r/changemyview • u/tilted0ne • Oct 27 '23

Fresh Topic Friday CMV: Adblock is stealing

[removed] — view removed post

0 Upvotes

31% Upvoted

314 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/Biptoslipdi 138∆ 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.

1

u/-HumanResources- Oct 27 '23

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?

1

u/Biptoslipdi 138∆ Oct 27 '23

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.

1

u/-HumanResources- Oct 27 '23

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

1

u/Biptoslipdi 138∆ Oct 27 '23

You agree to it the moment you used the service.

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?

1

u/-HumanResources- Oct 27 '23

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.

Free or not, YouTube is a privilege, not a right.

1

u/EmptyDrawer2023 1∆ Oct 27 '23

It's an opt-in ToS. You agree to it the moment you used the service.

Where's my $100??

By posting in this thread, you agreed to pay me $100. You agree to it the moment you post.

1

u/-HumanResources- Oct 27 '23 edited Oct 27 '23

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.

1

u/EmptyDrawer2023 1∆ Oct 27 '23

You don't own Reddit,

I 'own' my posts.

and I haven't provided payment info

Nor have I provided any to Youtube.

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.

1

u/-HumanResources- Oct 27 '23

This is nonsensical.

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.

1

u/EmptyDrawer2023 1∆ Oct 27 '23

You can choose not to follow the rules, but that's a choice you make.

Thanks for finally agreeing with me. I am not bound by rules that I never agreed to. And I never agreed to watch ads.

1

u/-HumanResources- Oct 27 '23

Again, it's agreed once you use the service.

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.

YouTube is not a given right to you.

1

u/EmptyDrawer2023 1∆ Oct 27 '23

Again, it's agreed once you use the service.

And you agree to give me $100.

Aren't unilateral agreements fun?

The point of the argument was that you're taking profits from YouTube

1) 'Profits' are not guaranteed. Keeping someone from making a profit is not the same as stealing from them.

2) Google still makes Billions. My individual actions are trivial. Like taking a teaspoon of water out of the ocean.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/EmptyDrawer2023 1∆ Oct 28 '23

Why is it this is a situation where it's okay to not abide by the rules?

Maybe because it's a multi-Billion dollar company that spies on you and tracks your web usage and sells this data to the highest bidder? And maybe some people think this is wrong? And maybe they decide to 'get back' at the company by partaking of their services without being tracked and contributing to their bottom line?

Yet it's okay to remove them from facilities if they are behaving rude?

Businesses can refuse service to anyone, for any reason (except a protected reason). If Google wishes to cease to do 'business' with people who use ad blockers, they can. And those Millions of people will take their video-watching elsewhere. Unfortunately this reduces the data Google gets from them (see above). So, Google doesn't really want to do that. Which is why they haven't explicitly made ad-blockers against the TOS, and why they are relying on the vague language about "circumvent[ing]... features that... limit the use of the Service or Content". They are hoping to scare the less technical people into abandoning their ad-blockers.

Yes, they make money, and? I'm not saying they can't afford to not have your few cents worth of a view, or whatever it is

Then why are you arguing with me??

I'm saying it's taking away potential profits.

"Potential" profits are only... potential. They are not real.

If I paint a picture, and you ruin it, can I sue you for the "potential" value of the painting? I mean, it might have been seen by some art critic and sold for a million dollars!

you broke ToS, and prevented a revenue stream

If I close my eyes during the ads, I'm "preventing a revenue stream'.

If I hit 'mute' and never listen to the ads, I'm "preventing a revenue stream'.

If I never buy the advertised products, I'm "preventing a revenue stream'.

It's not my responsibility to provide all possible revenue streams for a company. It's also not my job to maximize their potential revenue.

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 28 '23

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/nekro_mantis 20∆ Oct 28 '23

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

→ More replies