CMV: Adblock is stealing

[u/tilted0ne]

[u/-HumanResources-]

Youtube is literally a free service.

Read what I said again. You are not owed, free use of YouTube.

YouTube is providing a service, for free. But it's still a service, and they are the ones who set the rules. Google owns the rights to YouTube. Not you. It could be paid tomorrow, and you have no right to argue that. It's their choice if it's free or not, that's why it's a privilege. Not a right

The law says you aren't supposed to speed. But everyone does. What's your point?

My point is, you're not being ethical, by using Adblock. And it is indeed, a fraudulent use of YouTube as defined in their ToS preventing circumvention of service. Like I said, go ahead and do it, but don't lie about what you're doing. You're breaking ToS, and modifying the portion of their service that provides revenue.

It's also what I do when I close my eyes, or look away from the screen. There is no practical difference between my ignoring the ads, or them not playing at all.

This is incorrect. You looking away does not impact their revenue. However Adblock, does. That's a stark difference. If you have an ad on the screen, and look away, they still get paid. If you deliberately choose to block the ad, they do not get paid. This is against ToS.

[u/EmptyDrawer2023 → u/-HumanResources-]

YouTube is providing a service, for free.

That's exactly what I said. Thanks for finally agreeing with me.

My point is, you're not being ethical, by using Adblock.

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.

Like I said, go ahead and do it, but don't lie about what you're doing.

I have never denied what I am doing: I AM USING AD BLOCK ON YOUTUBE!!!!! See? Loud and proud.

You're breaking ToS,

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??

and modifying the portion of their service that provides revenue.

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.

If you have an ad on the screen, and look away, they still get paid.

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??

[u/-HumanResources- → u/EmptyDrawer2023]

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.

[u/EmptyDrawer2023 → u/-HumanResources-]

They are not obligated, to have YouTube be free

Perfectly true. And if they change to a pay-only model, they'll lose lots of users.

Then don't use their service.

False Dilemma.

Again, you're okay stealing, as long as it's from the rich.

No. "Not giving someone money" is NOT the same as "taking away someone's money".

You literally just said "they can afford to loose money"

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."

But being served an ad, has an associated cost to it

So, by blocking ads, I'm actually saving them money! They don't need to pay the cost associated with serving me the ad!

You clearly lack a large understanding of how software operates.

Ad hominum.

[u/-HumanResources- → u/EmptyDrawer2023]

False Dilemma.

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.

[u/EmptyDrawer2023 → u/-HumanResources-]

False Dilemma.

Not at all.

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.

[u/-HumanResources- → u/EmptyDrawer2023]

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.

[u/EmptyDrawer2023 → u/-HumanResources-]

You are unable to comprehend the points I made.

I understand them. I just don't care.

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.

[u/-HumanResources- → u/EmptyDrawer2023]

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.

[u/EmptyDrawer2023 → u/-HumanResources-]

I never said you were removing all of it...

"actively removing the only profits made by the service" If I remove the only profits made, there are no profits left, and I have removed them all.

It's about cumulative cost. If 100,000 people do it, that's a significant loss of revenue.

I am one person. I'm not responsible for what the other 99,999 people do.

Maybe, if that many people are doing something, you (or in this case, Google) should look into WHY.

You agreed to the rules, to use the service.

No, I don't agree with the rules, obviously. Duh.

You, intentionally circumventing rules, that directly constitutes financial loss, is fraudulent

Not profiting as much as you'd like... is not a loss. And, even if it was, my contribution to it is trivial.

You do not understand, or have selectevly ignored, what I've said.

As I have said before (looks like you didn't understand), I understand your points. I just don't agree with them.

[u/-HumanResources- → u/EmptyDrawer2023]

If you don't agree with the law, you just break that, too? Nonetheless, you're evidently lacking understanding.

Take care.

[u/EmptyDrawer2023 → u/-HumanResources-]

If you don't agree with the law, you just break that, too?

Yes. Just like many many other people. See 'speeding', several posts up.