• Maticzpl@programming.dev
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    11 months ago

    Worst case scenario, they won’t respond for requests for the actual content of the video untill the duration of the advert passes.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      The worst case scenario is that they only serve video to logged-in users, require accounts to be verified with government-issued ID, and enforce the whole thing with the web browser DRM they just proposed.

      Make no mistake: this is a war on the public’s property rights and their right not to have ads inflicted on them Clockwork Orange-style. It can get a lot worse than you think, and will unless we force the government to stop them legislatively.

      • TheFogan@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Honestly I can’t fathom this concept. Youtube isn’t a right. It’s an optional service. Why aren’t we all up in arms about the 5,000 porn sites that have paywalled their services for years? IMO the response to “youtube won’t let users use the site without ads” should be “lets help peer tube be more succesful” Just as we are here rather than trying to make a law to get reddit to open up their API for free.

        I don’t like youtube. But I don’t think it’s fair or viable to mandate them allow their content for free without ads. That’s a bit like mandating hotels give rooms for free. Hosting videos costs a non zero amount of money. Google intends to make more money from advertisements then they spend on hosting videos.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Honestly I can’t fathom this concept. Youtube isn’t a right.

          You know what is a right? Your property right to control the operation of your computer. Google is, as we speak, trying to violate that right by colonizing it with DRM and subverting your property to serve their own ends instead of yours.

          Google has the right to serve a 403 error to anybody who refuses to pay, but they do not have the right to usurp control of people’s property to forcibly display ads. And make no mistake, it’s very much the latter that they (and all the other companies) are trying to do, as evidenced by things like this.

          Do you “fathom” it now? How much clearer do I need to make it?

          • TheFogan@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I’m missing here. This isn’t the sony rootkit to my knowledge. Right now we’re talking about youtube itself detecting it’s ads aren’t being shown and throwing up a page blocking the rest.

            “Evidenced by” a non google service putting ads in it’s premium service? Don’t get me wrong it’s bullshit, but again a reason to not use spotify.