Same person that said ad blocking was the same as piracy.
edit: People downvoting me like I disagreed with him. Just saying how he looks at it. I think it’s a bit of a false dichotomy but they are definitely similar.
Have you ever heard his full stance on the matter? Because he clearly stated that this is not a judgment against using it. Heck, he’s been open about having sailed the high seas himself and still doing so for media he physically owns.
It’s just that gaining access to media while circumventing the payment (ads in this case) is basically piracy. Which is fair.
I trust Linus is being sincere when he says “it’s not a judgement” but blocking ads is being compared to a criminal doing copyright infringement (illegal). The word used is one originally meaning for a person murdering others on boats (immoral), and it’s used because it’s pejorative. It’s unavoidably judgemental.
If I hacked a server to get content then I would be circumventing payment at it shouldn’t be up to me how it responds to requests, I don’t own it. Google trying to enforce playing adverts via software running on my property is an unjust overreach. The user choosing what displays on their own monitor is not “circumvention”, it’s claiming ownership over your computing. Google could choose to verify on their servers if I’ve paid (in normal currency) but instead their servers act like adverts are an optional donation.
It is. Taking from a service without paying for it, and actively avoiding the service making money via advertising is basically the same as watching a film without paying for it.
Both ways, you consumed a service and the people providing it got nothing, but it cost them something to create and provide it.
They are similar only if you presume there is an agreement of content in exchange for revenue from adverts. If you view the internet as a place for open collaboration, or oppose (internet) advertisement, then you wouldn’t presume that agreement and it looks very different.
Same person that said ad blocking was the same as piracy.
edit: People downvoting me like I disagreed with him. Just saying how he looks at it. I think it’s a bit of a false dichotomy but they are definitely similar.
Have you ever heard his full stance on the matter? Because he clearly stated that this is not a judgment against using it. Heck, he’s been open about having sailed the high seas himself and still doing so for media he physically owns.
It’s just that gaining access to media while circumventing the payment (ads in this case) is basically piracy. Which is fair.
Signed, A uBlock User
I trust Linus is being sincere when he says “it’s not a judgement” but blocking ads is being compared to a criminal doing copyright infringement (illegal). The word used is one originally meaning for a person murdering others on boats (immoral), and it’s used because it’s pejorative. It’s unavoidably judgemental.
If I hacked a server to get content then I would be circumventing payment at it shouldn’t be up to me how it responds to requests, I don’t own it. Google trying to enforce playing adverts via software running on my property is an unjust overreach. The user choosing what displays on their own monitor is not “circumvention”, it’s claiming ownership over your computing. Google could choose to verify on their servers if I’ve paid (in normal currency) but instead their servers act like adverts are an optional donation.
How much you want to bet he uses Ad block himself but it’s suddenly different when YOU do it on HIS content?
It…is? You’re copying digital content without paying for it. I use uBlock but I don’t pretend to have the moral high ground.
It’s… not? It’s protection against malware and profiling by shady companies.
It can be both things at the same time.
It is. Taking from a service without paying for it, and actively avoiding the service making money via advertising is basically the same as watching a film without paying for it.
Both ways, you consumed a service and the people providing it got nothing, but it cost them something to create and provide it.
They are similar only if you presume there is an agreement of content in exchange for revenue from adverts. If you view the internet as a place for open collaboration, or oppose (internet) advertisement, then you wouldn’t presume that agreement and it looks very different.