• TheDarksteel94@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    2 months ago

    The thing being stolen is the advertisers ability to advertise, which in turn pays for the platform. So, it is stealing from the platform.

    Also, if you take a quick look at the pamphlet and throw it away, that’s the same thing as looking at an ad and ignoring it afterwards. You were still looking at it, so the ad did its job.

    Btw, don’t get me wrong, I also use ad blockers for a lot of things. But I do pay for anything that I use for a good amount of time, like Youtube, video games, movies or music.

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Nope, you’re not taking anything away from the advertiser. They are free to display but they’re not entitled to being watched. You don’t get penalized for ignoring or closing your eyes during trailers at the cinema. But that is exactly what arguing against ad blockers is. The entitlement of advertisers to your attention. This fundamentally breaks the social contract of ads. Imagine corporations arguing that municipal anti-billboard laws are theft

      • TheDarksteel94@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m not arguing against ad blockers, I’m arguing that they are still a form of piracy. Also, if you go to a cinema, you’ve presumably already paid for the ticket, so the cinema has already made money from you…

      • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yes you are. When closing your eyes during trailers, the cinema still gets paid. When blocking ads, websites don’t get paid.* Billboards are also different, as they don’t give you some sort of service benefit except “land”; they’re equivalent to domain parking ads which are absolutely awful, for which I see no plausible justification whatsoever.

        *There was this fork of µblock that tried to just hide them instead of removing them, but that didn’t seem to work when I tried it. I also forgot the name.

    • Transient Punk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Does that make me a pirate if I go to the bathroom during commercial breaks? If I get to a theater late and miss the commercials, am I a pirate?

      • TheDarksteel94@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        You’ve already paid to view the movie, it’s not funded by ads. Same with commercial breaks. I presume you’re already paying for the channel or service in some form.

      • SolOrion@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        2 months ago

        No. The owner of the media has already been paid in both of those scenarios. It makes zero difference to them whether you’re watching the ads.

        Adblocking, on the other hand, is actively hurting the owner of the media because they get paid based on how many ads they can serve. If you block the ad, it isn’t served, and they don’t get paid.

        Personally, I definitely think it’s piracy. I also still do it.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The thing being stolen is the advertisers ability to advertise, which in turn pays for the platform. So, it is stealing from the platform.

      FUUUUUUUUUUUUCK THIS! You seem to think they are somehow entitled to force people to view their shit. They are NOT! I have sovereignty over my computer and my eyeballs, and I have every right to control what happens to them.

      • TheDarksteel94@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Okay, and you are not entitled to use the platform. How do you suppose people are to keep it running? Charity? Good luck with that. In the case of Youtube or Twitch, video streaming is more expensive than you can imagine.

        • tabular@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Requesting users play ads but giving them the content even if they don’t means it’s more like asking for a charitable donation than a transaction. They could paywall it but they don’t, and it’s not like there’s a competitor with the same content.

          Also, Google feel entitled to record your voice on your phone and send it to their servers. Do they think their users are a charity, or worse?

          • TheDarksteel94@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Youtube can’t paywall the site, since that would create an even bigger outrage than longer ads. But they are already working on unskippable ads, so people won’t be able to block them with conventional means. So to them, it’s not a simple request. Either you watch ads or you pay. I’m personally not a big fan of that, since it feels way too intrusive and dystopian.

            And yeah, Google as a whole sucks ass, we all know that. Again, I’m not arguing against stealing from them, but just that it IS indead still stealing/piracy to block ads. If you want to do that or not is a personal decision, but people still need to be aware of what they’re doing.

            • tabular@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Google can make it more difficult but it’s like anti-cheat, a losing arms race. In the end users control if adverts play even if Google controls the computer as strictly as North Korea OS.

              Words do not have innate definitions and “piracy” can mean whatever you want (when not in a court of law). If people understand what you mean then no direct issue. Due to the association with stealing and murder on boats I won’t call copyright infringement “piracy” (thanks music industry propaganda) or when blocking adverts. If you insist on calling me a pirate I will respond with pirate talk, ye landlubber.

              • TheDarksteel94@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Arrr, matey! I think we have an understanding! Ye may sail the seven seas, I don’ see a thing wrong with it!

      • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        They are not entitled to force people to look at them, but they are entitled to load them in the browser and display them.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          No they’re fucking not! My browser on my computer is my property, not theirs! I have every right to control what it does!

          Where the fuck do you get off, claiming that corporations have some sort of right to colonize my computer and subvert it against me? Why do you hate property rights?

          Let me spell it out for you even more explicitly: you’re arguing that a fake corporate “person’s” fake “right” (i.e. privilege) to their fake “property” (i.e. temporary monopoly) is somehow superior to an actual person’s actual right to their actual property. (In fact, it’s even worse than that: what you’re really arguing here is that fucking website terms of service – which barely even qualify as a contract! – are superior to property rights.) Do you comprehend, at all, how fundamentally ass-backwards your argument is‽

          • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yes, you may pirate with your computer and vote for your local pirate party. No, it does not cease to be piracy. You think money just fell out of a coconut tree? Edit: I often do it, and it is piracy, plain and simple.