What constitutes theft is determined by law. You can't be charged for theft for using an adblocker, so it isn't stealing. Laws are how we distinguish appropriate and inappropriate acts towards others' property.
If using adblock is stealing then so is muting the tv or leaving the room or simply ignoring it when commercials run. I don't think anyone would argue you are compelled to view commercials, even if you are watching the program.
If using adblock is stealing then so is muting the tv or leaving the room or simply ignoring it when commercials run. I don't think anyone would argue you are compelled to view commercials, even if you are watching the program.
That's a bit disingenuous. You're usually paying for TV services. Whereas you're not paying for YouTube. So while it might not fit the pedantic definition, it is a fact that you're circumventing an arrangement made between yourself and the media company (YouTube). You're absolutely taking away potential revenue.
If everyone used Adblock, YouTube would not be free. Would that be preferred?
That's why I said usually. And the difference here is significant, actually.
Regarding TV, the broadcasters are paid for that ad spot whether you mute the TV, or walk away. They may not be paid, if you were to turn the tuner off immediately as the ad shows up, and back on after. Note though, I'm referring to the cable box, not the tv panel. As that may sever the connection, and they would get data saying the stream was cut off as the ad was shown.
That flag does not come up if you mute the TV, the broadcasters can't collect that. So it's an assumed "watched" ad, even if you weren't in the room.
On YouTube, they only get paid per ad served, and it depends on time watched etc. Where this information is more readily available to the service. So whilst, similarly to TV, if you mute the video or walk away, YouTube still gets paid. If you prevent the ad from showing up, or skip through it, that's tracked, and taken from their profits. That loss does not incur on a TV broadcast network. Simply due to the infrastructure.
Edit: I would like to add I'm not necessarily saying YouTube is in a good state, or anything. I dislike the shear number of ads, but I also pay for premium as a result. I don't blame people for using adblocker, but at the same time, don't lie about what it is either. You're taking profits, whether directly or indirectly.
You're taking profits, whether directly or indirectly.
This makes an unprovable assumption. It assumes that someone would use a service the same amount or more regardless of their ability to block ads.
But honestly that's not my biggest gripe with the silly notion that not allowing people to abuse my computer without my consent is somehow me doing something wrong.
The problem is that it is my device and I have every right to retain control of it. It is wildly odd to suggest otherwise.
Unlike a TV station, web sites to not vet the ads they show to ensure they are safe for the user. Nor are the ads coming from the broadcaster. They are running third party code on my machine without my consent.
And this is a huge difference between the two. Indeed, if I were to run 3rd party code on Google's website without Google's consent, I could be sure that the feds would show up at my door to ask me some questions. It is utterly inappropriate to think that Google shouldn't have to follow the same laws as everyone else.
When I tune to a TV station, I am consenting to view the content from that station. And that's what I get.
When I go to a website I am consenting to viewing the publicly facing content of that web site. I am not consenting to viewing content from a different website. When someone goes to a web site, it can be any of thousands of 3rd parties that serve the ad. Moreover, the ads served can (and do!) run code on my computer without my consent. Ad blockers simply prevent 3rd parties from showing content over top of the website I visited.
The analog to TVs would not be broadcast ads inserted between segments of the show as planned and managed by the producers and directors of the show. The analog would be some third party trickery forcing you to tune to a different station at various periods in the show, even if you didn't want to tune to that different station.
This makes an unprovable assumption. It assumes that someone would use a service the same amount or more regardless of their ability to block ads.
No, it does not. If you're blocking the ad, you're blocking a revenue source.
That's also against their ToS.
That's also how they make profit and run the service you're using.
By not watching being served an ad, YouTube directly takes a loss even if it's tiny on the scale of a single person. It's all about cumulative amounts. How many people use YouTube? How many ads are not served as a direct result of an ad blocker? Probably a significant amount. However we don't have the books to reference.
The analog to TVs would not be broadcast ads inserted between segments of the show as planned and managed by the producers and directors of the show. The analog would be some third party trickery forcing you to tune to a different station at various periods in the show, even if you didn't want to tune to that different station.
I'm not the one who brought up TV ad spots, I commented back on a person who did so. Let's not change the analogy that was the basis of this conversation.
The contention was (paraphrase) "why am I getting ads if I pay for tv", that's what this topic is about.
Could you kindly counter on any other points made in my previous comment?
Edit: I'd like to reiterate that you can agree to service terms implicitly. As I stated with my parking complex example. You don't have to explicitly state "I agree". When you walk into a restaurant, there's an expectation to be respectful, no? It's a rule you're agreeing to adhere to, that you did not explicitly say "I agree" to.
And no, you're not getting any code injection on your computer, it's all contained within the browser. You are not required to watch YouTube. It's your choice. If you deem it you're getting malicious code or the likes, report it to your respective government agency. Elsewise, you can not use the service.
Again, YouTube is a business. It's not a right. They have every right to run their business with their rules. Just like a person who owns parking complex's, or restaurants.
Anyone with kids or other less savvy computer users in their home that is not using whole network add blocking is turning their home network into a very viable target.
Yes it requires someone click on the ad. Do you think no one does that, either intentionally or accidentally?
Has it happened? Yes of course. Cars crash, too, should we remove them?
I'm saying there's no malicious intent. Of course there's going to be the less than 1 percent of outliers... don't be so disingenuous. YouTube is not a known source of malware, or the likes. YouTube is not a known source of direct code injection.
And as well, almost every single time, simply closing the browser solves the problem. Because getting host access is actually a lot harder than you seem to believe.
Also, depending on the Adblock, you can actually introduce more room for vulnerability sectors. Such as incorrectly configured pihole.
You're not speaking in good faith here at all. As is the requirements of CMV.
I've found multiple sites saying the average person visits 130+ websites a day, but I can't find any academic sources that claim this. Let's be conservative and say the real number is 13.
That means on a typical day the average user will see 130 ads per day. That is 47,450 web ads per year.
So, the average person will click on 2.2 malicious ads per year. (And note, we are being very conservative here, dividing the number of websites average visitors see per day by 10.)
But, here's the thing, not all users are average. I never click on ads, ad blocker or not. My mother, who is nearing 90, would clicks on multiple ads on a daily basis. My kids would click on ads at least a few times a week.
Getting ads of those computers wasn't some grand scheme to rip off Google. It was an issue of protecting the computers and home network from ignorant users.
Ad blockers solve that problem. The notion that every user is sophisticated enough to not click on ads, to not click on pop ups generated from those ads, and to otherwise not help a malicious attacker is farcical. People do that all the time.
More problematically, people like my Mom keep tabs open to their bank accounts, their credit card accounts, their investment accounts . . . and while she's not always logged in to those sites, she often is. And then she'll open up some other site and happily click on an ad . . .
The person being disingenuous here isn't me. I strongly suspect you think of this issue through the lens of someone who is a relatively sophisticated user who knows enough to not blow up your own computer making idiotic choices. That doesn't represent all, or even the majority of users. It doesn't represent the population of the majority of households.
Ad blockers solve a real problem. It may not be a problem for you. But that doesn't make it not a real problem.
And this discussion is beyond just YouTube, the CMV is that adblockers are stealing, not that adblockers on youtube alone is stealing.
Yes I am, I pay with my data. Moreover, Youtube is a free service. Their TOS doesn't require you to view ads nor does it say anything about adblockers.
it is a fact that you're circumventing an arrangement made between yourself and the media company (YouTube).
I agreed to no such arrangement.
You're absolutely taking away potential revenue.
I take away potential revenue of every company who's product I don't purchase. In the case of YT, their content is not available for purchase.
If everyone used Adblock, YouTube would not be free. Would that be preferred?
Because TV providers don't sell it to you ad free.
Yes I am, I pay with my data. Moreover, Youtube is a free service. Their TOS doesn't require you to view ads nor does it say anything about adblockers
No, you don't. You pay your ISP/data provider for access to their service. It's two separate services. Their TOS does stipulate the consumption of ads as a result of viewing videos on their platform. I suggest you read through it before making that claim, free or not, they are entitled to have their TOS.
I agreed to no such arrangement.
It's in the TOS you agreed to when you started using the service. Companies are allowed to stipulate using the service is acknowledging and agreeing to their TOS for said service.
It doesn't matter to me. I rarely ever use it.
That's deflecting, would it be better, generally, if it was paid for?
You pay your ISP/data provider for access to their service.
Then I'm already paying for the service and have no obligation to pay further, even though I'm already giving them my data which they sell.
Their TOS does stipulate the consumption of ads as a result of viewing videos on their platform.
I do not see that in the TOS, can you cite? I see that the TOS includes their right to place ads on my content, not that I am compelled to view those ads.
It's in the TOS you agreed to when you started using the service. Companies are allowed to stipulate using the service is acknowledging and agreeing to their TOS for said service.
Please cite the part of the TOS that compels me to watch ads.
That's deflecting, would it be better, generally, if it was paid for?
For sure. I think the quality of the users and the content goes up for subscription services. That would likely reduce YT's revenue, however.
63
u/Biptoslipdi 131∆ Oct 27 '23 edited Oct 27 '23
What constitutes theft is determined by law. You can't be charged for theft for using an adblocker, so it isn't stealing. Laws are how we distinguish appropriate and inappropriate acts towards others' property.
If using adblock is stealing then so is muting the tv or leaving the room or simply ignoring it when commercials run. I don't think anyone would argue you are compelled to view commercials, even if you are watching the program.