• vithigar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    Using ad blockers is piracy, insofar as you’re avoiding paying the price the content provider has set for that content. The price is watching the ads, rather than being something directly monetary, and you’re not paying it.

    That said, neither that nor piracy are theft, and in both cases I gladly pirate because the prices in most instances have gotten away too high for what you get. Either in terms of subscription cost, or the time and quantity of ads delivered.

    • AeroLemming@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If blocking ads is piracy, then ad-viewing is equated to money and showing ads while either failing to provide the service the user wanted or not providing any at all is theft.

      • mriormro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is a bit of a chicken and an egg scenario. Who pays first? The user, the content creator, or the content host?

        • AntEater@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Who pays first? The user, the content creator, or the content host?

          I couldn’t care less. If my adblocker is that final straw that caused a company to go out of business, brings on the collapse of the internet as a whole, and ultimately the breakdown of western civilization, then all of it deserves to die. With that knowledge, I’d still update by block lists and donate to adblocking projects.

        • AeroLemming@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The user “pays” the creator and host at the same time by watching an ad, so it depends on when it plays. Not sure what you’re getting at.

    • bluewing@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      From what I understand, Youtube ain’t paying for content anyway. Creators are routinely being de-monitized

      • vithigar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What? That piracy is fine and people should be honest with themselves about doing it?

          • vithigar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It can certainly be both. A worse service might be worth a cheaper price. And people will pay extra for good service. That’s literally the airline ticket business model.

            It was also 100% a payment issue back when I was a broke student and paying for things simply wasn’t an option. The fact that Steam offered a more convenient service than the pirates at the time was irrelevant because I couldn’t afford it.

            • crispy_kilt@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              This is a good point.

              If you cannot pay, then you either pirate or not - you don’t buy, because you can’t. In either case, the producer loses nothing, because there is nothing to gain.

              In the other case where you could pay, but doing so is much more painful than pirating, the producer is the idiot - they made it painful to buy. They are losing sales not because people don’t want to pay but because they make buying the product painful.