Exactly. They are twisting reality to justify their shirty actions.

So you never intended to buy the product but you intended to use it?

Do you understand they are charging you for the usage, not for your intentions or moral views?

Push bracelets on you? Who is forcing you to use their software? Please let me know, we can call the police man, that’s fucked up.

You’re taking away the profit they deserve for the work and effort it took them to create the information.

When they think it is morally correct, yeha. When they think piracy is morally correct and ethical, they are basically disregarding private property and private incentive. They think it is their right to have free access to information that others worked to create.

I wouldn’t have a problem if they accepted they are basically stealing, at least I’d respect that, but they won’t. They think piracy is freeing society from capitalism. If you don’t believe me, keep reading the posts in this community.

Just create an alias that filters loop devices. I mean, if this is your only problem with snap, you can fix it in a second. But I’m betting you have other problems with it.

Are upvotes for agreement ok though? Or should upvotes be reserved for quality content?

I use Ubuntu. I think it’s funny how Arch users immediately assume they know more about Linux than me because of my distro choice. My hobby is learning about Linux and I can do that perfectly from my Ubuntu machine.

I’ve used Arch in the past, and let me tell you, nothing crazy is going on in there.

Yes, Ubuntu sucks because they are forcing Snaps on people while snaps are slow as hell. Thankfully they haven’t fully shoved snaps down our throats. If they don’t make snaps faster before shoving them down my throat, I’ll just distro hop. Probably to Debian. I love Debian.

So they are against it by using it? What?

I also think these corporations are evil, but complaining about everything they do just because it is an inconvenience for them? They should complain and act on the shit that matters.

I rode my bike exclusively on the hardest hills known in my city. Like hills that took 2h and had inclinations that would make it extremely hard to start if you stopped pedaling.

Fast forward 6 months. I have chicken legs.

Then why aren’t they using these alternatives? Why does every company and place need to follow their ideals?

Are you implying I’m far right? If so, you’re so wrong. I’m not far left either.

They are literally giving them the content for free. FOR FREE!

But no… “watching ads!?? For a 4K stream with machine learning generated captions for accessibility, multi-language subtitles, minimal buffer time and worldwide low latency? Are they INSANE! They are exploiting us! We are the victims of a corporation! Everything should be totally free and ad-free for us to enjoy anytime from our Iphones. Also, don’t forget to give me my paycheck in time because I’m also anti-work and it is abusive if I don’t get paid a fair wage for my effort, you cheap corporate pig”.

The problem with only biking is that it will suck your muscles dry. You need to do some muscle training too.

Yeha and pirates say that content should be free and accessible, and that’s why piracy is ethical. YouTube is providing a way to keep content available for everyone while keeping a business running for millions of people around the globe.

Just look at all the posts in this community saying that piracy is THE ethical way.

So, they fucking hate it when content is paywalled and say that this is awful because content should be free for poor people. But they also hate it when content is free and they have to watch ads. They just hate every sustainable business model. Wtf.

This is just communism in disguise. They want private effort for free and hassle free anytime, anywhere. Probably looking at it on their Iphones or Samsung phones. Thst they were able to purchase because they were paid for their work.

They’re still doing canary testing. Eventually they’ll block accounts from users that use adblock after they get a warning.

So you’ll have to choose if you want to keep using the service with ads or move on to something new. And the great news is that it is totally your choice and you’re free to make it.

No, u

So you’re saying YouTube is an abusive husband and you’re a wife who can’t get away from that relation because you’re too afraid for your life or your children’s future?

I never saw it like that. I hope YouTube doesn’t kill you or take away your children.

You’re comparing very serious cases with the most ridiculous type of dependency ever. You’re comparing an abusive employer/employee relation with YouTube making you watch ads. Holy shit. A husband beating the shit out of his wife with YouTube making you watch ads.

What’s next, are you going to compare this with African-American slavery? A level 7 intergalactic species dominating the milky way and extracting resources from defenseless planetary systems?

I really need to know what’s next.

OK, let’s start from scratch then. The person who replied to my comment said it was abusive. “Abusive” is totally subjective, how can we know if this is abusive or not? You’re right, numbers might not reflect this but they do show if they think the content is worth watching the ads.

For me, it isn’t worth it so I almost never use YouTube, but I don’t think it is abusive. It’s a really high quality service with incredible engineering.

So there’s no point in talking in subjective terms, people will always disagree. Let’s just wait and see if people still want to use their platform after the change. If they do, that is their decision, they are free to make a choice. There are many video streaming platforms out there. Just not as high quality as YouTube. They also don’t have as much content because content creators want to receive ad money.

But the reason why YouTube overregulates is because of how massive their service is. They couldn’t pay lawyers to check every single video, and they can’t take risks of copyright infringement.

Do you have any proposed solution? It just seems like Youtube’s nature make this a very hard problem to solve, it’s not a copyright thing itself. I really can’t imagine a solution. Having someone check every claim would be insanely difficult. But removing copyright all together would basically remove all incentive from content creators because anyone can clone their creativity and ideas with zero effort.

Just watched the video. He has 2 points:

1. copyright is hard because it has to go through bureaucracy. But one thing is the law itself and another is the process. If the process is slow is not the content of the law’s fault. This is why YouTube created Content ID, to try to resolve these cases in a more agile way. They are too massive to make every case go through the whole legal expensive path.

2. the threshold for content to turn into public domain is too large. No idea how this relates to YouTube copyright issues though. Yeha, maybe the threshold is too large, but is that related to the complaints content creators have around Youtube’s Content ID? Nope. That’s just something he wanted to throw in there, which is just opinion.

Thinking about it… Maybe lowering the threshold could be a relief on the bureaucracy because there would be less open cases. Still, not sure if that would be enough. We’re uploading content exponentially, any justice system would collapse if experts had to check every single case.

This is a very hard problem to solve. With the HUGE incoming wave of AI generated content and the copyright issues surrounding AI, I’m expecting the shit to hit the fan spectacularly.