Asklemmy

I don't.

The argument for adblockers being a form of piracy is that there is an implicit contract. The content creator gives us the permission to watch the content with the implied requirement that we watch the ad that comes with it. So, we are paying for the content with our time and attention when watching the ad. By using an adblocker, we refuse to pay this price, violating the terms of the implied contract, thereby forgoing the permission to watch it. In this argument, the definition of piracy used is that of using (by watching) a work protected by copyright without permission.

I don't agree that there is an implied contract for watching an ad any more than there is an implied contract for watching the full video. Not watching a full video impacts the statistics of the creator in a negative way, so there is an implied contract that if you begin watching the video you will watch it all. By this logic, it is also a form of piracy to stop watching. There are many things that the creator or YouTube might like you to do, but that does not spawn an implied contract. If they want a contract, they will have to add it to YouTube's ToS. Then it might be piracy by some of the looser definitions.

Absolutely fucking not. Let me pay safely (privately) and we both win.

This is an asymmetrical arms race against an abhorrent industry.

Ad blockers are a self-defence technology by nature.

Adblockers are like piracy because they are cool and good.

no, refuse to elaborate

⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠛⠛⠛⠋⠉⠈⠉⠉⠉⠉⠛⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⢏⣴⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣟⣾⣿⡟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⢢⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣟⠀⡴⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⠟⠻⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠶⢴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⣿⣁⡀⠀⠀⢰⢠⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠀⣴⣶⣿⡄⣿ ⣿⡋⠀⠀⠀⠎⢸⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠗⢘⣿⣟⠛⠿⣼ ⣿⣿⠋⢀⡌⢰⣿⡿⢿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⢸⣿⣿⣧⢀⣼ ⣿⣿⣷⢻⠄⠘⠛⠋⠛⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣧⠈⠉⠙⠛⠋⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣧⠀⠈⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠟⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⢃⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⡿⠀⠴⢗⣠⣤⣴⡶⠶⠖⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡸⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⡀⢠⣾⣿⠏⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠉⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣧⠈⢹⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠈⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣄⣀⣀⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠙⣿⣿⡟⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠁⠀⠀⠹⣿⠃⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠉⠉⠁⠀⢻⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠈⣿⣿⡿⠉⠛⠛⠛⠉⠉ ⣿⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⢀⣀⣠⡴⣸⣿⣇⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡿⠄⠙⠛⠀⣀⣠⣤⣤⠄⠀

For me, adblocker are more kind of self defense. One wouldn't need them, when most website operators wouldn't add more ad than content to their pages.

If a government is trying to kill you by using toxic gas, should it be illegal to use a gasmask to circumvent a government decision?

Now think about the intrusive ads, those which install you unsolicited malware, those that keep you from clicking the link you need, those that show when you can't see them (inappropriate ones at work for example), the gambling ones directed to vulnerable people and the long list that doesn't stop here. Should it be illegal to defend yourself against the harm they can cause?

Give me an ethic and decent ad system and I won't have to defend myself against ads.

No, adblockers are not piracy. It's more similar to using a "free service/resource" that has a recommended (or even expected) donation, which you decide not to pay.

If you're somehow using adblockers to get past a paywall or some other authentication/authorization system, then we have a legitimate piracy conversation.

Nope. Web tech is designed from the ground up to give the end user full control over how they render the documents they are sent. That's why the pages are sent without DRM to your browser using a well-documented standard and every browser has extensive infra to let you write code that modifies browser behavior and allows you to automatically edit the pages you're sent.

Content creators are free to bundle ads with their content, and content consumers are just as free to strip the ads out and refuse to view them. This is literally how the Web was designed to work.

You want something else, go help Google kill the Web and replace it with DRM-infested walled gardens and let Google tell you how and when you can communicate with other users as the inevitable price.

Under most circumstances you can't even call adblocking a DMCA DRM circumvention violation because for most web documents there isn't even any copy protection embedded in the page???? (Might be different for YouTube admittedly since there absolutely is DRM embedded)

It's literally as if as someone was selling their novel as an unprotected Word document, included a bunch of paid product placement in their novel, and then got mad and called it piracy when readers opened the Word document and stripped it out AFTER the users had downloaded it.

Of course this is different with YouTube and streaming video platforms in general since they generally have TOS that cover adblocking and they do bundle DRM. However, it's up to the video platforms to actually do the legwork of implementing DRM and enforcing the TOS, and putting up with irate users who inevitably get screwed out of money for one reason or another or just have the user experience degraded in the name of intellectual property.

Ad blockers are for personal safety. How can something expressly for personal safety be considered piracy?

Lol no. When I help most people fix their computer issues like having an infected PC, I honestly think UBlock Origin and HTTPS Everywhere are most effective than antivirus software. Of course, I don't let them go without antivirus software but my point is that adblockers like UBlock Origin are arguably a more effective preventative measure than most antivirus software.

The idea that adblockers are piracy is just a foolish use of the word privacy and it's weird that Linus took the stance he did on this. He's a smart guy, at the very least I don't get how he didn't think the community wouldn't clown on him for this.

...is this about Linus' stupid tweet? Because no, using adblocker is not piracy. How would it be? All adblockers do is, wouldn't you know it, block ads. They don't illegally copy data.

Ads have no right be as invasive as they are. So ads, and only ads, are to blame.