this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2024
600 points (96.6% liked)

Technology

60112 readers
2096 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LostXOR@fedia.io 77 points 6 days ago (6 children)

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. 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.

[–] Abnorc@lemm.ee 65 points 6 days ago (3 children)

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.)

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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 37 points 6 days ago

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 15 points 6 days ago

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 3 points 6 days ago

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.

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 22 points 6 days ago (3 children)

I’m imagining a future where you’re not allowed to mute broadcast commercials

[–] shoulderoforion@fedia.io 24 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Fifteen Million Merits - Black Mirror - 2011

[–] grue@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago

Please drink verification can.

[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 6 points 6 days ago

I mean they already show ads when you pause. It's just a tiny jump further to play video ads when you pause.

You already often can't mute ads directly, you can only mute them on whatever platform you're watching them on.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

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 9 points 6 days ago

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

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 2 points 6 days ago

Incoming Meat Canyon video

[–] Nyxicas@kbin.melroy.org 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Exactly, it's absolutely absurd.

Think we ought to just start harassing marketers and anyone involved with advertising.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 days ago

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 -1 points 6 days ago

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.