Today I filed a formal complaint against #YouTube with the Irish Data Protection Commissioner for their illegal deployment of #adblock detection technologies.
Under Article 5(3) of 2002/58/EC YouTube are legally obligated to obtain consent before storing or accessing information already stored on an end user's terminal equipment unless it is strictly necessary for the provisions of the requested service.
In 2016 the EU Commission confirmed in writing that adblock detection requires consent.
This is a distinction that some defenders miss. A lot of people who use ad-blockers would be fine with ads if they were restrained and not too obtrusive. But the amount and frequency of ads only seem to increase. Something that would be difficult to justify, because time does not suffer inflation.
We went from 1 skippable 5 second ad per video to multiple ads every 10 minutes or so, sometimes even unskippable 15+ second ads or even more ads in a row. When is it going to be enough? Are we supposed to take them on their word that this is necessary, simply assuming that they need it because they don’t even share financial numbers? Is our only other option to pay up, once again, the amount that they decided is a fair compensation and also keep increasing?
Seems that at the very least some way for the users to negotiate what they believe is fair is lacking in this matter. On the lack of that, no wonder some people just decide they refuse to be squeezed forever.
Adversarial tech, like adblockers, is good. We should use it. If people want users to not want to use it, they should change the product so that we don’t want to use it.
It’s not illegal for me to use an ad blocker and it should never become illegal.
But the amount and frequency of ads only seem to increase. Something that would be difficult to justify, because time does not suffer inflation.
I mean time doesn’t, but cost of ads can be cheaper due to competition and then because lots of people use adblockers they need to push more ads on those who don’t block it, really not hard to justify, plus they are a publicly owned company which means they will always suffer from the same problems every other publicly traded company does under capitalism, having to keep growing forever with ever increasing quarterly profits.
Seems that at the very least some way for the users to negotiate what they believe is fair is lacking in this matter. On the lack of that, no wonder some people just decide they refuse to be squeezed forever.
I mean, you can literally just not use the platform, that’s your negotiating power, but you don’t want that, nor ads, nor paying for it, you want it for free, I mean, I don’t blame you for it, I want shit for free too, who doesn’t, just not how the world works at the moment.
If you want to be this cynical about it I can only tell you one thing: the world does work like that, because people can get away with it and they do.
Yeah corporations can decide to sell our time, eyeballs and data for smaller and smaller fractions of a penny without asking us. Because clearly it isn’t about what is fair and equitable, it’s not about making sure every party gets what they deserve, it’s about what they can get away with.
Considering how much tech companies get away with, if anyone wants to moralize over not giving them what they demand, I can only laugh.
I mean they asked you, they told you the exact amount they won’t do that for, you don’t want to pay it, so they engaged you in a weapons race of adblockers vs adblocker detectors.
the world works like that because that’s how the world works currently, because that’s the point of evolution we are at, we haven’t yet moved past the capitalist system.
Because clearly it isn’t about what is fair and equitable, it’s not about making sure every party gets what they deserve, it’s about what they can get away with.
are we still talking about fucking youtube videos or did the conversation somehow changed to be about access to drinking water? damn bro, it’s youtube, a time-sink platform, you don’t need it to live
You are the one who are trying to make a big deal over what people ought to do and how the world works over ads. If you don’t think that’s not worth arguing about, then I dunno why you’re still at it.
I definitely don’t think using an ad blocker is a moral battleground, I’m more baffled by the idea that Google needs defending over this.
I just dislike people making arguments that are really about their entitlement and try to pass it off as something else.
you could make some fair points, that youtube is essentially a monopoly and that locking some educational content behind a pay/adwall is unfairly disadvantageous to people with less money, but nope, your problem is that:
Is our only other option to pay up, once again, the amount that they decided is a fair compensation and also keep increasing?
Seems that at the very least some way for the users to negotiate what they believe is fair is lacking in this matter.
“How dare they ask us for money, why don’t they ask us how much we want to pay? it’s so unfair, why don’t they just run their service for free??”
it’s a bit whingy, innit?
, then I dunno why you’re still at it.
I have covid so I have some free time to tire my brain out calling out whingy shit.
How is YouTube a monopoly? You can use other platforms, YouTube is just the most popular. There aren’t many because it’s wildly unprofitable and people refuse to pay for it.
This is a distinction that some defenders miss. A lot of people who use ad-blockers would be fine with ads if they were restrained and not too obtrusive. But the amount and frequency of ads only seem to increase. Something that would be difficult to justify, because time does not suffer inflation.
We went from 1 skippable 5 second ad per video to multiple ads every 10 minutes or so, sometimes even unskippable 15+ second ads or even more ads in a row. When is it going to be enough? Are we supposed to take them on their word that this is necessary, simply assuming that they need it because they don’t even share financial numbers? Is our only other option to pay up, once again, the amount that they decided is a fair compensation and also keep increasing?
Seems that at the very least some way for the users to negotiate what they believe is fair is lacking in this matter. On the lack of that, no wonder some people just decide they refuse to be squeezed forever.
And let’s be honest about who this is paying: Alphabet’s 2023 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
Adversarial tech, like adblockers, is good. We should use it. If people want users to not want to use it, they should change the product so that we don’t want to use it.
It’s not illegal for me to use an ad blocker and it should never become illegal.
I mean time doesn’t, but cost of ads can be cheaper due to competition and then because lots of people use adblockers they need to push more ads on those who don’t block it, really not hard to justify, plus they are a publicly owned company which means they will always suffer from the same problems every other publicly traded company does under capitalism, having to keep growing forever with ever increasing quarterly profits.
I mean, you can literally just not use the platform, that’s your negotiating power, but you don’t want that, nor ads, nor paying for it, you want it for free, I mean, I don’t blame you for it, I want shit for free too, who doesn’t, just not how the world works at the moment.
If you want to be this cynical about it I can only tell you one thing: the world does work like that, because people can get away with it and they do.
Yeah corporations can decide to sell our time, eyeballs and data for smaller and smaller fractions of a penny without asking us. Because clearly it isn’t about what is fair and equitable, it’s not about making sure every party gets what they deserve, it’s about what they can get away with.
Considering how much tech companies get away with, if anyone wants to moralize over not giving them what they demand, I can only laugh.
I mean they asked you, they told you the exact amount they won’t do that for, you don’t want to pay it, so they engaged you in a weapons race of adblockers vs adblocker detectors.
the world works like that because that’s how the world works currently, because that’s the point of evolution we are at, we haven’t yet moved past the capitalist system.
are we still talking about fucking youtube videos or did the conversation somehow changed to be about access to drinking water? damn bro, it’s youtube, a time-sink platform, you don’t need it to live
You are the one who are trying to make a big deal over what people ought to do and how the world works over ads. If you don’t think that’s not worth arguing about, then I dunno why you’re still at it.
I definitely don’t think using an ad blocker is a moral battleground, I’m more baffled by the idea that Google needs defending over this.
I just dislike people making arguments that are really about their entitlement and try to pass it off as something else.
you could make some fair points, that youtube is essentially a monopoly and that locking some educational content behind a pay/adwall is unfairly disadvantageous to people with less money, but nope, your problem is that:
“How dare they ask us for money, why don’t they ask us how much we want to pay? it’s so unfair, why don’t they just run their service for free??”
it’s a bit whingy, innit?
I have covid so I have some free time to tire my brain out calling out whingy shit.
Sounding like you do want to argue about this. If you don’t think this is a big deal then maybe stop nagging people over petty stuff.
Wow this is the dumbest argument for a monopoly I’ve ever read
How is YouTube a monopoly? You can use other platforms, YouTube is just the most popular. There aren’t many because it’s wildly unprofitable and people refuse to pay for it.
Read the room pal. Nobody agrees with you. It’s time to stop.
“Nobody” is a high bar you’ve set for yourself. There are many people in this thread with the same argument.
They themselves are creating ZERO content. It’s the users who are creating content.