[ozim]

I have an argument:

They made people to expect stuff for free. It was their market strategy to offer basically free service to get people locked in. It is their fault they should pay for it.

It is called bait and switch which is a blatant fraud. Only that they stretched it into long years.

Now they switch by introducing pains option and making free one unusable by shoving ads every minute.

[drpixie]

And doing their very best to consume or annihilate all competition.

[convalescindrey]

> It is called bait and switch which is a blatant fraud.

Sorry, this is just not true. If you let yourself get baited, then it's your responsibility. Don't lift the responsibility from the general populace of mostly mature adults. If they like to see ads then it's their problem.

[idle_zealot]

I don't know what you're saying here. Bait and switch is fraud. When adults fall for fraud it is still the fraudster who is in the wrong, not the victims.

[wruza]

If enough people get baited, that creates a network effect and locks creators into that, no matter how much of a smart fish you are. Most people don’t like to see ads. They like to see the content without thinking too much about a platform it resides in.

[convalescindrey]

It's easier to criticize the baiter than the baitee, but that may be barking up the wrong tree. Tech companies are acting within the economic and regulatory framework. Criticizing them for doing so is not helpful. Ironically, I'd guess that the majority of the HN crowd is actually making their living directly or indirectly off that.

[ozim]

Mostly mature adults addicted to cigarettes, caffeine, alcohol and cheap dopamine.

Voting for whoever shouts louder.

Don’t overestimate being mature. I’m 35 and look at my aunts and uncles turning 65 and 70 it is so much different view from when I was 15 to 25… it is just people.

[convalescindrey]

I agree! I'm very disappointed with my fellow humans too! But what do you want to do? If you reduce how much the general population can impact their life then you are doing democracy a disservice. As sad as that is.

[luxpir]

Your comments are consistently dark on this topic.

Is that why you're using a throwaway, or new account, because you know defending adtech is dubious?

It's this kind of lack of integrity people are unhappy with.

[convalescindrey]

I don't follow. I don't have integrity because I'm consistent in my replies?

I also don't see how turning this discussion into ad hominem against myself is meaningful. Attacking that I'm using a throwaway? Seriously?

Yes, my comments may be dark. It's because my view on society is dark. It just does not help to blame big tech for the laziness of people to not want to pay and watch ads instead.

[redeeman]

face it, the youtube offering is just kinda shitty. its like with piracy of music, movies and such, it is a distribution problem. Does it make it legal in the case of music/movies? probably not. Is it legal to adblock? in most places, yes.

could one make an argument of it not being morally justified? maybe.

does youtube, in the way google/alphabet wants to run it suck? most definitely. Is it possible to easily work around some of the biggest stuff here? yes.

well this is what a great many people choose to do, and youtube had better accept reality and deal with it. If they make it impossible to block ads, that is probably within their rights (assuming they implement some technical solution themselves), but that will come with some consequences