5 ms·

Not looking at an advertisement is not “being a leech.” I glance away from billboards, I refill my drink during commercial breaks, I show up when the movie sta

by cnasc 2y ago

Not looking at an advertisement is not “being a leech.” I glance away from billboards, I refill my drink during commercial breaks, I show up when the movie starts instead of when the preview starts. These are normal behaviors, not leech behaviors. The ads are not very sophisticated, so I don’t need sophisticated measures to avoid them. On the web, the ads have ratcheted up the intensity (tracking, targeting) with technology and in response I have augmented my ability to ignore with technology. That’s fair. You have framed this as a contrast between leeches and normal people, but this is actually a contrast between normal people and bootlickers. It is perfectly fine if you want to guzzle Kiwi Black, but understand not everyone wants to do that.

samatman 2y ago
Reminder, or new thing for those not already aware: there was already a lawsuit about automatically skipping commercials, and the broadcaster in that lawsuit lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Broadcasting_Co._v._Dish_Network,_LLC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Broadcasting_Co._v._Dish_N... > Additionally, Fox alleged that Dish infringed Fox's distribution right through use of PTAT copies and AutoHop. However, mentioning that all copying were conducted on the user's PTAT without "change hands" and that the only thing distributed from Dish to the users was the marking data, the Court denied Fox's claim. Citing Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., the Court concluded that the users' copying at home for the time shift purpose did not infringe Fox's copyright. Then, Dish's secondary liability was also denied.
fragmede 2y ago
That's a false dichotomy. Rationalize not paying for content with whatever logical contortions you can come up with, leeching content and not paying for it clearly isn't going to encourage the creation of additional content. Pay for it via Patreon or some other platform if you don't want to give money to Google, but the leech problem is why so many things suck. Even BitTorrent sites hate leeches.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- throw10920 2y ago
  I don't think the GP cares about false dichotomies: > You have framed this as a contrast between leeches and normal people, but this is actually a contrast between normal people and bootlickers. This is not rational debate, but activism and emotional manipulation. Recommend flagging and not engaging.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
This is an extreme comparison, but there's more action in avoiding ads with an adblocker than by passively averting your gaze in physical media. It'd be more like if you chopped down billboards, installed a jammer into your router to deliver phone stats to tv ads, and blaring noises before the movie starts. I don't think it's that extreme, but it's always hard making comparisons between physical and digital. >You have framed this as a contrast between leeches and normal people, but this is actually a contrast between normal people and bootlickers. I prefer the framing that doesn't chastise those who are simply ignorant or have their own morals. I recognize adblock is technically "theft" so I don't want to go on a high horse insult the "normal people".
- ndriscoll 2y ago
  It's more like you have some magic AR glasses that can replace billboards with a blank space, and (presuming the theatre didn't let you in past the beginning of the ads or something) putting in earplugs/earbuds, closing your eyes, and asking your friend to nudge you when the ads are over. Blocking ads and trackers is no more theft than blocking crypto miners. Malware is malware. You'd be crazy to consider running it as some bizarre form of payment.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Not quite AR because the loss isn't perceivable for hardware ads. No one will come to a billboard and reasonably say "how many people look at this space"? No one can say outside of metrics on traffic. You can track a bunch of metrics for software and perceive ad blockers, so the loss is more explicit. >You'd be crazy to consider running it as some bizarre form of payment. I wont say reality isn't crazy, especially these days. But that's the reality, yes.
    - ndriscoll 2y ago
      The technology is basically there for signage to track who looks at it (maybe not billboards, but that's a resolution thing). In any case, why would I care about how people who are trying to scam me set up their business deals? If I don't run their script, they didn't "lose" anything. Their malware was never allowed to run on my machines in the first place. They failed to steal something from me.

by cnasc 2y ago

samatman 2y ago

Reminder, or new thing for those not already aware: there was already a lawsuit about automatically skipping commercials, and the broadcaster in that lawsuit lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Broadcasting_Co._v._Dish_Network,_LLC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Broadcasting_Co._v._Dish_N... > Additionally, Fox alleged that Dish infringed Fox's distribution right through use of PTAT copies and AutoHop. However, mentioning that all copying were conducted on the user's PTAT without "change hands" and that the only thing distributed from Dish to the users was the marking data, the Court denied Fox's claim. Citing Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., the Court concluded that the users' copying at home for the time shift purpose did not infringe Fox's copyright. Then, Dish's secondary liability was also denied.

fragmede 2y ago

That's a false dichotomy. Rationalize not paying for content with whatever logical contortions you can come up with, leeching content and not paying for it clearly isn't going to encourage the creation of additional content. Pay for it via Patreon or some other platform if you don't want to give money to Google, but the leech problem is why so many things suck. Even BitTorrent sites hate leeches.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
throw10920 2y ago
I don't think the GP cares about false dichotomies: > You have framed this as a contrast between leeches and normal people, but this is actually a contrast between normal people and bootlickers. This is not rational debate, but activism and emotional manipulation. Recommend flagging and not engaging.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

This is an extreme comparison, but there's more action in avoiding ads with an adblocker than by passively averting your gaze in physical media. It'd be more like if you chopped down billboards, installed a jammer into your router to deliver phone stats to tv ads, and blaring noises before the movie starts. I don't think it's that extreme, but it's always hard making comparisons between physical and digital. >You have framed this as a contrast between leeches and normal people, but this is actually a contrast between normal people and bootlickers. I prefer the framing that doesn't chastise those who are simply ignorant or have their own morals. I recognize adblock is technically "theft" so I don't want to go on a high horse insult the "normal people".

ndriscoll 2y ago
It's more like you have some magic AR glasses that can replace billboards with a blank space, and (presuming the theatre didn't let you in past the beginning of the ads or something) putting in earplugs/earbuds, closing your eyes, and asking your friend to nudge you when the ads are over. Blocking ads and trackers is no more theft than blocking crypto miners. Malware is malware. You'd be crazy to consider running it as some bizarre form of payment.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Not quite AR because the loss isn't perceivable for hardware ads. No one will come to a billboard and reasonably say "how many people look at this space"? No one can say outside of metrics on traffic. You can track a bunch of metrics for software and perceive ad blockers, so the loss is more explicit. >You'd be crazy to consider running it as some bizarre form of payment. I wont say reality isn't crazy, especially these days. But that's the reality, yes.
  - ndriscoll 2y ago
    The technology is basically there for signage to track who looks at it (maybe not billboards, but that's a resolution thing). In any case, why would I care about how people who are trying to scam me set up their business deals? If I don't run their script, they didn't "lose" anything. Their malware was never allowed to run on my machines in the first place. They failed to steal something from me.