Hacker News Reader

Comment by prmoustache | Hacker News Reader

> If you don't like ads, buy a YT subscription.

Why?

They can block non premium users if they don't want non paying visitors to view the content. And I am free to switch virtual desktop, browser tab, mute it or turn my head away and put earplugs when they want to show an AD. This is just the same, but made with software.

View on HN

It's kinda like the F2P and P2W. Looking away is F2P. You get the delay, in a 5min vid you spent 6mins. Getting premium is P2W.

My problem is not the $10 per month, it is that those people will STILL collect and sell my data to anyone who will buy it. $10 don't keep my data 'safe'. $10 is just to avoid ads. I wonder if they will ever make a PremiumPrivate subscription that will cost $20 where you get to avoid ads AND keep your data pritave. (easy answer --> no)

Just be honest and say you think you should be able to enjoy those artists’ work without paying. You know how this works: they get paid either from your premium subscription or when ads play. There isn’t a third option where you can watch their work and they get paid.

Direct donation ?

That’s called YouTube premium. If you don’t like their business practices, I’d also try to buy directly from the artists or see if they have something like Patreon.

> There isn’t a third option where you can watch their work and they get paid.

That's the point there are other ways ...

Not legally. That’s the entire point here: you can use YouTube’s content without following your part of the deal but you don’t have any right to complain when they start blocking that. Nobody is saying you have to like them, only that you don’t have a right to use private property without the consent of the owner.

Don't know your point was:

>Just be honest and say you think you should be able to enjoy those artists’ work without paying.

If we go back to legality then as others mentioned I believe in the right to transform what data is served to me.

That’s the same point: artists put stuff out where you can see it on the expectation that they’ll get paid. If you don’t want to keep your side of that bargain, you don’t have much standing to complain about being blocked.

The artists sign a contract with youtube. Non subscribed users don't. The same way promises only apply to those who believe in them, terms of services only applies to people signing a contract for them.

If a physical shop decide their terms only allow the customers with a membership card to look at the window from outside but decide to not put curtains, those terms do not apply to bystanders who could see inside. Same when my neighbour is naked with all the lights on. If she doesn't want me to see her, she knows what to do.

It's like a bookstore that allows anybody to walk in from the street, browse the shelves and read books on a couch, but then says that you're only allowed to do any of this if you also make a purchase or politely listen to one of their employees give me a sales pitch. Well unless they get the cops to arrest me for trespassing, I don't care about their rule. I'll browse their books, read a few, and walk out without buying anything if I please.

If they don't like this, they can turn me away at the door. But they don't, they let me and I'm not signing any contracts with them, so fuck their rule.

There is no deal, no contract signed. So there is no deal to follow.

The terms of service still apply. If you choose not to follow them, don’t complain when they stop allowing you access. Nobody _needs_ to access YouTube so there’s no harm in not having access to their service.

Nobody signs any terms of service except the subscribers of a membership accounts. Nobody is bound to terms listed in a small link hidden somewhere in the page.

Besides, I checked the terms of service in this page[1] today and nowhere is it written that people are forced to look at the ads and can't turn away. And rightfully so it would be illegal to have such terms in most juridictions. So even those that are aware of those terms because they actually looked for them ought to see the ads.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/t/terms

> Not legally.

Call the police, nobody cares.

I am honest: I don't want to see ADs nor be tracked, and removing ads is not worth paying 10$ a month to me, especially as I will still be tracked. I haven't signed any contract with youtube, nor with its content uploaders. If Youtube or the people uploading content to it wants to force me to pay to view it, they have a simple solution: make it subscription only. The fact is they do not, so I still retain my rights to use my own client, configured the way I want to and view it with my rules the same way I had the right to switch channel, go for a pee, walk, drinks during adverts when I was still using a television.

Besides YouTube content is not comprised only of artists.

If you have a principled objection to being tracked, don’t use YouTube. They do that either way so all you’re really arguing is that you want to use someone else’s work without paying them. That’s a position but don’t expect much respect for it.

> That’s a position but don’t expect much respect for it.

The same way they shouldn't expect much respect from ad viewing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com