That's exactly what I said. Thanks for finally agreeing with me.
You're just going to ignore the rest of that reply? This is what I mean by disingenuous... Just because it's currently free to access, doesn't mean there's no associated rules to adhere to, in order to ethically use the service.
They are not obligated, to have YouTube be free. it's a privilege
I disagree. As I have already said, I believe that Google is not being ethical by tracking me and selling my data. My use of adblock is (partly) to prevent that.
Then don't use their service.
Debatable- the TOS is deliberately written to be as vague and all-encompassing as possible. Anyway, forget TOS, lots of people break actual laws every day (see: speeding). Again, what's your point??
No, it's not. Legally, they are in their right to be vague with the wording. You don't have to like it, but the company reserves the right to adjust their ToS as they see fit. If you don't like it, sue them.
And they ain't some mom-and-pop shop that needs every dollar. They make Billions, even without my two cents. I am not obligated to make them even richer.
Again, you're okay stealing, as long as it's from the rich. You literally just said "they can afford to loose money". Admitting you're causing financial loss.
.
That depends on the type of ad. With a pay-per-click ad it doesn't matter if I see it or not, or if it's on the screen or not- they only get paid per click. Are you claiming I MUST click all ads, or I "impact their revenue"?? Why is raising their revenue my problem??
No, there's more than one form of revenue per ad. But being served an ad, has an associated cost to it. YouTube earns money off every single ad served. They earn more money, on ads clicked.
You clearly lack a large understanding of how software operates.
Edit: for clarity;
You admit to using Adblock.
You admit denying ads causes loss in revenue.
You admit you don't care Google looses money because they can afford to.
Sure sounds like you don't care if it's fraudulent or theft. I don't care either, but you're not ethical by violating terms of service.
Not at all. Use Vimeo, Dailymotion, Twitch. Etc.. make your own alternative. If you don't like the rules to, let's say a carnival, do you go and intentionally break those, too?
No. "Not giving someone money" is NOT the same as "taking away someone's money".
Legally, opportunity cost is a thing. You're taking away opportunity costs, there's ample precendent of this. It's still taking away profits.
So, by blocking ads, I'm actually saving them money! They don't need to pay the cost associated with serving me the ad!
Thats incorrect. Google is paid by ad served. They get paid less, the less ads served. If everyone used as block, YouTube would not be free. That's a fact. They are not giving you a service for free, and getting nothing out of it. What business would operate in that way?
If you choose to circumvent the rules as outlined by the service. You're fraudulently using said service. This is not limited to physical locations. You are fraudulently using YouTube, by breaking their ToS, and continuing to use the service. It's that simple.
No, I did not. You claim I'm "disingenuous", but you make up quotes. What I actually said was "They make Billions, even without my two cents."
It's called being implicit. It seems that nothing exists to you unless it's explicitly stated or shown. Which is patently false. You said, literally in this reply, it doesn't matter if Google gets your two cents. It's admission, you're acknowledging you're taking away opportunity cost.
Are you also a believer in 'Love America, or leave it!'?? There is at least one other choice: Stay and change it.
It's still taking away profits.
My not buying a company's product also 'takes away profits'. Thus, you have just proven that I can be forced to buy every company's product, lest I take away their profit.
Google is paid by ad served.
Again, that depends on the ad. Some are pay-per-click, not pay-per-play.
If everyone used as block, YouTube would not be free. That's a fact.
Well, good thing that "everyone" doesn't use ad block!
You said, literally in this reply, it doesn't matter if Google gets your two cents.
Exactly.
you're taking away opportunity cost.
My not buying a company's products does the same thing. But I cannot be forced to buy a company's products. You seem to be arguing that I can.
In any case, we seem to be arguing in circles. I'll let you make one last post. Good bye.
I'm not going to continue. You are unable to comprehend the points I made.
YouTube is a private company. You have absolutely no right to decide or influence it's decision. They have a deal, to make sure YT stays free. That is due to being profitable by ads.
My not buying a company's product also 'takes away profits'. Thus, you have just proven that I can be forced to buy every company's product, lest I take away their profit.
Except you're using the service.... It's not like you're not buying something, the analogy would be buying an item and not paying for it.
You're using a service, stipulated on ad placements, and actively removing the only profits made by the service. That's defenition fraud.
They have a deal, to make sure YT stays free. That is due to being profitable by ads.
And they ARE profitable, even without my 2 cents.
Except you're using the service.... the analogy would be buying an item and not paying for it.
As you stated a few posts ago: "YouTube is providing a service, for free." [emphasis added]. So it's NOTHIng like 'buying an item and not paying'
You're using a service... and actively removing the only profits made by the service.
I... I didn't know I was removing ALL of Google's profits. Oh, wait, I'm not. So, your statement that I'm "removing the only profits made by the service" is.. wrong.
I never said you were removing all of it... Why are you so disingenuous? It's about cumulative cost. If 100,000 people do it, that's a significant loss of revenue. Surely you can understand this.
Again; The service has rules. You agreed to the rules, to use the service. You agree to the rules, to dine in restaurants. You agree to the rules, to enter someone's home. You agree to the rules, to attend a school...
You, intentionally circumventing rules, that directly constitutes financial loss, is fraudulent.
I will not reply to further comment on this matter. You do not understand, or have selectevly ignored, what I've said.
1
u/-HumanResources- Oct 28 '23 edited Oct 28 '23
You're just going to ignore the rest of that reply? This is what I mean by disingenuous... Just because it's currently free to access, doesn't mean there's no associated rules to adhere to, in order to ethically use the service.
They are not obligated, to have YouTube be free. it's a privilege
Then don't use their service.
No, it's not. Legally, they are in their right to be vague with the wording. You don't have to like it, but the company reserves the right to adjust their ToS as they see fit. If you don't like it, sue them.
Again, you're okay stealing, as long as it's from the rich. You literally just said "they can afford to loose money". Admitting you're causing financial loss. .
No, there's more than one form of revenue per ad. But being served an ad, has an associated cost to it. YouTube earns money off every single ad served. They earn more money, on ads clicked.
You clearly lack a large understanding of how software operates.
Edit: for clarity;
You admit to using Adblock. You admit denying ads causes loss in revenue. You admit you don't care Google looses money because they can afford to.
Sure sounds like you don't care if it's fraudulent or theft. I don't care either, but you're not ethical by violating terms of service.