this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
144 points (96.2% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54716 readers
630 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is logical nonsense. If their numbers don't go down, that doesn't make their actions not abusive, it simply indicates that people are willing to put up with the abuse (because they get enough value out of the platform despite the abuse). Whether it is abusive or not is not a numbers game.
This means that people still derived enough value from the platform, despite the ads. That is, stopping using the platform would be more of a net loss than accepting ads on the platform. And yet, this doesn't have anything to do with whether it is an abusive practice or not.
In fact, you're touching on something here: ads were initially very brief and intermittent; they've gotten progressively worse and more invasive and so, just as boiling a frog, you can't take peoples' acceptance of the situation at face value. If you've conditioned someone to put up with (worsening) abuse, their seeming acceptance of the situation doesn't mean you aren't being abusive.
So please give me the objective definition of what is abusive. Because in my book that is totally subjective. I just told you they created an almost perfect service that let's you stream infinite amounts of information with zero downtime and minimal buffer times, and they are asking a few minutes of your time per day, so they can make a profit and pay fairly to content creators and very smart engineers.
For me that is fair. For you, that's abusive. Who is right? You because you agree with yourself?
I'm not sure if you're constructing a strawman or if you think you're replying to someone else.
I didn't say whether or not it's abusive.
All I said was that your logic of "if their user count doesn't go down it's not abuse" is bullshit. I went on to bring up the "boiling the frog scenario" to further explain how users can become accustomed to abuse.
OK, let's start from scratch then. The person who replied to my comment said it was abusive. "Abusive" is totally subjective, how can we know if this is abusive or not? You're right, numbers might not reflect this but they do show if they think the content is worth watching the ads.
For me, it isn't worth it so I almost never use YouTube, but I don't think it is abusive. It's a really high quality service with incredible engineering.
So there's no point in talking in subjective terms, people will always disagree. Let's just wait and see if people still want to use their platform after the change. If they do, that is their decision, they are free to make a choice. There are many video streaming platforms out there. Just not as high quality as YouTube. They also don't have as much content because content creators want to receive ad money.