this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
1126 points (95.9% liked)

Technology

59389 readers
2959 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Synthead@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Imagine if a (physical paper) newspaper could block you from reading an article because you didn't spend enough time looking at the ads.

After the content gets delivered to my browser, it's up to me how I want to consume that content. Anything that happens beyond that point is client-side. If I choose to pay attention to ads on purpose, that's my choice. If I accept the webserver's response and choose to view only parts of what I got, then that's my choice, too.

[–] Chozo@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Imagine if a newspaper could block you from reading an article because you didn’t spend enough time looking at the ads.

You pay for newspapers, though.

[–] newIdentity@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Imagine if a newspaper could block you from reading an article because you didn't spend enough time looking at the ads.

They do that though. Most even require you to accept their cookies, pay or not be able to read the article at all.

[–] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Imagine if a newspaper could block you from reading an article because you didn’t spend enough time looking at the ads.

That's a bad comparison. Newspapers cost money, so you either buy one or you don't read the articles. Even in the case of free ones, they're littered with ads. You don't need to watch them, but they're still there.

I hate what youtube is doing just as much as the next guy, but I'm yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it should be free. Many of the people complaining about this are gladly paying for Spotify and Netflix. Why not demand those for free too?

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Imagine if a newspaper could block you from reading an article because you didn't spend enough time looking at the ads.

I don't have to imagine. Many newspaper websites are exactly like that; or at least require an upfront payment in the form of a subscription to read. Just like a real newspaper.

[–] papertowels@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Don't ..plenty of digital newspapers block you from reading the article if you don't pay up

Even traditional newspapers usually have an upfront fee you pay.

You could go to a library to view the newspapers, but you could also go to a library to check out DVDs instead of using YouTube.