I think deadmutex is pointing at a bit of irony and hypocrisy at how we're saying it's bad for people to feel entitled to free adblock support (and ask for more) but champion people feeling entitled to free videos by blocking the ads or refusing to pay for no ads.
There is no "entitlement" to videos. They are free. YouTube sends them to us for free. They do so hoping we're gonna look at the ads. We're under exactly zero obligation to actually do that though. It is not at all our responsibility to make their business model work.
Abusing open source developers is the true entitlement.
Another true entitlement is adblock users complaining that YouTube is greedy, etcetera, now that they're actually kicking said users off their site. You (in the general sense) are certainly not responsible for making YouTube's business work, but by a similar token they are certainly not under any obligation to continue serving data to users who don't generate any revenue.
> by a similar token they are certainly not under any obligation to continue serving data to users who don't generate any revenue
Sure. Let's see them return HTTP 402 Payment Required instead of a free video stream then. I'm actually okay with that.
Somehow I doubt they'll ever do that. They want that mass market appeal, don't they? I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. Just like the "free" apps who do anything in the world to get themselves installed so they can start monetizing.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. By all accounts, YouTube is implementing countermeasures that block adblock users from watching videos on their site. What is functionally different between that and returning a 402, especially since you can in fact pay for ad-free YouTube?
Nope. Still free, they just managed to circumvent my browser extension. They're not even supposed to know I have it installed.
They need to either start charging everyone for access or stop complaining. I pay for access to a lot of things but I'm not paying money to avoid ads. I sure as hell am not gonna pay money to watch videos with hard coded ads.
Content creators have other revenue streams these days. The ones I enjoy have quite the following on Patreon and other such platforms. Unlike ads, those are perfectly ethical ways to make money and I wish them all the success in the world. They don't even require copyright to work since they don't depend on artificial scarcity.
Expecting that the videos will be free with no qualifiers (such as an ad playing) is also entitlement. Not that you have said that explicitly but that seems to be a common assumption among many adblock users.
YouTube is free to make windows and Mac apps, and turn off their web views.
They're relying on me doing work to run a browser that renders their ads, rather than providing a binary. They're not sending me a page of ads, they're sending me a couple files that I can choose how to show and what to put through a JavaScript interpreter
They're also free to build more serious adblock countermeasures into their website, which is exactly what they're doing now, and people are complaining about it.
As GP said, maybe this is not your position, but it's a common enough one that their comment is not out of line (given that you are the one who replied to them).
>YouTube is free to make windows and Mac apps, and turn off their web views.
I have revanced which edits their binary to remove ads. I don't see what your point has to do with mine though. My point is this: adblock users are grazing from youtube's field. We are eating the grass that youtube has planted and watered. To expect that such a field exists and then to expect that it can be eaten from at will is entitlement. To say "but they put up no fence" (or, more accurately, a weak fence) is not a refutation of this point. In fact it is exactlty what defines it as being a tragedy of the commons.
Ad blockers are free. They’re made available to be downloaded for free. It is not at all our responsibility to make their business model work. Open source developers are entitled.
So you think people watching over-the-air television are morally obligated to watch the ads and not mute them, leave the room, use a DVR to skip them, etc.?
One is the best, most reliable video serving platform on the planet and the other is a scriptkiddie’s project that evidently doesn’t even work and he’s so salty about it that he had to make a post.
The OP is a post by a random person discussing reddit drama. As far as I can tell, the author of uBO isn't involved in any of it.
uBO does work fine, and is easily one of the most valuable pieces of end user software there is. Raymond Hill is very generous and has made a very positive impact on the world.