. They send my browser a list of "things" and their URLs required to render a page and, as my agent, my browser can freely load or ignore them.
> access, reproduce, download, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, alter, modify or otherwise use any part of the Service or any Content except: (a) as expressly authorized by the Service; or (b) with prior written permission from YouTube and, if applicable, the respective rights holders;
> circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage with, or otherwise interfere with any part of the Service (or attempt to do any of these things), including security-related features or features that (a) prevent or restrict the copying or other use of Content or (b) limit the use of the Service or Content;
> Please read this Agreement carefully and make sure you understand it.
> If you do not understand the Agreement, or do not accept any part of it, then you may not use the Service.
Even if it's not binding, it illustrates what Google intends to do (stop providing the service via an anti-adblocker script) if you do not follow their TOS.
I want Google to pay my rent for the next decade, and Sundar has to offer a naked lapdance at the Pink Poodle every time they send me an ad I did not explicitly request to be shown.
Yes. They have complete discretion over what 'list of "things" and their URLs required to render a page' they decide to send any particular user agent (modulo copyright infringement, hate speech laws, etc.). There is no requirement that HTTP connections to 'youtube.com' should receive video data; or even HTML; or even that anything's listening on that port.
It doesn't matter what Google intends to do. Only what I do in response. TOS are not legally binding, they're a bunch of crap.
Contracts are only valid if signed.
see: > YouTube has every right to try to punish this behavior or stop providing their service to you - such as by blocking ads, or even by deleting your account.
If an entire class of people were drawn to something else, such as watching Nebula or going to coffee shops, both would be more interesting than they are now.
Personally, I agree with the 'my device, my rules' comment. If YouTube want to (try to) block me, they can go ahead. They're under no obligation to serve me video content even if I didn't block ads, so it makes little difference.
But yes, it is their right to try. Just as it is my right to install & use an adblocker.
Why would any regular person empathize with the criminals in the commission of their crimes?
The way that advertisements in the past has managed to avoid paying this tax is that the service or product is given away for free along side the advertisement. Since it is not an exchange of services, and the product is being giving away for free with no expectation of any money, goods or services, there is no tax to be applied.
Here's is the quintessential example: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5... We paid $400 billion dollars to entrenched ISPs and got absolutely nothing for it.
And advertising is almost always a 3 party business deal. The merchant. The advertiser. The unwitting public. Sometimes the merchant gets screwed. Sometimes it's the advertiser. But almost always the target audience.
So when it comes to adblocking, I have zero sympathy for the advertiser or the merchant. I want zero advertisements in my life. But I get them anyway.
So sure, adblock away, but don't think that the consumer is the sole loser in the ads race: It's far worse than that.
And ad blocking is self defense.
It’s a fine line.
A lot of ads are just shit though.
I didn't say that doing is is immoral, or that we should collectively feel ashamed, just that it is inherently <not paying> for YouTube, and that YT has every right to try to stop this behavior - of course, balancing kicking people off the platform with any ground they lose to competing UGC streaming services.
You seem to be assuming that watching ads would reduce the number of them, or reduce the price of Premium. All evidence is to the contrary (e.g. the presence of ads on pay-for TV, like cable)
Do you do that? I hope you're consistent with your principles and watch every ad.
So what if I am?