• @tabularEnglish
    0•4 months ago

    Requesting users play ads but giving them the content even if they don’t means it’s more like asking for a charitable donation than a transaction. They could paywall it but they don’t, and it’s not like there’s a competitor with the same content.

    Also, Google feel entitled to record your voice on your phone and send it to their servers. Do they think their users are a charity, or worse?

    • @[email protected]English
      1•4 months ago

      Youtube can’t paywall the site, since that would create an even bigger outrage than longer ads. But they are already working on unskippable ads, so people won’t be able to block them with conventional means. So to them, it’s not a simple request. Either you watch ads or you pay. I’m personally not a big fan of that, since it feels way too intrusive and dystopian.

      And yeah, Google as a whole sucks ass, we all know that. Again, I’m not arguing against stealing from them, but just that it IS indead still stealing/piracy to block ads. If you want to do that or not is a personal decision, but people still need to be aware of what they’re doing.

      • @tabularEnglish
        3•4 months ago

        Google can make it more difficult but it’s like anti-cheat, a losing arms race. In the end users control if adverts play even if Google controls the computer as strictly as North Korea OS.

        Words do not have innate definitions and “piracy” can mean whatever you want (when not in a court of law). If people understand what you mean then no direct issue. Due to the association with stealing and murder on boats I won’t call copyright infringement “piracy” (thanks music industry propaganda) or when blocking adverts. If you insist on calling me a pirate I will respond with pirate talk, ye landlubber.

        • @[email protected]English
          1•4 months ago

          Arrr, matey! I think we have an understanding! Ye may sail the seven seas, I don’ see a thing wrong with it!