1339
Linus Tech Tips uploaded a video showing how to block ads on Youtube. Which was removed by Youtube for community guidelines violations.
(sh.itjust.works)
https://files.catbox.moe/a6111d.png / https://nitter.poast.org/LinusTech/status/1825956050685800834
If you go the video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsjHMzGl-VY. You will see it's gone. So Youtube being Youtube.
Here's a Odysee mirror of the video, https://odysee.com/@jopec:7/linus-tech-tips-degoogle-your-life-part-2-adfree-youtube:0.
No, it was most definitely Linus's take. Louis Rossman covered this a couple of years ago. Direct Linus quote from that Twitter thread:
Linus himself covers those Twitter comments, and defends them further, in this video.
@Kbobabob@lemmy.world @A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
I really don't get the hate he got for that take.
Circumventing the method of payment could be argued as being a form of piracy. From that point of view, adblock is piracy.
Like them or not, YouTube is not a charity and requires the serving of ads to continue funding the service. You could argue about how they go about it, but it's a fact they need some sort of income to continue to exist.
Same goes for YouTubers. They get a percentage of that ad revenue. And they also need some form of income.
But just because he said so doesn't mean he doesn't understand why adblock is used. He didn't say "don't use adblock." He's shown how to use adblock before and since. He's also mentioned that buying something from their webshop gives them a lot more money than turning off adblock.
Saying "watching movies for free is pirating" isn't the same as saying "you shouldn't pirate movies".
Using adblock isn't engaging with YouTube on YouTube's terms.
Adblocking isnt piracy, from any point of view.
Its protection. Protection from sudden loud noises and visual diarrhea. Protection from malware and viruses from random website ads, and protection from Right Wing Extremist Propaganda like PragerU videos detailing how the black man should be grateful for the history of slavery and oppression (which has had a documented, factual effect on driving people into right wing extremist behavior, and the violent rhetoric and actions that inevitably follow)
As long as all of that exists, Adblocking will never be piracy. Adblocking is, and will be, mandatory protection.
And if Linus, or anyone else, wants to clutch pearls and cry about adblocking.. They can take their complaints to Google/Facebook/Other Ad services, because their lack of moderation and inability to policing content on their services are directly responsible for creating the necessity for adblocking.
To tack onto your list, ad blocking also deprives a source from an intended revenue stream associated with the content, which is probably why it's being compared to piracy.
I'm all on board with ad blockers, let's just at least acknowledge the economic reality surrounding their use.
The economic reality is that I have to use adblocking because ad services refuse to police and moderate their system. Thats the economic reality that they created.
Having a problem with the end user protecting themselves from what the advertisers and their ad services created is just trying to shift blame.
But that doesn't mean it isn't piracy?
Downloading old Nintendo ROMs because the company refuses to redistribute them is also piracy, even though I would say it's morally justified.
This has been argued in courts ad nauseum. It is not piracy. Just downloading is not piracy. If you download a ROM from a site, the site is guilty of piracy. You are not. If you download from a torrent though, you're guilty because you're also participating in the distribution. There's also nuance with profit depending on the jurisdiction. But, just like throwing away a pamphlet is not piracy, refusing to download and ad is not piracy.
Roms arent adblocking.
Not the point I was making.
That's where Youtube premium comes in. To protect you from ads with a cost per month.
you do realize that ads appear in more places than just youtube, right?
You....really don't have to.
Again, I'm all for ad blockers, I use Firefox, I've ran my own pihole instance, etc.
I'm just going to be frank, you're being a little melodramatic. Do you just get vaporized when you use someone else's computer and an ad blocker isn't installed? Likely not.
Ironically, by framing what is just a quality of life thing as a mandatory reaction to content providers actions, it sounds like you're the one trying to shift blame onto them. Your entire argument has very strong "LOOK AT WHAT YOU MADE ME DO" energy.
All I'm saying is call a spade a spade. I acknowledge that by using an ad blocker, I'm economically negatively affecting the content provider. I'm okay with that. On some websites I'll disable the ad blocker, if it's one I use a lot with reasonable constraints.
Your entire post is trying to frame end users for the responsibility of what the advertising companies have done (or more like failed to do) and caused as a result.
You're trying to hold a fork up and demand everyone acknowledge as a spade, and ridicule anyone who doesnt agree with a very dismissive attitude.
Do you agree that "What the advertising companies have done" was in agreement with the providers of the content you're consuming?
Meaning, the providers of the content you're consuming intended for the advertising to be a revenue stream?
Meaning it's not "the big bad advertisers" - it's really the providers of the content you're voluntarily consuming who you're trying to frame as the bad guys?
I don't voluntarily consume malware, malicious software, or hate speech/propaganda.
Its just forced upon me when I don't protect myself.
Are you really happy with yourself, white knighting for the poor defenseless advertising companies? The ones who serve this shit, without policing or moderation? The lack of which is precisely why adblocking, the thing you are trying to blame users for with your disingenuous "You criticize society, yet you exist in society.. interesting" type argument, exists in the first place.
All the ad companies have to do to get rid of adblocking is police and moderate their content that they serve. Something they actively refuse to do.
And yet you don't have a single criticism for that. You have nothing but vigorous defense of it, and shifting of blame to the users, for it.
You're missing my point - the creators of the content you voluntarily consume have an agreement with advertising companies, under which they get financial compensation when people view the ads.
Therefore, when you use an ad blocker, you are depriving them of that expected financial compensation.
This is why it can be comparable to piracy. You are voluntarily consuming content while depriving the content creators of an intended revenue stream.
Do you have any criticism against that line of reasoning, or are you just going to try and criticize me instead?
You are trying to put the onus on end users, while also simultainously pursuing some weird guilt based appeal to emotion.
And still refuse to address the core issue, which is the lack of moderation and policing of content creating the essential need for adblockers in the first place.
Ad companies don't get create this toxic hellscape, then blame end users with wrung hands and empty "Won't someone thing of the poor content creators" appeals to emotion to try and handwave the responsibility away.
Why won't they think of the content creators? Why wont they do something to reduce the actual necessity for adblock in the interest of the poor, downtrodden content creators?
Especially in a world where far better alternatives (like merch and patreon type sites) exists to give them money, directly, without having to deal with advertising hellscapes.
You are voluntarily consuming content that the content creators agreed to have the ads for. You can just not consume that content.
For the upteenth time, they probably are thinking of them because the content creators agreed to have them as a revenue stream.
You're acting like content creators are completely removed from this. guess who pays them? generally speaking, not you. It's the big bad ad companies. Why? BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN AGREEMENT.
Great! Consume your content from those places! I'm in the patreons for a few podcasts myself for the ad-free versions.
Be smart, use an ad blocker for your sanity, but at least acknowledge that you are likely at least a tiny bit cutting into a revenue stream that the creators utilize. Again, no guilt trip here, I've ran pi hole instances myself. In fact some folks definitely encourage their base to use ad blockers on their content, I believe Louis Rossman is one of them. But I don't delude myself into thinking this is their fault. That is truly some "LOOK AT WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!" reasoning.
After all of this, do you see why it can be comparable to piracy? Because content creators agreed to have it as part of their revenue stream to be served alongside the content, so having it blocked cuts into that revenue stream.
I'm not asking you to change behaviors. It just feels like I'm talking to a wall. Do you disagree with anything the previous paragraph?
EDIT: so optimistically, it takes two parties to have poor communication. So I'm going to try and clear things up.
I am NOT arguing that users have to be subjected to ads.
I am arguing that content providers serve ads as a revenue stream, and blocking that cuts into that revenue stream. Boo hoo, I'll do it anyways and probably support them in other ways, like subscribing to them, buying their merch, sharing their articles or songs, etc.
But I'm saying I understand why, from a content provider/creators standpoint, being deprived of that revenue stream that I intended to be served alongside my content, is comparable to piracy. Because as the content creator I agreed to financially benefit from ads being served alongside my content, and instead content is being consumed without that financial kickback.
From your point of view, yeah. Not from the point of view of the creator and the platform.
Linus isn't clutching his pearls nor is he crying, he's just pointing out you are circumventing the method of payment to the platform. It is detrimental to both the platform and the creator. That is a fact. Your choice has an impact and you should be aware of that.
But at no point did he say "you're a bad person if you use adblock".
What has got you so worried?
Found the Liberal
And yet he never said not to adblock, so the only thing he claims are the categorization of adblocking.
I'd argue this as well. I see it in a similar way. Linus is obviously not trying to sit on some high horse and condemn piracy, he's just calling a spade a spade.
No, he's calling a spade a backhoe. Piracy is one of two things, depending on your definition:
Blocking ads does neither of those things, it merely blocks loading of content that you don't want to see. It's basically the modern version of a DVR, where you can choose to cut out portions of a video that you don't want (e.g. the ads).
These things are technically piracy:
Blocking ads isn't one of those things, neither is skipping over parts of a video you don't want to see (i.e. the sponsor segment).
Blocking ads reduces revenue to Google and the video creator. That doesn't make it piracy, it's just being a jerk to the platform and the creator.
In those tweets? Sure. But that's not an argument I was making, so this is a strawman from you that doesn't actually counter any of the evidence I have provided. Did Linus say ad-blocking was piracy? Yes. Did Linus say ad-blocking was theft? Yes.
Whether you think this is moral hypocrisy is irrelevant to me. I was only calling out the previous commenter who straight up lied about Linus's history and then attempted to frame the people who were right as uninformed and wrong.
The comment was replying to one about it being funny that Linus made a video about adblocking when he considers adblocking piracy. That would imply he is against adblocking in general, which your links does not show.
Yes, he considers it piracy, but he is not against adblocking, which is why the original point of the parent comment doesn't make sense.
Read that second paragraph from me again:
If you want to have a debate about the parent comment, debate the person who made the parent comment. That's not me and I do not care about the point you are trying to make here.
I did read it the first time, which is why I brought up the context of the first comment, which implied that Linus is against adblocking.
The comment you claimed to be lying is talking about the actual context of why Linus compared adblocking with piracy, which is about content creators and payment of their content.
I'm only calling you out for making a point that is not in the context of the actual thread, not against the proof of what you posted in the first place, so I'm not sure we're even in disagreement here.
It didn't. Read it again:
He literally said both of those things. I have proven this. Someone asked for a source. Another person replied with:
As I have proven, Linus literally said both of those things. That was his take in 2022. At this point in the comment chain, no one has implied Linus is "against ad-bliocking". They have only stated that he believed it was no different to piracy and theft, which is true. This third person in the chain was the one who actually brought up the "he's against ad-blocking" argument as a strawman - that was never never implied in the original parent comment.
No it's not. That is quite clearly not what it was in response to. Again, read the the comment chain carefully here. You are taking things that were said or implied in other comment chains (or just completely fabricated) and pretending that they were what the comment chain I was involved in was related to.
Why would the first comment said it is funny for Linus to make a how to adblock video if he is not implying that a Linus against adblock? Please explain how that logic works.
It is funny that YouTube took down his video detailing how to circumvent its revenue stream after he claimed doing so was piracy and theft.
Yeah, because you YouTube is against adblocking. It would be more surprising if they don't.
Now answer my question why it's funny for Linus to make such a video when he isn't against adblocking, and how that would mean the parent comment wasn't implying that he is against adblocking.
I just answered your question. Read it again.
You might be right, I've misread the point of the parent comment in the first place. I guess I just wasted both of our time, sorry about that.