You are still not understanding. EU law doesn’t protect you from having to pay for goods and services. EU law just banned tools like adblock detection, because you have a right to privacy under data protection law.

It’s like going to the store and hiding a pack of chewing gums in your pocket. If a store employee accuses you of stealing, they have no legal basis to force you to show the gum. They don’t have elevated law enforcement rights. Your pocket is private.

In the same way, google is not allowed to act on the information, that you use adblock. It’s still violating their TOS, which you ACCEPT by accessing their platform. Since we don’t have a petty internet police, nobody will proscecute you for it.

Immorality only lies in circumventing ads via third party solutions. By that, you don’t follow the contract, you have no right to consume their content, then.

I think that’s morally quite okay… well, compared to people’s general mindset in this thread.

But still, think about your creators without YouTube. Where do they go? Nebula? Maybe something like that would work. Likely, if YT is no more. Would that change anything? Not really. There will always be problems, the bigger something is, the worse it gets.

Also, I don’t understand your reference, but that’s okay.

The nutella butter thing was kind of a meme, bit kf ragebait. It’s a shit comparison, on purpose. It’s so shit, you should understand my point through that.

IDK maybe I’m bad at english or something, but this is exactly my point. Either you pay, or you watch ads. Both is okay, they get paid. I just don’t think YouTube with ads is a better deal than Premium, due to the amount of videos and therefore ads a regular person watches on the daily.

Watching with ads is completely fine. I just cannot justify watching 15-30 seconds of ads for a single video (it’s probably more nowadays).

I actually did say just about that in my post, so I don’t see how you disagree with me.

There’s still people doing that. In fact, that’s like 90% I’d say.

I think there’s SmartTube for smartTv’s. Not sure how parental control stuff works.

Yeah, Nebula is great. But other than being not Google, their platform works in similar ways. You pay, you get content… I mean, how could they even change that anyway?

As of now, Lemmy is still quite niche. People wouldn’t generate a high, stable income on Lemmy sized platforms. It’s fine if it’s just for fun, but it’s not really viable as a full business.

Streaming platforms that compete with YT conform to most exactly the same conditions. They need some form of income.

I think you misunderstood. Them making money trough straight payments AND through ad revenue are both completely fine incomes.

However, there is no morality in denying them both while still benefiting from their goods and services. You’d support my argument if it was about some local busines. For some odd reason this shifts peoples perspecives. Someone offers something and says “hey it’s not for free, but I won’t actually know if you paid or not” (well YouTube does know, but that’s secondary)… It’s not right to deny them their pay. There are no consequences to it, but you know that it’s not sustainable if everybody thinks like you.

I think you misunderstood. Them making money trough straight payments AND through ad revenue are both completely fine incomes.

However, there is no morality in denying them both while still benefiting from their goods and services. You’d support my argument if it was about some local busines. For some odd reason this shifts peoples perspecives. Someone offers something and says “hey it’s not for free, but I won’t actually know if you paid or not” (well YouTube does know, but that’s secondary)… It’s not right to deny them their pay. There are no consequences to it, but you know that it’s not sustainable if everybody thinks like you.

I think you misunderstood. Them making money trough straight payments AND through ad revenue are both completely fine incomes.

However, there is no morality in denying them both while still benefiting from their goods and services. You’d support my argument if it was about some local busines. For some odd reason this shifts peoples perspecives. Someone offers something and says “hey it’s not for free, but I won’t actually know if you paid or not” (well YouTube does know, but that’s secondary)… It’s not right to deny them their pay. There are no consequences to it, but you know that it’s not sustainable if everybody thinks like you.

If your answer to those questions is no…

You clearly know my stance about consumption of goods and services. I wouldn’t say no to that.

Alphabet is a for profit company. They have every right to be. If they do something, it’s to generate income in some way, at some point. Google Maps is here for a multitude of reasons. User data is what comes to mind. They also take sponsorship money. Be a restaurant, pay money to be on top of the “restaurants in x city” results. GSuite has a business model, the free model also tries to make you stay with Google. Of course this stuff can cost money. Of course it’s also fine if they absolutely milk you for your personal data, as long as you agree, which in the past (and future) has been a problem… not topic of the day.

If they charge money (or ad consumption) for something and I don’t feel like paying, I’m not using. This is the gist of it.

Explain how it isn’t. If you’re happy about removing mid to longform video content from the internet, yeah, whatever mate. I don’t think I have an argument to disarm this attack, other than the fact that you stamd with a very small group of people.

If creators decide to use another platform, the other platform will also only exist aslong as people either consume ads or pay money, which, in your argument, wouldn’t happen.

If creators decide to create individual small group platforms, have fun in border gore. People will not find nearly as many interesting videos with just curious browsing. Plus, I don’t see many creators surciving that. Plus, I don’t see many small creators rising in that economy.

I’m not sure if Linus Tech Tips agree with me, but from context, I’ll assume so. Anyway, the free market isn’t a real argument to me. All it tells me is that YouTube and most big creators have a solid business model.

My argument consists of basically two aspects:

Paying money for Youtube content is better value than watching ads for YouTube content. Your time and to an extent mental state is, for 95% of users, worth more than that money.

Not paying money and not watching ads is not sustainable and morally reprehensible. Their service doesn’t finance itself if nobody grants it any income. It they demand a compensation for their goods and services, you are to either compensate them or forego the offer. You cannot just assume that a bunch of other people compensate for the lost income through you. It morally doesn’t work like that. If you do that, you better be okay with financially stablr people stealing in grocery stores too.

Darum geht’s auch nicht. Koro ist ne lifestyle Marke (geworden). Die machen Werbung über Influencer auf Social Media. Rügenwalder ist IMO ne gute Marke, hat aber keinen Status wie Koro. Das lockt nicht veganer dazu, solche Produkte zu probieren. Das ist doch gut.

Hauptvorteil hierran ist doch ganz klar Marketing, Werbung. Rügenwalder hat IMO grossen Einfluss auf den deutschen convenience “Fertigfleisch” Markt. Früher pures Fleisch, heute eigene Fleischalternativen-Produktion. Ja, das ist Marktforschung und Gewinnoptimierung, trotzdem gut und schön.

Popularität und lifestyle (nicht nur unter Bestandsveganern) in den Markt der veganen Alternativen zu bringen, das ist gut.

Yeah I did it the other day on my lunch break.

Well, the F16 is called Prius and shooting down the F16 with an RPG is called grabbing McD from the drive through window. But you know, I was really far from the window and had to open the door to step out with one foot.

By extension, air cooling is global thermal mass cooling, which, by extension is radiative cooling, which by extension is universal entropy cooling or whatever you’d call that.

Aber ein Helm verhindert nicht Unfälle, sondern mindert das Risiko einer starken Kopfverletzung.

Ja, Verletzungen am Kopf fallen mit Helm im Schnitt deutlich weniger dramatisch aus, als solche ohne, sofern die verglichenen Unfälle gleichwertig sind.

Problem jedoch: Helme führen zu mehr Unfällen. Das wurde mal irgendwo in einem wissenschaftlichen Artikel behandelt und mit deutlicher Signifikanz für Wahr befunden. Ich selbst halte nix von Aussagen ohne Quellen, leider konnt ich die aber aufm Klo gerade nicht finden.

Tja, naja. Auch war im Artikel vermerkt, dass unklar ist, was dazu führt, dass Helmträger mehr Unfälle haben. Tragen riskantere, schnellere, sportlichere Fahrer öfter Helm? Wahrscheinlich. Wird bei der Frage ob man einen Helm trug gelogen? Vielleicht.

Die Idee ist jedoch, dass man sich selbst als Fahrradfahrer sicherer Fühlt, wenn man Schutzausrüstung trägt. Kann ich für mich selbst bestätigen. Auch realistisch: Dritte handeln “Fahrlässiger”, wenn der Radfahrer weniger verletzlich wirkt.

Fazit für mich selbst: Helm tragen und so tun als wären alle Verkehrsteilnehmer inkl. mir selbst richtig dumm.