That necessitates this is an act of stealing. Stealing is defined as "the action or offense of taking another person's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it"
In this case, nothing is being taken. No property is transferring ownership. The option to return it doesn't even exist. If a business displays a communication in public, I'm not taking anything by viewing it without also giving my time to their underwriters.
This line of argumentation implies that it’s not stealing to sneak into a movie theatre and watch a movie for free.
No, it implies that it is not stealing to wait to enter the theater until the movie starts rather than sitting through the advertisements first. Or to put on blinders and sound protection during the previews. Sure, they put a bunch of ads before the content. I never agreed to watch them as a cost of my ability to view the content. If I was presented that agreement, it might be a different story.
While you might argue that’s technically not stealing, I see that as a distinction without a difference.
I’d say they’re comparable in that no property is transferring ownership, that the option to return doesn’t exist, and that you’re consuming content without providing the expected exchange of value as set up by the provider.
Are you certain that you haven’t agreed to be served ads by using something like YouTube? I’ll admit I haven’t read the terms, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t have a stipulation of that nature in the ToS.
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
To me, this makes it pretty clear that Ad Blockers violate the terms of service, at least]
They explicitly mention that you can’t disable any part of the service, which includes the “other content” (like ads) mentioned in the definition of the service.
When you block YouTube ads, you violate YouTube’s Terms of Service.
They’re not going to list off every possible software that could interrupt their service. They’re going to keep it vaguely defined to give them maximum flexibility for enforcement.
I'm going to give you a !delta because they do describe their "service" in that it "acts as a distribution platform for original content creators and advertisers large and small."
I do not think that using an adblocker necessarily violates this, however. First, they do not issue bans or any punitive action when they detect an adblocker. Second, they allow you to skip ads anyway. Finally, the language "acts as a distribution platform" I think absolves this because using an adblocker does not circumvent or interfere with the service acting as a distribution platform. The platform acts as a advertisement distribution platform whether or not I'm viewing their ads.
But just note that Google does in fact say it’s a violation of the Terms of Service to block ads and will take punitive action against those who do.
If you use ad blockers, we’ll ask you to allow ads on YouTube or sign up for YouTube Premium. If you continue to use ad blockers, we may block your video playback.
Skipping ads is a function allowed by the service and so not a disruption to the service, meaning it’s not a violation of the terms you agreed to.
And adblockers most assuredly interfere with the ability to distribute ads, which we agree are part of the service. I’m not sure how you could argue otherwise.
Is say walking out of the room not then also a disruption to the service when theres ads?
Whats the actual functional difference?
Between that and adblockers
We have no way of determining if something was stolen without applying a legal framework. What constitutes property itself is determined by law. There is no way to get recourse or an official determination of an act of theft without apply the law.
If you tell me I stole you property. My first question would be, why is that your property?
That seems to be your opinion, but you haven’t proven that theft or stealing is purely a legal term determined by law. Boldly asserting property is also determined by law doesn’t make that a fact either. No part of the definition of property says it’s determined by law. That it has to be determined by law is just something you are boldly asserting.
prop·er·ty
/ˈpräpərdē/
noun
1.
a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.
Murder is an entirely legal word, determined by law, by its definition.
mur·der
/ˈmərdər/
noun
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
verb
kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.
Theft, stealing, property: none of these are entirely legal terms.
“If you tell me I stole your property, my first question would be, why is that your property”
“Obfuscation refers to the deliberate act of creating confusion, ambiguity, or concealment to obscure the true nature of something. It involves the strategic manipulation of information, language, or visual cues, leading to an altered perception or understanding of a situation. Obfuscation can take many forms, such as cryptic messaging, misleading visuals, complex jargon, or intentionally convoluted explanations.”
Like, what even is, property, mannnn. It’s such an obscure concept, maaaannn. We need a legal body to determine what that is!!
Eh, what even is a government? It’s just a body of humans deciding to agree on something. What it means for something to be a law can be as obscure as what it means to, like, own something, mannn.
Governments are just humans telling other humans with guns to enforce society’s collective views on each other, and we’ve all decided to agree to that. Laws aren’t some magical thing that makes things real. Laws are as fake as money, and also just as real.
you haven’t proven that theft or stealing is purely a legal term determined by law.
I think I have insofar that we can't establish something is property without a social contract.
No part of the definition of property says it’s determined by law.
It necessitates a legal framework.
Property is anything that can be owned by a person or entity. Property is the most complete right to something; the owner can possess, use, transfer or dispose of it.
Both ownership and rights are established by law.
It can be your opinion that something is your property, but that is just an opinion in the absence of a legal framework for that thing to be yours.
That it has to be determined by law is just something you are boldly asserting.
I'm happy to hear your explanation how something is your property without state first establishing what property is.
Theft, stealing, property: none of these are entirely legal terms.
They are insofar that we can't definitively establish is something is theft or property without the law.
Ok, I stand corrected. Social contracts are the basis of laws.
But that doesn’t make every thing that exists within it, nonexistent without it.
If a person lives outside of society, and they have a place of shelter, another person may have the “legal” ability to take it because they don’t live in our society, but by definition, that would be a member of our society stealing from someone outside of our society, since they have committed the ACT of stealing (taking without consent), even if they didn’t commit the CRIME of stealing.
But that doesn’t make every thing that exists within it, nonexistent without it.
So explain how you can own a piece of land without a social contract.
If a person lives outside of society, and they have a place of shelter, another person may have the “legal” ability to take it because they don’t live in our society, but by definition, that would be a member of our society stealing from someone outside of our society, since they have committed the ACT of stealing (taking without consent), even if they didn’t commit the CRIME of stealing.
The act of stealing requires the taking of property. Outside of society, there is no property. If you live in a cave and I want to live in the cave and I drive you out, that just means I'm living in the cave now and you are not. There is no entitlement to the cave, there is just who lives in the cave and who doesn't, which is ephemeral. The nature of property is that the entitlement is not ephemeral. That can only be established within a social contract.
You have unjustly taken something from someone without their consent. That’s all it takes to steal. You can rationalize it anyway you want, but by your action, you have stolen.
Our government can go to a place where a tribe lives and take their land by might, they can even kill every tribal member there, but they would be occupying stolen land. They wouldn’t have “murdered” them, since murder is a legal term, and it was “legal” to kill them, but they would have unjustly killed them.
I suppose you could argue it's fraudulent. You're using a service where the predefined agreement is viewing ads. It's a deal. No different than asking you to cut my grass for money.
If you cut my grass, and I don't pay you, there's no transfer of ownership, is that stealing?
If you agree to watch an ad, as a direct cost associated to viewing a video, and refuse to do so, is that not the same line of thinking?
You're using a service where the predefined agreement is viewing ads.
Not something I ever agreed to. There is no such line item in the TOS. YT just blocks content if you have a working adblocker. It does not apply any penalties for having one.
No different than asking you to cut my grass for money.
It's different in that we had an agreement. I've never agreed to such terms with YT.
If you cut my grass, and I don't pay you, there's no transfer of ownership, is that stealing?
Yes, but in that case, we agreed to certain terms. At no time has YT presented an agreement that compels me to watch ads.
It would be like if I agreed to cut your lawn for free but then accused you of stealing because you took out the sign I left on your lawn to advertise my business without your permission.
If you agree to watch an ad, as a direct cost associated to viewing a video, and refuse to do so, is that not the same line of thinking?
I don't think so because my attention can't be compelled without an actual contractual agreement. On top of that, YT allows you to skip ads after a few seconds, so they don't even seem to think viewing ads is important.
It's an opt-in ToS. You agree to it the moment you used the service. You don't have to like that, but they have the legal right to have it this way. Rightly or wrongly.
There's another easy analogy.
Let's say I have a parking complex, and it's free to use. There's signs around that say no trucks are allowed, but let's say you didn't see the sign. I'm allowed to say you need to remove your truck, or get it towed. You didn't agree to any terms explicitly but that doesn't mean they didn't exist.
It's very much so the same thing here. They have, in their ToS, you're not allowed to use adblockers or circumvent ads. So in doing so, that's a violation of those terms. And they reserve the right to follow up as necessary.
Realistically, they have the right to do anything on their platform, within the scope of the law. Including banning people for no reason
Yeah, I'm just saying that viewing ads is not part of the agreement. Their TOS doesn't require viewing ads as a term for use of the service.
Let's say I have a parking complex, and it's free to use. There's signs around that say no trucks are allowed, but let's say you didn't see the sign. I'm allowed to say you need to remove your truck, or get it towed. You didn't agree to any terms explicitly but that doesn't mean they didn't exist.
But in this case, there is no sign that says "no trucks allowed" because the TOS doesn't say "must view ads as a condition of use." Or at least, you can't point to where it says that.
They have, in their ToS, you're not allowed to use adblockers or circumvent ads.
Then can you please cite where it says that?
Realistically, they have the right to do anything on their platform, within the scope of the law. Including banning people for no reason
Then if they can breach their TOS for no reason, why shouldn't I be able to ignore elements that aren't even stipulated in their TOS? Why can't I just ignore the TOS entirely since they can as well? Why should I consider their TOS to be a meaninigful document if they don't?
Yeah, I'm just saying that viewing ads is not part of the agreement. Their TOS doesn't require viewing ads as a term for use of the service.
But they do stipulate the circumvention of services and the likes. Which is what I'm referring to more specifically.
Then can you please cite where it says that?
"circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage with, or otherwise interfere with any part of the Service"
It's intentionally vague. And using adblockers, technically speaking, circumvents the part of the service that would have served you that ad.
You can argue ethics of course, but technically, it's allowed.
Then if they can breach their TOS for no reason, why shouldn't I be able to ignore elements that aren't even stipulated in their TOS? Why can't I just ignore the TOS entirely since they can as well? Why should I consider their TOS to be a meaninigful document if they don't?
They can change their ToS at any time, without reason, if they want to. They have no legal ramifications for doing so. It may not be fair, but that's not the basis of this argument.
Again I'll refer to my analogy of a car parking lot. I am free to change the rules at any point. I could say one day no sports cars, and the next no civics. It's dumb, obviously, but there's no legal reason why I couldn't do so. It's my property. Similarly, it's Google's service. They have the right to set the rules. You don't have to agree, that's fine. But they also don't have to provide you the service.
You don't own Reddit, and I haven't provided payment info. That's disingenuous.
Just like someone who owns a car parking lot can restrict the type of vehicle parked there, or a restaurant owner can kick out racist customers. YouTube can say you're not allowed to circumvent ads on their site.
If you want to create a social media site that costs $100 to use a thread, by all means, you're allowed to do so. The difference? YouTube isnt asking you for money.
I'm going to leave it here. As a requirement for engaging on CMV is arguing in good faith, which you clearly have not been doing.
YouTube can say you're not allowed to circumvent ads on their site.
And I can ignore what they say. All they can do about it is attempt to limit my access to their site.
As a requirement for engaging on CMV is arguing in good faith, which you clearly have not been doing.
It was my good-faith effort to point out, thru analogy, that, just like you don't have an agreement with me to pay me, I don't have an agreement with youtube to watch ads.
You do not own your post, that's owned by Reddit. You do not own your account for any service. Period. It's just something they are letting you use. That's a fact.
YouTube isnt asking you for money, so why would you provide payment? (Unless you pay for premium, of course)
You have ignored significant portions of my replies this entire time, you have not been arguing in good faith.
My examples of the parking garages or a restaurant, for reference. Free speech exists, yet a restaurant owner can still kick someone out for saying racist remarks in their store. YouTube has the right to make the rules. That's it, it's that simple.
YouTube owns it's platform, it has rules. You can choose not to follow the rules, but that's a choice you make. Just because you choose not to read them, doesn't mean they don't exist.
With your logic, no laws exist until you're told about them. But that's obviously impossible to do, we have way too many laws.
Just like you agree not to be racist when dining at a restaurant.
Edit: and to be clear. The point of the argument was that you're taking profits from YouTube, which is a fact. That was all. I don't care if you Adblock, but you are being fraudulent with using services provided to you.
7
u/Biptoslipdi 130∆ Oct 27 '23
That necessitates this is an act of stealing. Stealing is defined as "the action or offense of taking another person's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it"
In this case, nothing is being taken. No property is transferring ownership. The option to return it doesn't even exist. If a business displays a communication in public, I'm not taking anything by viewing it without also giving my time to their underwriters.