MucherBucher

joined 1 year ago
[–] MucherBucher@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

You are still not understanding. EU law doesn't protect you from having to pay for goods and services. EU law just banned tools like adblock detection, because you have a right to privacy under data protection law.

It's like going to the store and hiding a pack of chewing gums in your pocket. If a store employee accuses you of stealing, they have no legal basis to force you to show the gum. They don't have elevated law enforcement rights. Your pocket is private.

In the same way, google is not allowed to act on the information, that you use adblock. It's still violating their TOS, which you ACCEPT by accessing their platform. Since we don't have a petty internet police, nobody will proscecute you for it.

[–] MucherBucher@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Immorality only lies in circumventing ads via third party solutions. By that, you don't follow the contract, you have no right to consume their content, then.

[–] MucherBucher@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

You are mixing two things. Nobody can just blast ads on your phone without your consent. But you did give consent by accessing YouTube.

[–] MucherBucher@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

No, I'm not here to defend Alphabet. I'm just saying it's equal to stealing groceries at Wallmart. They request payment, you deny. Just because it's so much easier to do on YouTube doesn't mean it's any more justifiable.

[–] MucherBucher@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Oh baby, you don't understand what you just said, do you?

Nobody forces you to watch ads. Close YouTube, don't look back, email content creators to have em send ad free video links directly to you.

Watching ads is your obligation as consumer, if you decide not to pay for their removal.

[–] MucherBucher@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

The nutella butter thing was kind of a meme, bit kf ragebait. It's a shit comparison, on purpose. It's so shit, you should understand my point through that.

[–] MucherBucher@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago (4 children)

IDK maybe I'm bad at english or something, but this is exactly my point. Either you pay, or you watch ads. Both is okay, they get paid. I just don't think YouTube with ads is a better deal than Premium, due to the amount of videos and therefore ads a regular person watches on the daily.

[–] MucherBucher@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

Watching with ads is completely fine. I just cannot justify watching 15-30 seconds of ads for a single video (it's probably more nowadays).

I actually did say just about that in my post, so I don't see how you disagree with me.

[–] MucherBucher@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

I think there's SmartTube for smartTv's. Not sure how parental control stuff works.

Yeah, Nebula is great. But other than being not Google, their platform works in similar ways. You pay, you get content.. I mean, how could they even change that anyway?

[–] MucherBucher@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago (8 children)

I think you misunderstood. Them making money trough straight payments AND through ad revenue are both completely fine incomes.

However, there is no morality in denying them both while still benefiting from their goods and services. You'd support my argument if it was about some local busines. For some odd reason this shifts peoples perspecives. Someone offers something and says "hey it's not for free, but I won't actually know if you paid or not" (well YouTube does know, but that's secondary).. It's not right to deny them their pay. There are no consequences to it, but you know that it's not sustainable if everybody thinks like you.

[–] MucherBucher@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

I think you misunderstood. Them making money trough straight payments AND through ad revenue are both completely fine incomes.

However, there is no morality in denying them both while still benefiting from their goods and services. You'd support my argument if it was about some local busines. For some odd reason this shifts peoples perspecives. Someone offers something and says "hey it's not for free, but I won't actually know if you paid or not" (well YouTube does know, but that's secondary).. It's not right to deny them their pay. There are no consequences to it, but you know that it's not sustainable if everybody thinks like you.

[–] MucherBucher@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

I think you misunderstood. Them making money trough straight payments AND through ad revenue are both completely fine incomes.

However, there is no morality in denying them both while still benefiting from their goods and services. You'd support my argument if it was about some local busines. For some odd reason this shifts peoples perspecives. Someone offers something and says "hey it's not for free, but I won't actually know if you paid or not" (well YouTube does know, but that's secondary).. It's not right to deny them their pay. There are no consequences to it, but you know that it's not sustainable if everybody thinks like you.

 

Edit: Since you guys are downvoting my post, I'll assume my post does not belong here, because I represent a POPULAR opinion. Remember "ah yes, this is unpopular = upvote" "wait no, everyone likes nutella with butter, popular opinion = downvote"

YouTube Premium is a good deal for most regular YouTube users.

I don't think there's much of a debate here, yet most people seem to disagree with me

Pricing: Absolutely fair IMO. Think about other streaming services. Netflix is more expesive, even music streaming services are barely cheaper. If you can't afford the single pricing, get a family plan, share with whoever you trust enough. How many videos do you watch in one month? How many minutes of ads is that? Likely quite a few minutes.

Who gets the money?: What did you expect? A lot of it goes to YouTube -> Alphabet/Google. Of course it does. Hosting a seemingly unlimited amount of on demand fullHD or even 4k videos and streams for a MASSIVE userbase is not cheap. Still, content creators do report that YouTube premium earnings per viewer are way more valuable than YouTube free earnings per viewer. So, I fail to see the problem.

Financially supporting Alphabet/Google: I mean, yeah, they aren't the greatest company, I'm with you on that. If you have a problem with supporting such a company, don't use their services. If you don't pay for them with money, you pay with time by watching ads. If you do neither, you're basically commiting petty theft. The victim being a "bad" company doesn't make that better.

Using AdBlock: Like I just said, that's petty theft and it's not okay just because you're doing it to a big bad company. Running YouTube costs money, if more people use it, it costs more. If nobody pays for it, it's dead. Additionally, if nobody pays, no content creator earns money. That's a secondary effect, as you could still pay creators directly.

Paying creators directly: If you do that, good on you, good on the creators. If everyone uses AdBlock with that, say bye to YouTube. Creators will use another hosting platform, either like YouTube (rinse and repeat) or selfhosted.

Content creators host their own content: That would be so so bad. The overlap of "content creator", "able to selfhost" and "willing to selfhost" is small. Anyway, even if everyone pulled it off, most would go out of business for sure. Also, have fun browsing videos if everyone selfhosts. We'd need a global platform for browsing now:)

YT premium paywalls features: Yes. So? Heard of Bitwarden? People love that company for their generous services. Even they paywall features like TOTP and emergency contacts. Paywalling features is normal. In fact, it's to be expected. Just because something was free once doesn't mean it should still be free. Just because a part of it is free doesn't mean everything about it should be free.

The YouTube App sucks / YT Music sucks: Nobody forces you to use it. But if you do, clearly you see some value there. Pay for it in some way if they request you do so.

Tell me why I'm wrong.

 

Here I hit revenant with everything the PK got, and it's enough to break the shadow shield and do 18 damage to his purple armor

Here I hit revenant with everything the PK got, and it's enough to break the shadow shield and do 18 damage to his purple armor

In the recap, we only see the 18 damage done to his purple armor

In the recap, we only see the 18 damage done to his purple armor

 

Side note: It's also called Parizer in reference to Paris, the city that is neither Bologna, nor Lyon, another french city which would be the actual origin of the sausage.

view more: next ›