• gian @lemmy.grys.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    So because they earn money somewhere else they should do something else for free?

    Obviously not, but there is nothing to stop Google from making Youtube a paid service and drop that charade about adblockers.

    • Demuniac@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Google’s main source of income is ads across the board, so fighting adblockers is certainly in their best interest

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        And users blocking all ads as long as Google is illegally tracking their online movement is in their best interest as well.

      • gian @lemmy.grys.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fine. But it need to fight by the rules.

        It is not up to discussion: Youtube want to serve video to EU user ? They need to follow EU rules. If the rule says that adblocker detection technologies (or attempt) are illegal Youtube has no really a say in it.

        • Demuniac@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Hell yeah they should, I’m not disputing that, but there’s so many here pretending like it’s somehow unethical for Google to fight against ad blockers, and I am arguing that.

          • gian @lemmy.grys.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It it not unethical what they are doing but how they are doing it. Not to mention against the law.

        • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But to be clear, that is not what the EU law being cited here says. It says something that may be interpreted as it. I hope that is how it gets interpreted. But that is not what it says.