• Abnorc@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      69
      ·
      10 个月前

      It’s not that bizarre. They don’t have to serve you the content without showing you the ads that make the platform profitable. The freedom goes both ways. I use an ad blocker too, but I don’t think that YouTube is really doing anything wrong here. (Other than possibly ruining their own platform, but that’s their problem that they’re making for themselves.)

      • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        ·
        10 个月前

        If they weren’t a monopoly, I’d agree, they can do whatever they want.

        But since they are a monopoly, its a de facto the equivalent of a town square, and they are policing people’s speech, and broadcasting annoying public announcements that nobody wants to hear.

        • Robin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          38
          ·
          10 个月前

          A privately owned platform cannot serve the public good. There will always be conflicts of interest. A proper public square should be funded by a competent government (but those are rare) or decentralized.

      • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        10 个月前

        I hate the way they‘re doing it and how they push their silly premium subscription in my face whenever I open the app to look something up quick. Adblock all the way. But you‘re right. They have to make money somehow. They‘re a corporation after all. It‘s naive to think they will ever give up.

      • someacnt@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 个月前

        When suggested adblock, my mother also do not convinced it’s right to use them. Basically, my mother is grateful for the service provided, and will “pay” by watching ads. I guess this one is not so clear-cut.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      10 个月前

      The whole idea that it violates the terms of service of a company to not let them show things on my screen without my consent is insane.

      Something something contract of adhesion something something. It is functionally a term of service to watch the whole body of content as a condition of watching any of it.

      It’s like if every time you went to the grocery store, the employees held you down and force fed you a free sample, then banned you from the store when you started running away from them.

      This effectively used to be how people would sell Time Share rentals. You would “win” a “free vacation” to a destination that hosted the time share. Then, in order to check in you needed to sit through a sales pitch that only ended when you agreed to purchase the unit you’d allegedly been awarded as a prize.

      If you tried to leave the sales pitch prematurely, you were ejected from the venue.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 个月前

        Yeah, and there’s a reason contracts of adhesion are [supposed to be] illegal.

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 个月前

        Yes. The only positive thing the Dilbert creator ever did for the world was teach me (and others) that Marketing is bad. (He’s a fucking creep and a Trump weirdo.)

    • Maeve@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 个月前

      It’s worse than that. They use so much bw that most users have limited higher -speed to access, but they’re not giving anyone vouchers to pay for extra bandwidth.