Re:Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoy...
by acdha on Sunday October 15, 2023 @08:47AM
(#37889294)
So why do you still use their service if you don’t like them so much? Whether or not you approve of the rules someone sets for use of their private property doesn’t affect their legal rights, so it seems you shouldn’t be helping them.
Re:Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoy...
by Brian_K_White on Sunday October 15, 2023 @10:48AM
(#37890235)
I use many things that aren't perfect, lacking any better option.
I didn't have time this week to become Jeff Bezos and buy Google and fix Youtube.
Re:Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoy...
by acdha on Sunday October 15, 2023 @05:08PM
(#37893397)
That begs the question of why it’s so critical to have an unlimited supply of mediocre video – you don’t need to build a competitor, just find another outlet for your spare time which is hardly a challenge.
Re:Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoy...
by Brian_K_White on Sunday October 15, 2023 @06:27PM
(#37893983)
It does not beg any such question, merely you presume.
The mail example is great. The post office has no right to withhold your other mail between someone else and yourself, because you threw away the ad flyer someone paid them to deliver.
Meanwhile, I pay for premium and still have to suffer ads, because every video has ads in-band in the content, and I have to watch youtube on someone else's device probably 30% of the time, and have my content (what I would consume not produce) censored and inhibited by bs ai "community standards" and dmca takedowns I didn't approve of, and even without ever looking at an ad, they are collecting and selling profiling data of me which I also don't approve of. So where's my option to strong-arm youtube to force them to fully meet my "terms" and get what I'm paying for? How come it's not reasonable for me to somehow make it that if they don't please ME, that their own server side somehow breeaks unless they conform to what decide is a reasonable fair transaction?
None of this "terms" argument holds up. All they have is might, not right.