5 ms·

I swapped to Revanced on mobile and a combo of UBO + sponsorblock on desktop after the most recent price increase. Definitely not regretting it after hearing th

I swapped to Revanced on mobile and a combo of UBO + sponsorblock on desktop after the most recent price increase. Definitely not regretting it after hearing this.

toastercat 2y ago
So, instead of canceling you subscription and using a competing service, you instead choose to... steal? Classy.
- _imnothere 2y ago
  So, instead of staying sane and do the right thing to vote with wallet, you instead choose to... be the big-corp-bootlicker and shill? Nice.
- ramenbytes 2y ago
  More like cutting out the funnies from a newspaper and trashing the ads.
  - ranguna 2y ago
    But you bought the news paper (or someone else did). FYI I use revenced as well, it's just your argument doesn't sound very sane.
    - netsharc 2y ago
      Newspapers are actually also financed by ads, the few dollars people pay don't cover for the production costs and journalism...
    - toastercat 2y ago
      You could argue that paying for the internet service to reach a website is equivalent to buying the newspaper.
      - nh23423fefe 2y ago
        It's funny that this poor argument is used as a justification for the use of poor arguments.
        toastercat 2y ago
        It's not really a poor argument. This was the understanding of how the internet worked before we decided to use the internet to replace TV. There was never a guarantee of payment to anyone running a public web server. But I think you've highlighted exactly why net neutrality is terrible in practice (people effectively stealing bandwidth by blocking ads).
      - ivewonyoung 2y ago
        How? Buying the newspaper pays the people printing the newspaper and making the paper. Whereas not a cent from paying for internet service goes to third party websites like YouTube. It's like saying stealing from stores is okay because paying taxes for the upkeep of roads is equivalent to paying for the stores.
        93po 2y ago
        Physical newspapers lost money on printing and distribution. Subscription fees and purchase price did not cover the cost of printing and distributing that bundle of paper. The vast majority of their income was from ads. So your argument is really even worse with that in mind - physical newspapers were more dependent on ads than internet websites. And even with that in mind, I don't think anyone would say having a robot cutting out newspaper ads to be stealing.
    - ramenbytes 2y ago
      Like a sibling comment mentioned, I was considering that newspapers got non-trivial amounts of funding from ads. Classifieds in particular, if I remember correctly. If that's still not satisfactory, then just consider the case of free papers & magazines.
- Squeeze2664 2y ago
  What competition? All the videos are on YouTube.
  - toastercat 2y ago
    Dailymotion, Vimeo, PeerTube, Odysee, etc.
    - redserk 2y ago
      I’ll give you Dailymotion, but… Vimeo hasn’t tried being a direct YouTube competitor in years — just look and use their site at any point after 2014? 2016? It’s been a while. While I’d like to see PeerTube succeed, it is hardly a competitor. The content is very… early.
- 123yawaworht456 2y ago
  why are you here? are you lost?
- eesmith 2y ago
  This is a terms of service violation at best. There's no theft, nor even copyright infringement. The obvious parallel is Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios which established that time shifting - recording a TV broadcast to play back later - is fair use. Someone using a DVR with a "+30 seconds" button to skip an ad was not stealing from the broadcast company.

I swapped to Revanced on mobile and a combo of UBO + sponsorblock on desktop after the most recent price increase. Definitely not regretting it after hearing this.

toastercat 2y ago

So, instead of canceling you subscription and using a competing service, you instead choose to... steal? Classy.

_imnothere 2y ago
So, instead of staying sane and do the right thing to vote with wallet, you instead choose to... be the big-corp-bootlicker and shill? Nice.
ramenbytes 2y ago
More like cutting out the funnies from a newspaper and trashing the ads.
- ranguna 2y ago
  But you bought the news paper (or someone else did). FYI I use revenced as well, it's just your argument doesn't sound very sane.
  - netsharc 2y ago
    Newspapers are actually also financed by ads, the few dollars people pay don't cover for the production costs and journalism...
  - toastercat 2y ago
    You could argue that paying for the internet service to reach a website is equivalent to buying the newspaper.
    - nh23423fefe 2y ago
      It's funny that this poor argument is used as a justification for the use of poor arguments.
      - toastercat 2y ago
        It's not really a poor argument. This was the understanding of how the internet worked before we decided to use the internet to replace TV. There was never a guarantee of payment to anyone running a public web server. But I think you've highlighted exactly why net neutrality is terrible in practice (people effectively stealing bandwidth by blocking ads).
    - ivewonyoung 2y ago
      How? Buying the newspaper pays the people printing the newspaper and making the paper. Whereas not a cent from paying for internet service goes to third party websites like YouTube. It's like saying stealing from stores is okay because paying taxes for the upkeep of roads is equivalent to paying for the stores.
      - 93po 2y ago
        Physical newspapers lost money on printing and distribution. Subscription fees and purchase price did not cover the cost of printing and distributing that bundle of paper. The vast majority of their income was from ads. So your argument is really even worse with that in mind - physical newspapers were more dependent on ads than internet websites. And even with that in mind, I don't think anyone would say having a robot cutting out newspaper ads to be stealing.
  - ramenbytes 2y ago
    Like a sibling comment mentioned, I was considering that newspapers got non-trivial amounts of funding from ads. Classifieds in particular, if I remember correctly. If that's still not satisfactory, then just consider the case of free papers & magazines.
Squeeze2664 2y ago
What competition? All the videos are on YouTube.
- toastercat 2y ago
  Dailymotion, Vimeo, PeerTube, Odysee, etc.
  - redserk 2y ago
    I’ll give you Dailymotion, but… Vimeo hasn’t tried being a direct YouTube competitor in years — just look and use their site at any point after 2014? 2016? It’s been a while. While I’d like to see PeerTube succeed, it is hardly a competitor. The content is very… early.
123yawaworht456 2y ago
why are you here? are you lost?
eesmith 2y ago
This is a terms of service violation at best. There's no theft, nor even copyright infringement. The obvious parallel is Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios which established that time shifting - recording a TV broadcast to play back later - is fair use. Someone using a DVR with a "+30 seconds" button to skip an ad was not stealing from the broadcast company.