You are still not understanding. EU law doesn’t protect you from having to pay for goods and services. EU law just banned tools like adblock detection, because you have a right to privacy under data protection law.

It’s like going to the store and hiding a pack of chewing gums in your pocket. If a store employee accuses you of stealing, they have no legal basis to force you to show the gum. They don’t have elevated law enforcement rights. Your pocket is private.

In the same way, google is not allowed to act on the information, that you use adblock. It’s still violating their TOS, which you ACCEPT by accessing their platform. Since we don’t have a petty internet police, nobody will proscecute you for it.

Immorality only lies in circumventing ads via third party solutions. By that, you don’t follow the contract, you have no right to consume their content, then.

You are mixing two things. Nobody can just blast ads on your phone without your consent. But you did give consent by accessing YouTube.

No, I’m not here to defend Alphabet. I’m just saying it’s equal to stealing groceries at Wallmart. They request payment, you deny. Just because it’s so much easier to do on YouTube doesn’t mean it’s any more justifiable.

Oh baby, you don’t understand what you just said, do you?

Nobody forces you to watch ads. Close YouTube, don’t look back, email content creators to have em send ad free video links directly to you.

Watching ads is your obligation as consumer, if you decide not to pay for their removal.

The nutella butter thing was kind of a meme, bit kf ragebait. It’s a shit comparison, on purpose. It’s so shit, you should understand my point through that.

IDK maybe I’m bad at english or something, but this is exactly my point. Either you pay, or you watch ads. Both is okay, they get paid. I just don’t think YouTube with ads is a better deal than Premium, due to the amount of videos and therefore ads a regular person watches on the daily.

Watching with ads is completely fine. I just cannot justify watching 15-30 seconds of ads for a single video (it’s probably more nowadays).

I actually did say just about that in my post, so I don’t see how you disagree with me.

As of now, Lemmy is still quite niche. People wouldn’t generate a high, stable income on Lemmy sized platforms. It’s fine if it’s just for fun, but it’s not really viable as a full business.

Streaming platforms that compete with YT conform to most exactly the same conditions. They need some form of income.

I think you misunderstood. Them making money trough straight payments AND through ad revenue are both completely fine incomes.

However, there is no morality in denying them both while still benefiting from their goods and services. You’d support my argument if it was about some local busines. For some odd reason this shifts peoples perspecives. Someone offers something and says “hey it’s not for free, but I won’t actually know if you paid or not” (well YouTube does know, but that’s secondary)… It’s not right to deny them their pay. There are no consequences to it, but you know that it’s not sustainable if everybody thinks like you.

I think you misunderstood. Them making money trough straight payments AND through ad revenue are both completely fine incomes.

However, there is no morality in denying them both while still benefiting from their goods and services. You’d support my argument if it was about some local busines. For some odd reason this shifts peoples perspecives. Someone offers something and says “hey it’s not for free, but I won’t actually know if you paid or not” (well YouTube does know, but that’s secondary)… It’s not right to deny them their pay. There are no consequences to it, but you know that it’s not sustainable if everybody thinks like you.

Explain how it isn’t. If you’re happy about removing mid to longform video content from the internet, yeah, whatever mate. I don’t think I have an argument to disarm this attack, other than the fact that you stamd with a very small group of people.

If creators decide to use another platform, the other platform will also only exist aslong as people either consume ads or pay money, which, in your argument, wouldn’t happen.

If creators decide to create individual small group platforms, have fun in border gore. People will not find nearly as many interesting videos with just curious browsing. Plus, I don’t see many creators surciving that. Plus, I don’t see many small creators rising in that economy.

I’m not sure if Linus Tech Tips agree with me, but from context, I’ll assume so. Anyway, the free market isn’t a real argument to me. All it tells me is that YouTube and most big creators have a solid business model.

My argument consists of basically two aspects:

Paying money for Youtube content is better value than watching ads for YouTube content. Your time and to an extent mental state is, for 95% of users, worth more than that money.

Not paying money and not watching ads is not sustainable and morally reprehensible. Their service doesn’t finance itself if nobody grants it any income. It they demand a compensation for their goods and services, you are to either compensate them or forego the offer. You cannot just assume that a bunch of other people compensate for the lost income through you. It morally doesn’t work like that. If you do that, you better be okay with financially stablr people stealing in grocery stores too.

Homie missed the point. using ublock and sponsorblock is equal to petty theft. Disliking a company doesn’t make it morally right to steal from them.

ITT: “it costs more than 5 bucks a month!” yeah, if you don’t share with friends with family, it does. Also, music service included, deduct your spotify payment.

“You can just block ads” You can just miss the whole point.

“I rather support creators directly” I’m happy you do that. YouTube hosting is not free for Google/Alphabet, pay them too, or you’ll have to teach each and every creator how to webhost + help em search a “real job” because selfhosted won’t pay enough. Also, good fun browsing videos then.

IDK man, paying for YT Premium really isn’t that bad. Assuming you already consume YouTube content, that is. And I’m pretty sure that’s like 98% of first world population between 4 and 70.

Blocking ads on YouTube is no sustainable solution. Hosting Billions of Gigabytes of on-demand content is SUPER expensive. Like, it actually costs money. Other, wayyy smaller indie creator on-demand video platforms charge 5 bucks a month, but i’ts okay if they do it, because they aren’t big bad Alphabet.

If that’s your view, you don’t have a problem with pricing, you have a problem with morals. And if you still do voluntarily consume YouTube content in private, with or without ads in any which way, you inarguably have a huge problem with your own morals.

YouTube premium is a good deal. It’s priced very well compared with competition, it actually does pay indie creators and it let’s you access to features that many users really do use.

BUTBUT THEY ARTIFICIALLY LIMIT FEATURES FOR NO REASON WITHOUT PREMIUM. I mean, it’s subscription software and streaming, what else would they do? Every for profit subscription software provider and their mother does this. I develop hospital software and we literally do exactly this. If hospital A has feature x and hospital B also wants that, we don’t just hand that out for free even when we just have to add it to their system in like 10 minutes… what did you expect? They already use our software (like you use YouTube), we don’t have a huge incentive to just randomly add features if nobody paid for it. If we do, be happy about it, send me a gift card, if we or they don’t, that’s just business.