https://files.catbox.moe/a6111d.png / https://nitter.poast.org/LinusTech/status/1825956050685800834
If you go the video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsjHMzGl-VY. You will see it’s gone. So Youtube being Youtube.
Here’s a Odysee mirror of the video, https://odysee.com/@jopec:7/linus-tech-tips-degoogle-your-life-part-2-adfree-youtube:0.
I don’t see any mention of the YouTube adblock trick, so from the vid:
Copy YouTube URL. Paste it in Bing and search. Scroll passed Bing’s sponsored bullshit and click on the thumbnail for the video you searched. It will then play, still in Bing, with no ads.
So if you’re on a work or government or w/e computer that doesn’t allow installing adblock extensions, there ya go. No downloads or anything, just YouTube and Bing.
…this is the first time I’ve ever had any interest in using Bing, lol.
removed by mod
deleted by creator
removed by mod
deleted by creator
removed by mod
are the instances always flaky and laggy just for me?
removed by mod
the ones i tried were already bad before the crackdown, and turned unusable for me after. includes yewtube.
I wonder if those are less likely to be blocked on networks.
removed by mod
Scroll passed Bing’s sponsored bullshit
Ah. Still some ads then.
But you’re not forced to actually wait through them like on YT - you can just scroll past.
There’s a chance duckduckgo does something similar, but sadly I can’t check at the moment.
Leaving a comment so I remember to try it later—unless anyone reading is willing to do so.
It does indeed.
Thank you.
Whenever using this trick, I’d suggest using DDG instead of Bing if possible.
Makes sense, it’s basically just a Bing wrapper.
Why is this lengthy process preferable to using ublock on Firefox?
It isn’t. But there are situations where that isn’t an option, like being on a work or government computer where downloading firefox or installing an extension will get you fired. When that’s the case, YouTube+Bing is a “good enough”/“better than nothing” option.
Isn’t he the same person who calls adblocking piracy?
I mean I get that Youtubers have no morals and it’s all about money but that seems excessively hypocritical, even for a Youtube “personality”.
Isn’t he the same person who calls adblocking piracy?
He’s also got a generally nuanced opinion of piracy, in that it’s justifiable in some situations. If you call it piracy and you’re okay with piracy then it’s not really a contradiction.
Being willing to talk about it despite working against your interests isn’t always bad depending on context.
Breaking news, people on the Internet have no concept of nuance.
How dare you make such a direct and personal attack on me!
A fact I struggle with on an almost daily basis…
I had the vague recollection of him having a small-business-owner-brain moment and going on about how it’s theft, and it’s taking money out of his pockets, or something along those lines.
Looks like I may have been either thinking of someone else, or misinterpreted a snippet of video of him ranting about something.
I will admit to not watching his stuff for a good number of years now, and could be totally conflating things.
That was probably his stance when YouTube ad revenue was his stream of income.
In 2024 they pay pennies, and his real income is from sponsorships like those d-brand skins and manscaping utilities. And their own merch, of course.
They’ve been pushing their own media platform (floatplane), so I’m willing to bet this was a bit of a game of chicken with YouTube. YouTube wouldn’t ban one of their biggest channels, and even if they did it’d turn into great publicity for floatplane.
While I don’t think they’d be able to get a lot of their subscribers over to floatplane completely, I do think they’d be able to pull over lots of random views by having their shorts on Facebook, Instagram and whoever else is trying to mimic tiktok these days.
Nah, I’m pretty sure that it was more recent, like 2023 or 2022
Think this was sponsorblock due to above statement
They’ve been pretty good about playing both sides. There have been plenty of videos of how to bypass add traffic and in the same video explaining how they rely on ad traffic . I don’t love everything LMG does but they do seem to be kind of Open about the house wise and why nots of ad blocking.
In 2022 he tweeted this.
That might be what you’re remembering, but he’s definitely addressed his views on piracy during the WAN show several times as well.
Edit: someone else posted the full context elsewhere in the thread. I’d link to that comment, but idk how on lemmy so here: https://archive.ph/VavFc
You’re not misremembering. I remember seeing it on there “podcast” or whatever it is where they talked about it extensively and I believe louis chimed in with a video going over it.
He directly called it bad because it hurt his revenue stream. He is ok with ad blocking as long as it isn’t being done to him. That’s pretty bold if you ask me. A double standard, quite the opposite of nuance. He equated it with entering a cirque due soleil show without paying a ticket, which is a false equivalence. He thinks that he is entitled to have his ads seen as a price of admittance to watching his videos. No one is entitled to have their ads watched.
The way I see it is if I’m forced to watch ads when watching something, I won’t watch it. In that case, no ad revenue for you because I’m not watching your shit. Now, If I watch it with no ads, you get the same result, BUT I might tell someone to watch your shit or buy some merch. That person I told to watch it might watch your ads and that person would not have watched you without me telling them to. You’re up 1 revenue.
The corporate greed is out of control. The amount of bullshit ads and tracking is insane. I’m blown away by the people that defend this shit.
Source on “he’s ok with ad blocking as long as it’s not done to him”? Doesn’t sound like something he’d say.
LTT always seemed “slimy” to me, especially after the whole mistreatment allegations ordeal
Yeah, ever since all that stuff came out just before the new CEO took over, including the video/audio of the sexual harassment meeting which was treated as a total joke, I unsubscribed and stopped viewing their content. I couldn’t reconcile their fun and approachable/friendly image with how they’re treating staff. Moved on to watching more from other creators like Jayztwocents. Unfortunate that people keep turning out to be shitty left and right.
All I want is a tech youtuber that doesnt do clickbait, currently I only know hardware unboxed
GamerNexus and Level1Techs are pretty good at that since they target a much more technical audience. For mobile devices I thought Michael Fisher is also great. High production value and has a very different style.
deleted by creator
Gamersnexus?
Tech Jesus does not fuck around. Jokes aside- it’s a good channel.
He’s a driven-but-not-that-smart type of person from the videos I’ve seen.
I find what happened, and their response to everything, completely unacceptable.
But even if you forget that entirely, i decided to see if anything has changed after a year, and the quality of videos is genuinely shocking. A production studio of such scale makes videos, that your typical 14 year old would find embarrassing. The attitude towards everything, and the overwhelming fake energy, are both very repulsive
Isn’t that essentially what it is? Getting something for free through certain means you wouldn’t get for free otherwise? Which means no money goes to whoever owns the service you’re using?
Say you walk up to some person giving out free samples of food. As a condition of taking this free sample, you also must take a pamphlet of advertisements from the people who are giving you the free sample. You take your free sample, and then walk away while dropping the pamphlet in the nearest trash can. That’s essentially what ad blocking is. You’re simply preventing certain parts of a web page from being downloaded to your device. That’s why people have issues with the “piracy” label, because nothing is being “stolen”. You’re just refusing to take all of it.
More accurate comparison would be taking the sample but refusing the pamphlet. Dropping it in the nearest bin would be skipping the ad after 5 seconds.
No, that’s not what ad blocking is. You just described viewing a traditional “1 banner at the bottom/top” ad. There’s a snowball’s chance in hell that you actually check out/click on the ad after seeing it; you throw it away after seeing it. On the off chance you’re intrigued by the ad, you take it home.
That’s not what ad blocking is. There’s no suitable metaphor for ad blocking IRL, but it’d most nearly be raiding the nearest available ad pamphlet warehouse or interrupting the guy who gets the pamphlets to the foodgiver. Sure, the difference is that nobody gets the ads anymore, but that’s not a bad thing for you, is it? The foodgiver gets no ad revenue for now until delivery is re-established.
Edit: Please say why you think that I’m wrong, just as I did. Thank you for your cooperation. Let’s not be redditors.
There’s no suitable metaphor for ad blocking IRL
Sure there is.
Every week, your community puts on an old movie in the town park that everyone can watch for free. You, an avid movie enjoyer, watch this movie every week.
But, the movie equipment isn’t free. To make this event happen, the community accepts a donation from The Church of Microwaving Babies and Kicking Puppies. In exchange, the Church of Microwaving Babies and Kicking Puppies pauses the movie every 50 minutes and puts on a small two-minute presentation about why you should consider joining and what puppy-kicking can do to improve your life.
You don’t care. You do not agree with their views, and you definitely are never going to join. Instead of paying attention to their mandatory presentation, you stare at your phone and read Lemmy. Then, when the movie is back on, you once again pay attention.
That’s ad-blocking. Some group gains revenue from their publicly available service by having an advertiser peddle their crap through said service. You take an active role in ignoring said crap, while most people just sit there twiddling their thumbs and pretending to care. The only tangible difference between you ignoring the ad while it plays and you blocking it is 60 seconds of your time and the bandwidth required to serve the ad.
Advertisers don’t like it—but fuck the advertisers. The difference that you as an individual makes in how much money is made through advertising is less than a hundredth of a cent. If the impact of the collective using adblockers is enough to be an issue in sustainability, then advertising was not the correct business model to begin with.
Again, that is not ad blocking. That’s just reading the phone while the ad is playing. That preserves the ad revenue, blocking does not.
The difference that you as an individual makes in how much money is made through advertising is less than a hundredth of a cent.
That’s just one view. It adds up within the month.
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.
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
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.
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…
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
They are not entitled to force people to look at them, but they are entitled to load them in the browser and display them.
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‽
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.
jinx!
He’s right that it’s piracy, he doesn’t go on to say piracy is wrong, and neither would I.
It’s piracy to block ads, and piracy isn’t always wrong, so who cares?
I put the local football game on my tv over antenna. Oh a commercial, I guess I’ll walk away to take a piss now. The swat team busts down my door. I run for my scabbard to resist but with one peg leg I’m not quick enough. The seas are rough sailing for pirates willing to skip ads mateys.
You’re not violating their terms of service by doing that.
It’s really not. YouTube doesn’t get to decide what I play on my browser, I do. I just choose to not load the ads, and I choose to skip over sponsor segments manually. I don’t use sponsor block or anything automated like that, I just use a content blocker and the fast-forward buttons YouTube provides.
At what point did I pirate anything? I asked YouTube for content, and it gave it to me. I didn’t ask it for the ads, and it didn’t give it to me. I fail to see where the piracy occurred.
I’m certainly breaking their TOS, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I’m pirating their content.
If I find value in a platform, I’ll pay. I pay for Nebula, for example, because I’ve gotten a lot of value from a number of their creators and prefer to watch their content there than on YouTube. I’ll occasionally buy merch from a YouTuber, and sometimes donate. But YouTube actively tracks me in ways I’m not comfortable with, so I block their trackers and their ads.
…So, you skip the ads using an external program, which prevents the youtube channel you’re watching from getting their money.
That’s the part that makes it piracy. Of course you have the right to do this, I have no ethical problem with it, i’m doing it now, but you have to understand that when you’re doing this you’re preventing the youtube channels you’re watching from getting paid, you’re taking their content without paying them what they asked for in return.
If the youtube channel disables the ads themselves, that’s one thing, but you not watching those ads is not what the youtube channels want… because that’s how they get paid. Getting free content without paying the content maker is… piracy.
There’s no external program, it’s just an extension on my browser, which uses APIs within the browser to instruct it which content to load and which not to load. I tell it to block all kinds of things, from malware to large media elements to ads. YouTube doesn’t get to decide what content it displays in my browser, I do, because it’s my computer.
Yes, I’m preventing channels from getting ad-revenue, but that doesn’t make it piracy. What we call “piracy” is more correctly called “copyright infringement.” I’m not violating anyone’s copyright, the video is freely available to load and watch, I’m just choosing to not load and watch the optional extras that get shipped along with the video. I’m violating YouTube’s TOS, but that doesn’t mean I’m violating copyright in any way, and I don’t even need to login to YouTube to do this either, so it’s not like I formally agreed to anything here.
What the channels want isn’t my concern. If they want to enforce payment, LTT can post the videos to floatplane exclusively, or join up with Nebula.
Getting free content without paying the content maker is… piracy.
That’s absolutely not true. Piracy is copyright infringement, and I’m not infringing anyone’s copyright here.
Here are examples of things that would be piracy/copyright infringement:
- downloading the video and reposting it as my own
- downloading the video and uploading it to another site
- downloading the video and sending it to someone else
Each of those violates copyright because I’m sharing the video with people I am not authorized to share it with. Just watching the content and refusing to load the ads doesn’t violate anyone’s copyright, it just violates YouTube’s TOS, which, AFAIK, isn’t legally binding in any way. They can choose to block me from the platform, but not loading optional extras doesn’t violate any copyright.
There’s no external program, it’s just an extension on my browser
That’s… external software. But even if it wasn’t, it’s still circumventing the youtube terms of service with software.
You’re breaking the terms of service of youtube by doing this… that makes it piracy…
No, breaking TOS doesn’t make it piracy, those are two completely separate concepts.
The part where the content creator doesn’t get paid and is supposed to according to the rules of the platform is the part where it’s piracy.
Your copyright license to download the video content from YouTube is granted to you by the YouTube Terms of Service. By not agreeing to them, you do not get a license to watch the content.
Copyright law may be dumb and over-reaching but that doesn’t mean you get to redefine it to just avoid an icky word.
If that was true, I would have to agree to YouTube’s TOS to watch videos. That’s not required, so there’s no legally binding agreement between me and YouTube since I haven’t actually signed or accepted anything. My understanding is, I’m not bound to something that’s hidden in a link somewhere and never presented to me.
But even if I were legally bound to the TOS, nothing in the TOS says copyright is granted on the condition that I watch ads. This is the closest that I could see:
The following restrictions apply to your use of the Service. You are not allowed to:
…
- circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage with, or otherwise interfere with any part of the Service (or attempt to do any of these things), including security-related features or features that (a) prevent or restrict the copying or other use of Content or (b) limit the use of the Service or Content;
I don’t think blocking ads counts as “disable… any part of the Service,” it’s just blocking certain web requests. It’s close I guess, but it seems they’re more worried about “hacks” on the service to get access to things you’re not supposed to. For example, accessing adult content w/o making an account would probably count as a violation under this TOS.
Honestly you’re just showing your complete lack of knowledge on the topic. Using your logic, downloading a pirated movie and watching it myself, then immediately deleting it, is not copyright infringement.
Despite the fact that it literally is.
Not according to German, French, and I suspect most of other european countries laws. Only torrenting copyright-protected content is against the law because you’re uploading the content (distributing) while downloading.
I can torrent without seeding btw
deleted by creator
That… isn’t at all what is being talked about here.
It’s like a free booth that offers products and says donations welcome. It legally is not stealing if you take a free product and don’t give a donation. The enrichment of the creator legally has nothing to do with whether skipping ads is piracy. The creator has the option to stop offering their content for free in the future if they don’t like the money they’re getting from the amount of people watching the ads.
…except that’s violating youtubes terms of service, and skipping paying the content creators.
Which makes it for all intents and purposes piracy.
A restaurant has a sign that says “no shirt no shoes no service”. I walk in barefoot and order a burger. They serve me the burger. They had the right to deny me but they served me anyway. The responsibly to enforce their own terms of service is on them. Similarly youtube has the right to deny service to people blocking ads and sometimes does. That does not make ad blocking piracy for all intents and purposes. The onus to enforce their own terms of service is on them. And it would be very easy for them to take more drastic measures but they don’t.
I get that you’re trying to make an argument that morally it can feel like piracy, but it’s just not actually piracy. No copyright was violated. Youtube’s TOS doesn’t change that.
It’s actually not easy for them to take more drastic measures, and they’re actively working on enforcing it.
The part where the content creator doesn’t get paid and is supposed to according to the rules of the platform that you’re violating is the part where it’s piracy.
I understand your reasoning for calling ad-blocking for piracy, but I’m not sure I agree, or else we have to split “piracy” into degrees.
So what if it has to be split into degrees? The world is a complex place and wishing it was simple doesn’t make it so.
Just use another word for something that is in some ways similar to piracy, but isn’t piracy.
By describing what you mean, instead of a word which often leads to discussions on word definitions, you can avoid the latter.
I found saying “homophobia” lead to talk about “I don’t fear them” (phobia) rather than discussion on mistreatment. So instead I would say “aversion to homosexuality”.
2pt… Had an important point: piracy = copyright infringement.
Blocking ads is a ToS violation, not piracy.
Request I watch an ad but give me content either way means I can decline the ad. Demand I watch ad and withhold until I do, then I have to watch the ad (or seek another distributor). They asked for a donation, not payment.
If they could they would do that, they just can’t stop you.
They’re trying desperately these days, it’s just a hard problem.
Paywalling content would easily make this a transaction, but they choose to make this optional.
If Google didn’t have such influence over web browser specifications maybe they would give up on adverts - while users are the ones in control of their computers then it will never be up to YouTube what is played on our machines.
It’s really not. YouTube doesn’t get to decide what I play on my browser, I do
Could use the same argument for most games, streaming services, movies that you bought etc. Games that require you run Denuvo or Steamworks to function, streaming sites that require you run that particular browser or app with that particular DRM software, Blu-ray discs that require HDCP to work etc.
You can avoid these companies dictating what you run on your computer by doing one thing…
There is an argument that bypassing cryptographic and security features is a violation of the DMCA and therefore a copyright violation (not piracy unless you distribute though), but that’s also a gray area. E.g. I flashed my Bluray drive with software that allows copying the raw footage after it has been decrypted, so I’m not breaking the encryption, I’m just bypsasing it by copying the decrypted content while it’s in memory. I’m guessing that’s covered under the DMCA.
But blocking ads is nothing at all like that. I’m not breaking any security measures, I’m just not loading their ads. It’s like a DVR only storing the non-ad parts of the video, and those were commercially sold and AFAIK totally legal. I am not legally required to download everything the website asks for, requiring that would be insanity.
And yeah, I could completely avoid these companies, and I could choose to actually pirate content and likely totally get away with it. But what I’m doing (blocking ads, bypassing copyright on content I own and not distributing copies) is in a gray area. Blocking ads isn’t illegal AFAIK, and ripping DVDs and Blurays is in a gray area of the DMCA because I own the physical media (so it could be considered a “backup,” which is allowed).
Let’s go to the early days of “piracy”
You are claiming that fast forwarding the opening trailers and adverts on a rented VHS is piracy.
No, i’m explicitly not, those aren’t tracked and nobody gets paid based on whether or not you fastforward. That makes it not piracy. The content creator gets paid.
nobody gets paid based on whether or not you fastforward
You know skip exists. Advertisers only pay when viewers watch at least 30 seconds of a long ad or engage with it.
Is it piracy if I skip the ads on the DVD I bought?
No, the ads on the DVD you bought have already paid the company that made the DVD.
You skipping those ads has no consequences for anyone, and nobody cares if you skip them.
Calling it piracy doesn’t mean you think it’s the worst thing in the world. I do it unless I like a service, and c’mon, it is piracy.
I’ve literally voted for the “Pirate Party” in my country
There are dozens of us, dozens!
Massive cunt is actually a massive cunt irl.
Isn’t he the same person who calls adblocking piracy?
Yes. Because it is, and I do it gladly.
It’s really not. Piracy is sharing content you can’t get legally. Blocking ads is just picking and choosing which content I allow to load on my computer. It’s certainly against their TOS, but AFAIK there’s nothing illegal about it, therefore not piracy.
Youtubers have no morals? What kind of idiotic generalisation is that?
BTW, adblocking is a form piracy, that I’m completely fine with.
Well it is compareable to piracy just like piracy is effectively stealing. I still partake in both but unlike much of my peers, I’m not lying to myself about what I’m doing.
just like piracy is effectively stealing.
IRL piracy, sure. Digital… not so much.
Stealing is not the perfect term for it but it’s the closest equivalance.
Artists need to be compensated for the work they do, agreed? You wouldn’t expect a photographer to give you a high resolution version of their picture for free despite the fact that they could, for no cost to themselves. They could hand out a million free copies if they wanted to, but they don’t, and we all understand why, right? You need someone to put in the effort to create the original in order for those copies to be made. That’s what we’re paying for.
Now how is pirating movies or games any different? How is that not unfair for the artist(s)?
I was with you until the last paragraph.
The difference is that i don’t give two shits about not enriching multi-billion-dollar media conglomerates that hoard all profits and leave pennies for the actual creators. Hollywood, the music industry and YT fit the bill.
Which is why i buy merch of local bands and/or buy their digital music if it’s available as downloadable media i can keep on my devices (i won’t buy into subscription crap), that way i’m indeed benefiting the actual artist and not some fat middle-man. Bandcamp and hdtracks have served me well lately, other suggestions welcome.
But then the difference is in your personal attitude, not in the act itself. That’s a bit like saying that it’s okay to screw over a small artist because they’re a jerk. It’s just an excuse to justify the behaviour to yourself.
Btw. that’s how I justify pirating movies as well. I still consider it stealing though. I just don’t feel any remorse for it.
Yeah, piracy is illegal and it’s, in practice, stealing IRL but digital piracy ain’t stealing for sure. You’re not subtracting anything…
They can and do claim that they lost revenue but they can never claim you stole the movie - they still have it, you just didn’t pay them for an extra copy. Rip a friend’s DVD, same thing.
Now if you were to hack them and steal all the movie raw material… but then again, Hollywood just spews out garbage nowadays,
Anyway not a lawyer, don’t care, stay safe.
He’s already way past caring about anything other than money. He just gets the script and lends his known face for the video… regardless of anything else.
Can’t entirely blame the guy though, cuz when he gets going you quickly see what an asshat he actually is, but he did have passion for the content a few years ago.
I just wish LTT would fade into irrelevancy already, it’s just shallow clickbaity content that hardly provides any value. I’m also just waiting for their next workplace abuse accusations… the place is known to be abusive for years.
This is what I’m referring to https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZjJUVsmjIj4
It has been definitely downplayed and sugarcoated for public audience, but the shitty workplace smells a mile away…
Yeah, on the WAN Show.
Also I found this, https://archive.ph/VavFc.
But it is? Don’t lie to yourself. We all do it but it’s still piracy, and it’s okay.
Add blocking is piracy, but piracy is okay.
I have no longer watched their content since the scandal.
Which one?
Probably the sexual harassment one that’s when I left. The billet labs stuff was bad too though.
Feels like I remember that one getting pretty good proof Linus didn’t do anything, but could be wrong
Linus wasn’t accused of sexually harassing anyone. His company was accused of being a hostile work environment with sexual harassment by a former worker, but the accusations weren’t against Linus himself. LTT hired a 3rd party law firm to investigate - LTT said the law firm basically said there wasn’t legal liability based on the documentation they could find and LTT used that to absolve themselves and threaten to sue the accuser if she said anything else.
But this was an LTT hired lawfirm and LTT themselves reporting on what the report said - and since it’s confidential you kind of just have to take their word that they’re accurately reporting the findings. Further there were initially some corroborators of Madison’s story who retracted and apologized quickly (assumingly after being threatened with legal action - Aprime is the example). Besides that a lot of the accusations were things that happened in person that wouldn’t necessarily leave a digital trail so it’s possible even if the 3rd party investigation was completely unbiased that everything Madison said was still true.
In the end believe what you want but it seems slimy enough that I stopped watching.
One of the major accusations was that they asked too much of Madison for a single person to accomplish, and fired her over not meeting their expectations. While this is not great, it’s not legally problematic.
Yeah you’re correct on the accusations, I should have clarified.
But with that approach it doesn’t sound like there is anything an organization could do against false accusations that would absolve them of wrongdoing. I’m all for bashing corrupt/horrible companies, but it feels like there should be at least some presumption of innocence unless there is any kind of proof. Painting all accused with the same brush just leads to devaluing the brush IMO. But like you said, people may (and will) believe what they want, and people are under no obligation to watch or support any creator unless they want to. In my case I just haven’t seen any proof of wrongdoing (in this case, gamersnexus controversy was worse IMO).
What do you think a company should do in that situation, assuming it is being falsely accused? What would a “perfect” response be? I cant think of a much better one than what LTT did, given their circumstances, but would love to hear what a better response would look like.
The only thing they could have done better was have the third party release the report. I don’t think they released it yet, but they had intended to at one point. Maybe the lawyers told them they shouldn’t?
Hm, not sure that would be legal even? Considering it likely contained information on different employees etc. But yeah, if possible it would have been nice to see.
Not to mention the law firm they hired advertises anti-union action, so that should tell you whether they can be trusted to be fair to workers…
People can say nothing was done but the only info you’re going to get is going to be from the accusers. The company isn’t going to speak publicly about it and so we won’t ever know what their views are or what proof they have.
They hired an external firm to investigate themselves and they found nothing, while the accuser had zero proof. There is plenty of things to accuse them for, the gamers nexus thing for one, but I’m a bit annoyed about false accusations sticking so hard when there is little reason to believe it. If anything it makes people less likely to believe actual victims.
This was my impression. All of their scandals they’ve taken extremely seriously(it appears), done the work to fix and improve, and a lot of their issues seem to be results of fast scaling and organizational level problems that can be fixed.They haven’t just swept things under the rug where they’re able to be transparent. I just think the problem is what Luke has always said: When you open a company up to transparency, you gain criticism, and then the company has large incentives to shut down that transparency because all you use it for is to cause them problems.
Aside from that, the LTT community and outsiders seem very toxic toward them.
Toxic work environment; misleading benchmark & product reviews.
Okay Amber, what’s the verdict on that?
Thanks for sharing? Why is every Lemmy single comment section filled with unrelated iamverysmart comments.
Excuse me, I use Arch and Firefox with uBlock.
Ok linus.
Please kindly refer to vetting processes about what to post or not post on a community platform. Who said what?
I’ll be that guy. I don’t understand why LTT gets so much crap from people constantly, they seem to have a very toxic community even without the scandals. But in regards to the more recent scandal, I really think a lot of those things are fixable and I’ll be watching to see if they fix them.
As far as the sexual harassment stuff goes I can see that as a legitimate reason to stop watching. At the same time though, how should we feel with such limited and one sided information? And especially how should I feel if the problems aren’t inherent to the company and if they don’t reoccur?
Maybe someone can help clear this up for me because I’m not that informed and I’m still giving them a chance but maybe I shouldn’t be.
Check the other comment thread from the parent, there’s a discussion which goes into it.
I don’t understand why LTT gets so much crap from people
Because their clowns. Literally. Their content is pure tech entertainment with constant immature humour and little substance. The way they present themselves is like a group of teenagers messing around.
Then there’s their “expertise”. They don’t know tech beyond a Windows “power user”.
But in regards to the more recent scandal, I really think a lot of those things are fixable and I’ll be watching to see if they fix them.
Linus showed his true colours during the Billet Labs incident. He doubled down hard, and I’m convinced that even today Linus feels like he did nothing wrong. They have zero reputation to salvage, IMO.
Yeah this is what I mean. I don’t get why people who don’t like their content bother hating them. You don’t like that they mostly exist for entertainment, cool, why bother caring? If you want deep tech dives or something else, there’s plenty of content out there. You’re upset they aren’t more knowledgeable as if everyone making tech content needs to know everything.
And yeah I did feel like they messed up with the Billet incident and it was one of the more important things they needed to address properly. They made a mistake and I do think that Linus handled it poorly to say the least. They deserved that part of the scandal. All I’ll say is I’m willing to wait and see if they improve or if they make similar mistakes. If that’s a big deal to you, I get that, but that’s not where a majority of the hate is coming from either. It’s coming from what I said before about tech people wanting different content
I don’t get why people who don’t like their content bother hating them.
Because for good or bad, they have a significant influence in the tech world. And since they are more bad, people don’t like them.
Take the Linux challenge, for example. They massively misrepresented the usability of Linux for the average person and for gamers. They even concluded at the end of their challenge that Linux was unsuitable for most gamers. And the release and success of the Steam Deck shortly afterwards was quite delicious.
Then there was the bit where Linus didn’t read the warning about the package manager removing the desktop environment and just hit yes, then complained that it wasn’t his fault and that the system was poorly designed.
The guy literally has an issue with accountability.
You’re upset they aren’t more knowledgeable as if everyone making tech content needs to know everything.
A better statement is that I’m upset because they preach their deep and unchallengeable knowledge and act as a be-all end-all authority in tech.
But really I’m not “upset” by them. I just really dislike them and think they’re insufferable.
And I don’t watch LTT. And there are plenty of other, and objectively better, channels about tech. And I watch those better channels, including GamersNexus.
All I’ll say is I’m willing to wait and see if they improve or if they make similar mistakes.
Their entire channel is a giant mistake. All of their content is garbage by virtue of their proven flawed and subpar provides. A process they admitted was flawed, and from what I’ve seen is still flawed with the garbage corrections in the comments nonsense they promised to fix.
They’re just going to go about business as usual and just be a little more careful with their public image. They don’t deserve the views they get.
I stopped because they are bro douchebags.
Even Luke, who I always agreed with the most and seemed the most level-headed has talked about their hiring process and said that, if you don’t have personal projects, it’s highly unlikely that you’ll be considered for a position in LTT.
Supposedly it’s because that shows a “lack of passion”. Personally, I find that rather toxic. Like, dude, I do this for work and I also have a life. I literally do not have enough time to exercise, take care of my loved ones and also maintain personal projects.
I don’t see the problem… having side projects will improve your chances at MANY jobs, and even applying for university if they’re related to your field. Even if you have no time at all, if you’re genuinely passionate about technology, I’d expect you to at least have aspirational goals for things on the side. A side project does not have to be finished or maintained to show “passion”.
The entertainment company doesn’t want to hire boring 9-5 drones just in it for the paycheck. Big surprise. They’re allowed to be selective.
Having hobbies outside of your profession does not mean you’re a “drone”. Quite the opposite.
I think you’re completely misunderstanding what I’m trying to say. The hobbies ARE the side projects. They don’t have to be the same as your job.
But it’s still sitting in front of a computer programming. I do that but not that often. I’m already programming 8-9 hours a day. My interests go way beyond that.
I have not once said anything about programming in this discussion. The side project could be knitting for all I care. I specifically said it’s not important if the side projects are directly related to your job.
Well, don’t think their IT positions are competitive when it comes to salaries, compared to major tech companies. Also considering their offices are in Vancouver, you probably aren’t going to work their to make bank.
It’s a bit of a selection bias out of necessity…
*there
None of the things you mentioned justify having a toxic hiring policy/work culture.
Same.
I don’t care for Linus these days but respect for that.
Yeah, I got tired of his videos half-assing the work and the failed reviews hurting small manufacturers while Linus doubled down after GN documented their failures.
But this I can get behind.
Doubled down? After being called out they slowed the upload cadence, are taking more time to make sure mistakes don’t get through, and changed their production process. They also formed a volunteer team of “beta tester” viewers who see each video pre-release to catch any mistakes they didn’t internally. I think they handled it well. Of course it would be better if they didn’t have a problem in the first place, but I’d never call it “doubling down”.
There was an initial reaction from Linus on his forums where he massively doubled down on his stance that he had not done anything wrong with the review model LTT had auctioned off without permission (I can’t remember the name of the company). He had even accused GN of not following “journalistic standards” by not giving LTT a chance to put their side forward.
This was met with another video from GN, and overall criticism over the dismissive attitude Linus was displaying. That’s when they came out with a YT video, admitting their numerous faults, and Linus himself admitted that the way he responded on the forum was not acceptable.
Pretty much doubled down initially, till they realised that they’re in actual deep waters.
I would wager money on the suspicion that deep down, Linus probably still thinks he did nothing wrong.
And that the actual change only came about because the people around him (like his wife and executives) threatened/forced him into changing positions.
Cause we got a good glimpse into the kind of person Linus was when that whole thing started, by selling the prototype that wasnt his, then going out and lying about being in contact with the company, who he lied about forgiving him and making a deal to make up for it… Which was quickly rebuked by GN asking the company if Linus had contacted them, to which they said “No”
And the kind of guy that does that kind of shit, isnt the kind of guy that suddenly goes “Okay, I screwed Up, I did it, I’m sorry” without someone behind the scenes threatening catastrophic personal consequences.
Cause we got a good glimpse into the kind of person Linus was when that whole thing started, by selling the prototype that wasnt his, then going out and lying about being in contact with the company, who he lied about forgiving him and making a deal to make up for it…
10’000%
This is what all his rabidly loyal fans miss. He showed true colours during this incident.
Fair enough. Still commendable for taking the heat himself without ever mentioning which employee made the mistake with misallocating the review item to the charity auction.
It is, but it also genuinely isn’t their fault.
He pointed to their failure at inventory management because the fact that they didn’t have a functional setup for it is a systems problem, not the individual.
It’s their inventory, it’s their fault.
It isn’t the fault of the employee he refused to call out.
It’s the fault of the company.
That was AFTER the backlash increased after he doubled down.
Not initially. Linus mouthed off as he likes to do on his own podcast before eating crow after GN reinforced their claims.
Yeah, I don’t like Linus all that much but I do enjoy LTT’s content overall. He tends to drastically and publicly overreact to literally any criticism, and then the rest of the team gets involved and he walks it back. Whether they legitimately change his mind or just convince him he’s gotta look like he’s changed his mind I have no clue.
My favorite instances of Linus are when he’s an absolute idiot on the WAN show and we just get to see Luke’s reaction live. The hard-r thing was absolutely hilarious.
Yeah Luke’s look of “oh no bro, stop” is pretty much a staple of the WAN show.
but I do enjoy LTT’s content overall.
I used to as well, up until the storage server video and their Linux challenge.
I lost every shred of respect and interest after Linus showed his true colours during the Billet Labs nonsense.
They said they did all that. But actually Watching the videos? It’s the same shit as before. Sloppy edits, errors in the comments etc.
After being called out, this genius doubled down on his actions and defended his methods all the while inserting an ad right in the middle of a response video.
It was then that he lost my respect.
Doubled down?
Yes, doubled down. After being called out Linus made two separate long posts about why he wasn’t wrong.
They also formed a volunteer team of “beta tester” viewers who see each video pre-release
So using free labour instead of just doing their jobs? If they can’t “catch any mistakes internally”, then they’re just bad at their jobs (which they are).
I think they handled it well.
Yes, the PR team they used gave them a good corporate playbook to work with.
“Slowed the upload cadence” is just another way to say “wait for this to blow over”.
I used to watch LTT, mostly because it was interesting from the “let’s see what those guys have to say”. I had zero interest in their technical expertise because, well, they don’t really have any. They’ve always been clowns, but after their storage server video and their Linux “challenge” I lost all respect for any talent or knowledge they claimed to have. After the Billet Labs incident I lost any shred of respect I had for them.
They are clowns.
You live in a fantasy world if you think it’s possible to catch 100% of mistakes internally. Even safety critical equipment with many layers of checks fails and kills people every now and then (medical equipment, bridges).
You live in a fantasy world if you think it’s possible to catch 100% of mistakes internally.
Nice strawman. No one said anything about catching 100% of mistakes internally. But outsourcing that work to unpaid volunteers with zero verification of qualifications is the definition of “passing the buck”.
The correct answer is to hire and train up a QA team.
No one said they are unpaid or have zero qualifications either.
Friendly reminder that pirates didn’t usually stole gold. Piracy was stealing shipping goods, then selling them for profit at some port. Digital piracy is thus defined as acquiring, and then distributing for profit, media that you don’t own the copyrights of. Ad blocking is categorically not piracy.
Well that’s a thumbnail I’d never click on
deleted by creator
You have to understand shit like these thumbsnails arent made for people like you and me.
They are made for the mindless horde of sub-intellectual gremlins who are incapable of rational, independent thought. The kind that run out and put sandpaper on their windshield wipers and microwave their phones to “fast recharge” them because they saw a video that said to do that.
and the sad, terrifying reality, is these mentally stunted little goblins outnumber us by margins that are too terrifying to even think about.
Aren’t you just such a smart, special, edgy boy
Weird take, but you do you man.
deleted by creator
We should all endeavor to learn from your shining example.
Username checks out
This is why I love my username.
Cause its low hanging fruit that people who can mount no actual counter point cant resist the urge to reach for.
Whether or not it’s a valid counter point you continue to act superior when all you achieve is be a massive dick to people that don’t mind the thumbnail or video
Projecting a bit with that whole “Acting superior” claim, aintcha.
well, there are quite a lot of stupid things i did as a kid. kids just need to learn critical thinking through experience.
i would guess, that a large audience of youtube is kids: except retirees, they usually have the most free time.
deleted by creator
If someone cares about their view count then you shouldn’t give their content your time of day
deleted by creator
They make them because it’s fun/they are passionate
And that makes them higher quality
deleted by creator
You need to spend more time around small channels
LTT is a good example of how what you’re saying is bullshit. All the money in the world but they’re still tech illiterate people making tech videos
Dude, this isn’t the Youtube of 2006 anymore.
Content creating, whether for TV, Radio, or Internet is a job.
Just ignore the people trying to change that
That’s the way that yields the longest combined watch time from the audience.
Do they go back and change thumbnails after a while? LTT does focus on a lot of evergreen content as well.
deleted by creator
YouTube gives a b testing for YouTubers based on watch time, so they can tune their thumbnails to the one that gets the most watch time. The audience doesn’t always know the history of the chanel, they need to go off the thumbnail.
As part of the mindless horde of sub-intellectual gremlins, i have to say that while i dont love thumbnails like that, i still click on the video because i know it’ll be quality
And that’s why I have Dearrow. Bye bye bait thumbnails and titles.
Problem is that these people still get views then
deleted by creator
i understand even less when people are saying that when someone does something out of passion it should allow us to consume it for free
Especially with some channels being financially successful labors of love like Red Letter Media.
All of their thumbnails are unfortunately click-baity. They spoke about ut in an older video. Apparently, the click-baity images drive too much traffic for them to justify something more subtle.
Oh, no I totally get it. I’m well aware I’m in the tiny minority that are put off by them. It’s just the kind of illusion that once it gets broken you can no longer unsee it.
It’s the same with clickbait headlines. If it’s a question, the answer is no.
“Is this the end of Russia?”
No.
keeps on scrolling
what the shit is going on with that neon ass hair
They let Luke bleach it on the wan show.
He’s never done it before, and took too long so some parts are ultra blonde and others are barely different.
Doesn’t matter how good the video is if nobody clicks on it, Veritasium already made a great one about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng
/r/punchablefaces material
Funny, considering in the past he’s gone on big rants about how adblocking is no different from piracy, and is theft.
But then again, its Linus we’re talking about, its not like he has a particularly big issue with theft anymore.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
This is correct, he both explained how ad blocking hurts creators, and how ultimately he doesn’t mind because purchasing merch is way more beneficial to them then the adsense money.
All he was saying is do what you want to do but don’t pretend your actions don’t impact other people. Do it with open eyes if you’re going to do it.
To be clear, blocking ads isn’t directly denying anyone money. YouTube decides how video creators are paid and they choose to not pay if ads are blocked. You can agree or disagree with that decision, but the user has no role in it.
Personally I think it’s shitty that YouTube can just refuse to pay for the content people create for them.
removed by mod
You’re bypassing payment (in the form of watching ads)
By this argument going to the bathroom during a commercial break is piracy.
This isnt “someone being offended when accused of piracy”
This is " People getting upset when an idiot tries to blame end users, instead of holding the people who created the problem accountable"
Cause adblock isnt a user problem.
Its an ad service problem. They created a hostile environment where people had to run adblockers to protect themselves against unmoderated and unpoliced content and malicious/infected advertising.
If you have issues, blame the people who caused it, not the end users trying to protect themselves.
Yeah, him calling it piracy or not doesn’t matter, it’s just a stupid semantic argument that doesn’t matter at all to his overall point. And while I think it’s a stupid take of him, it’s also the reason people are still bringing up his opinion on the matter, so good job of him spreading his message I guess?
If they want payment, they can require registration, agreement to payment and authentication. Nothing’s stopping them. If they put something on the open web and try to monetize it, nobody owes them a living. If I put a display in a shop window, and include wording that says that looking at the display means you’re obligated to also hear a sales pitch, everyone will rightly tell me to fuck off.
Choosing not to load potential spyware, malware and bloatware while looking at free content is no more piracy than is crossing the street while shopping to avoid a tout.
I think he mentioned that ad-blocking is priacy, but I don’t recall he said piracy is theft or piracy is inheritly unethical.
He mentioned many time that he pirates stuff, except he would pay for them first.
He did address this in the video
Do you have a source? I’ve watched his videos for awhile but I don’t remember hearing this take from him.
No, because that isn’t Linus’s take.
I think he’s referencing a stream once upon a time where Linus discussed the arguments around streaming and it’s impact on creators, from a creator’s perspective .
But because he uttered something in favor of ads on his videos-which is how they got paid-he’s now considered ultra pro invasive ads by the user above, who professes to not actually watching Linus
No, it was most definitely Linus’s take. Louis Rossman covered this a couple of years ago. Direct Linus quote from that Twitter thread:
Ad blocking is the exact same thing as piracy. Literally the exact same thing.
Linus himself covers those Twitter comments, and defends them further, in this video.
I really don’t get the hate he got for that take.
Circumventing the method of payment could be argued as being a form of piracy. From that point of view, adblock is piracy.
Like them or not, YouTube is not a charity and requires the serving of ads to continue funding the service. You could argue about how they go about it, but it’s a fact they need some sort of income to continue to exist.
Same goes for YouTubers. They get a percentage of that ad revenue. And they also need some form of income.But just because he said so doesn’t mean he doesn’t understand why adblock is used. He didn’t say “don’t use adblock.” He’s shown how to use adblock before and since. He’s also mentioned that buying something from their webshop gives them a lot more money than turning off adblock.
Saying “watching movies for free is pirating” isn’t the same as saying “you shouldn’t pirate movies”.
Using adblock isn’t engaging with YouTube on YouTube’s terms.Adblocking isnt piracy, from any point of view.
Its protection. Protection from sudden loud noises and visual diarrhea. Protection from malware and viruses from random website ads, and protection from Right Wing Extremist Propaganda like PragerU videos detailing how the black man should be grateful for the history of slavery and oppression (which has had a documented, factual effect on driving people into right wing extremist behavior, and the violent rhetoric and actions that inevitably follow)
As long as all of that exists, Adblocking will never be piracy. Adblocking is, and will be, mandatory protection.
And if Linus, or anyone else, wants to clutch pearls and cry about adblocking… They can take their complaints to Google/Facebook/Other Ad services, because their lack of moderation and inability to policing content on their services are directly responsible for creating the necessity for adblocking.
To tack onto your list, ad blocking also deprives a source from an intended revenue stream associated with the content, which is probably why it’s being compared to piracy.
I’m all on board with ad blockers, let’s just at least acknowledge the economic reality surrounding their use.
The economic reality is that I have to use adblocking because ad services refuse to police and moderate their system. Thats the economic reality that they created.
Having a problem with the end user protecting themselves from what the advertisers and their ad services created is just trying to shift blame.
deleted by creator
Its protection.
From your point of view, yeah. Not from the point of view of the creator and the platform.
Linus isn’t clutching his pearls nor is he crying, he’s just pointing out you are circumventing the method of payment to the platform. It is detrimental to both the platform and the creator. That is a fact. Your choice has an impact and you should be aware of that.
But at no point did he say “you’re a bad person if you use adblock”.What has got you so worried?
Found the Liberal
And yet he never said not to adblock, so the only thing he claims are the categorization of adblocking.
I’d argue this as well. I see it in a similar way. Linus is obviously not trying to sit on some high horse and condemn piracy, he’s just calling a spade a spade.
No, he’s calling a spade a backhoe. Piracy is one of two things, depending on your definition:
- sharing/accessing copyrighted material you don’t have the rights for (i.e. seeding or downloading a torrent)
- circumventing technical restrictions on copyrighted content (e.g. DRM)
Blocking ads does neither of those things, it merely blocks loading of content that you don’t want to see. It’s basically the modern version of a DVR, where you can choose to cut out portions of a video that you don’t want (e.g. the ads).
These things are technically piracy:
- using a YouTube downloader
- sharing downloaded YouTube videos
- posting a YouTube video that you don’t own
- using substantial portions of a YouTube video you don’t own w/o authorization in your own video (i.e. beyond Fair Use)
Blocking ads isn’t one of those things, neither is skipping over parts of a video you don’t want to see (i.e. the sponsor segment).
Blocking ads reduces revenue to Google and the video creator. That doesn’t make it piracy, it’s just being a jerk to the platform and the creator.
And yet he never said not to adblock
In those tweets? Sure. But that’s not an argument I was making, so this is a strawman from you that doesn’t actually counter any of the evidence I have provided. Did Linus say ad-blocking was piracy? Yes. Did Linus say ad-blocking was theft? Yes.
Whether you think this is moral hypocrisy is irrelevant to me. I was only calling out the previous commenter who straight up lied about Linus’s history and then attempted to frame the people who were right as uninformed and wrong.
The comment was replying to one about it being funny that Linus made a video about adblocking when he considers adblocking piracy. That would imply he is against adblocking in general, which your links does not show.
Yes, he considers it piracy, but he is not against adblocking, which is why the original point of the parent comment doesn’t make sense.
Read that second paragraph from me again:
Whether you think this is moral hypocrisy is irrelevant to me. I was only calling out the previous commenter who straight up lied about Linus’s history and then attempted to frame the people who were right as uninformed and wrong.
If you want to have a debate about the parent comment, debate the person who made the parent comment. That’s not me and I do not care about the point you are trying to make here.
It was in the streams with Luke. I dont remember the exact ones, I’m sorry. I can say that the last time I saw it was years ago, though, but thats because I stopped watching his content years ago.
edit
actually found a clip embedded in another site, i’m shocked.
It was on an episode of the WAN show a while back (I don’t know which, I stopped watching a while ago). He said if you’re not paying for the service or watching the Ads, it’s the same as Piracy because your not paying what’s owed.
If some hawker comes up to me and pushes a bunch of flowers in my face while I’m out walking, I’m not obligated to pay for smelling them. And if they’re sufficiently aggressive, they’re committing assault.
Which is incorrect, because Google itself went like 15 years without showing any ads at all to like 5% of their users.
I watched this video before it was taken down. At the start of the YouTube section he says something along the lines of “I think ad block is theft, but you’re going to do it, so I have a responsibility to make sure you do it safely.”
My ass he cares if you do it safely.
He’s just trying to pull views from the current controversy. Which I have no problem with, thats what youtubers do. They try to ride every wave and pull viewers from it.
I just take issue with the smug hypocrisy he exhibits while doing it.
He talks about it in this video (the video this thread is about)
“These are my Principles and if you don’t like them, I have others”
It’s a little bit more nuanced than that. Yes you’re denying ad revenue but it’s not a bad thing.
Linus didn’t say piracy is theft to my knowledge. He pirates a bunch of games.
I bet they removed it faster than a porn video on YouTube Kids! 😲
don’t you know, it’s hate speech against corporate profits
Of course de-googling your life is a violation of the terms is service…
Ah so its war you want, YouTube.
What happened to his hair?
D-Brand paid him to bleach it.
i don’t know if this is serious or a joke
They gave him, quote, “a big bag of money”
Respect. I’d do the same for a big bag of money. Im bald btw. But even…
Hey wait, this is monopoly money!?
Serious
Obligatory Louis Rossmann commentary on the matter. https://youtu.be/qHwP6S_jf7g?feature=shared
…to the surprise of absolutely no one who’s been paying attention. They got rid of the coalmine canary clause like a fucking decade ago.
Didn’t he say that using adblockers in YouTube was basically piracy?
