Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by spaqin 198 days ago
That's extremely subjective, but I'd rather save that $14 a month towards retirement. And if YouTube was only available with ads... well, that's no videos for me, maybe for the better, I would waste less time.
2 comments

Sure, and you're free to

1. Save $14 for retirement and not watch Youtube

2. Save $14 for retirement and watch Youtube with ads

3. Pay $14 a month for Youtube without ads

The only option that's not fair is expecting private companies and creators to give you entertainment and its delivery with nothing in return

Google uses your data and habits for profit. Dont pretend it's free.
Google is free to block me / my IP / ban my account.
In high school I knew a kid who would go around looting loose change from unlocked cars. He'd pull the driver side door open like it was his car, hop in, loot the center console, then hop out like nothing happened. He wouldn't take valuables (as far as I knew), just change, so maybe a few bucks per car.

His rationale? "Nobody will cry over a few missing quarters and they are free to lock their doors anyway."

Blocking ads is the same as stealing.

You are very intelligent.

The reason it's not stealing is because the cost to the serve content is tiny (spare change) and the sites don't stop you from viewing it with ad-blocker (unlocked doors).
The reason its not stealing is because stealing means to remove someone of the ownership of something they own.

You are able to make your own définition though. The clear mark of a very intelligent mind.

I get cat videos through messengers.