https://files.catbox.moe/a6111d.png / https://nitter.poast.org/LinusTech/status/1825956050685800834
If you go the video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsjHMzGl-VY. You will see it’s gone. So Youtube being Youtube.
Here’s a Odysee mirror of the video, https://odysee.com/@jopec:7/linus-tech-tips-degoogle-your-life-part-2-adfree-youtube:0.
I don’t see any mention of the YouTube adblock trick, so from the vid:
Copy YouTube URL. Paste it in Bing and search. Scroll passed Bing’s sponsored bullshit and click on the thumbnail for the video you searched. It will then play, still in Bing, with no ads.
So if you’re on a work or government or w/e computer that doesn’t allow installing adblock extensions, there ya go. No downloads or anything, just YouTube and Bing.
…this is the first time I’ve ever had any interest in using Bing, lol.
Invidious or viewtube are even better.
I run a local instance of invidious and it is…chefs kiss
A local instance can still link your IP to other Google activities, so it’s not really private.
It’s better to run it in a datacenter and use your instance with a few friends afaik.
You mean my VPNs IP
Interesting setup but that works too.
are the instances always flaky and laggy just for me?
YT has been combating them, so they have some trouble lately. Others might be having trouble with the increasing amount of people leaving the Google regime.
Yewtu.be seems to be always strong (although you can’t import your subs there sadly)
the ones i tried were already bad before the crackdown, and turned unusable for me after. includes yewtube.
Scroll passed Bing’s sponsored bullshit
Ah. Still some ads then.
But you’re not forced to actually wait through them like on YT - you can just scroll past.
There’s a chance duckduckgo does something similar, but sadly I can’t check at the moment.
Leaving a comment so I remember to try it later—unless anyone reading is willing to do so.
It does indeed.
Makes sense, it’s basically just a Bing wrapper.
Why is this lengthy process preferable to using ublock on Firefox?
It isn’t. But there are situations where that isn’t an option, like being on a work or government computer where downloading firefox or installing an extension will get you fired. When that’s the case, YouTube+Bing is a “good enough”/“better than nothing” option.
Isn’t he the same person who calls adblocking piracy?
I mean I get that Youtubers have no morals and it’s all about money but that seems excessively hypocritical, even for a Youtube “personality”.
Isn’t he the same person who calls adblocking piracy?
He’s also got a generally nuanced opinion of piracy, in that it’s justifiable in some situations. If you call it piracy and you’re okay with piracy then it’s not really a contradiction.
Being willing to talk about it despite working against your interests isn’t always bad depending on context.
Breaking news, people on the Internet have no concept of nuance.
How dare you make such a direct and personal attack on me!
A fact I struggle with on an almost daily basis…
I had the vague recollection of him having a small-business-owner-brain moment and going on about how it’s theft, and it’s taking money out of his pockets, or something along those lines.
Looks like I may have been either thinking of someone else, or misinterpreted a snippet of video of him ranting about something.
I will admit to not watching his stuff for a good number of years now, and could be totally conflating things.
That was probably his stance when YouTube ad revenue was his stream of income.
In 2024 they pay pennies, and his real income is from sponsorships like those d-brand skins and manscaping utilities. And their own merch, of course.
They’ve been pushing their own media platform (floatplane), so I’m willing to bet this was a bit of a game of chicken with YouTube. YouTube wouldn’t ban one of their biggest channels, and even if they did it’d turn into great publicity for floatplane.
While I don’t think they’d be able to get a lot of their subscribers over to floatplane completely, I do think they’d be able to pull over lots of random views by having their shorts on Facebook, Instagram and whoever else is trying to mimic tiktok these days.
Nah, I’m pretty sure that it was more recent, like 2023 or 2022
Think this was sponsorblock due to above statement
They’ve been pretty good about playing both sides. There have been plenty of videos of how to bypass add traffic and in the same video explaining how they rely on ad traffic . I don’t love everything LMG does but they do seem to be kind of Open about the house wise and why nots of ad blocking.
In 2022 he tweeted this.
That might be what you’re remembering, but he’s definitely addressed his views on piracy during the WAN show several times as well.
Edit: someone else posted the full context elsewhere in the thread. I’d link to that comment, but idk how on lemmy so here: https://archive.ph/VavFc
You’re not misremembering. I remember seeing it on there “podcast” or whatever it is where they talked about it extensively and I believe louis chimed in with a video going over it.
He directly called it bad because it hurt his revenue stream. He is ok with ad blocking as long as it isn’t being done to him. That’s pretty bold if you ask me. A double standard, quite the opposite of nuance. He equated it with entering a cirque due soleil show without paying a ticket, which is a false equivalence. He thinks that he is entitled to have his ads seen as a price of admittance to watching his videos. No one is entitled to have their ads watched.
Source on “he’s ok with ad blocking as long as it’s not done to him”? Doesn’t sound like something he’d say.
The way I see it is if I’m forced to watch ads when watching something, I won’t watch it. In that case, no ad revenue for you because I’m not watching your shit. Now, If I watch it with no ads, you get the same result, BUT I might tell someone to watch your shit or buy some merch. That person I told to watch it might watch your ads and that person would not have watched you without me telling them to. You’re up 1 revenue.
The corporate greed is out of control. The amount of bullshit ads and tracking is insane. I’m blown away by the people that defend this shit.
You’re just justifying your actions. YouTube is not free to run, and the content there is not free to create. You’re a parasite.
Don’t worry, I’m as well - but be honest about it. What you’re doing, and many other gigabrains here, is just pathetic. There is a lot of corporate greed in this world, but this ain’t it.
Google can axe YouTube to stop the bleeding aaaaaanytime they want. And creators can go back to working 9-5 aaaaaanytime they want, too.
When G bought YT, it was clear as day that the site was unprofitable. G bought it anyway. Now they are like ‘but it’s too expensive whaaaaaa’. Bed, sleep in, all that.
Now, for about a third of my subscriptions, I either buy merch or am on their patreon. Some are, amazingly, still there just because they like making videos (no direct monetization), and others I watch their vids but they don’t give me enough reason to financially pitch in.
But you can’t be like ‘oh yt is just some scrappy startup that will fail without your help, you’re killing a platform’. And even the biggest creators out there, I think they are a fucking moron for literally basing their livelihood on a website - run by G, of all companies. gestures to the g graveyard
Not my issue, not my problem. And I’m sure as fuck not going to feel bad about it.
You are just self-important and cannot come to terms with reality, lol. All those creators and their content would not exist in this form, for free, without YouTube. All other platforms are locked behind a paywall.
But geniuses like you then talk down paywalls as well, because how dare they monetize their time?! You just want everything for free - be honest about it.
You are just self-important
Why you looking in a mirror tho?
Nothing important would be lost if yt shut down tomorrow. If all these income-driven ‘creators’ left due to lack of income, returning yt to just self-made videos instead of having budgets in the 5 and 6 figure range, again nothing would be lost.
I am clearly a genius from your perspective though; that’s the only logical statement you’ve made. Congratulations! Maybe some day you will be of comparable brainpower. 🎉
Modders make mods for free. Video creators publish free videos on sites like Youtube or Vimeo today without any revenue stream. Prior to that creators published their content for free on sites like ebaums, or albinoblacksheep, or on personal pages.
Humans want to share. If Youtube had never existed, people wouldn’t have suddenly stopped making videos to share, they should have just found another method of sharing or created their own alternative. The desire to create and share is innate to humanity; the concept of monetary compensation is not.
As for wanting everything to be free (I’m not who you were talking to but I’m responding anyway)… I mean, yeah kind of? Here’s my question: why should everything be paid? I think that’s a backwards mentality. People were sharing stories and art and other creations for no reason other than the love of sharing long before Youtube, and they will keep doing so after. Imo not every effort in life needs to be directly compensated. To me this is the same reason I will never pay for game mod: I want to support and encourage a modding community who mods because they love do it and they love sharing with community, not because they see a possible revenue stream.
Imo turning your hobbies into jobs or “side hustles” is one of the worst consequences of capitalism, and one we should push back against.
Every person is already paying for Youtube with their data. The ads are asking above and beyond.
It would be an entirely different story if Google wasn’t primarily first a data-mining company, but since they are, and since selling that data (or the results of using that data) in of the MAIN revenue streams for their business, it is disingenuous to act like Youtube is some free service that is being offered to us. It’s not; it’s a massive data-mining operation of incredible value as it offers not just demographic information but vastly more details on individual interests and what kind of things they are likely to actually click and interact with than the vast majority of other platforms and sites.
We have got to stop ignoring the data aspect of businesses like Youtube.
Isn’t that essentially what it is? Getting something for free through certain means you wouldn’t get for free otherwise? Which means no money goes to whoever owns the service you’re using?
Say you walk up to some person giving out free samples of food. As a condition of taking this free sample, you also must take a pamphlet of advertisements from the people who are giving you the free sample. You take your free sample, and then walk away while dropping the pamphlet in the nearest trash can. That’s essentially what ad blocking is. You’re simply preventing certain parts of a web page from being downloaded to your device. That’s why people have issues with the “piracy” label, because nothing is being “stolen”. You’re just refusing to take all of it.
More accurate comparison would be taking the sample but refusing the pamphlet. Dropping it in the nearest bin would be skipping the ad after 5 seconds.
No, that’s not what ad blocking is. You just described viewing a traditional “1 banner at the bottom/top” ad. There’s a snowball’s chance in hell that you actually check out/click on the ad after seeing it; you throw it away after seeing it. On the off chance you’re intrigued by the ad, you take it home.
That’s not what ad blocking is. There’s no suitable metaphor for ad blocking IRL, but it’d most nearly be raiding the nearest available ad pamphlet warehouse or interrupting the guy who gets the pamphlets to the foodgiver. Sure, the difference is that nobody gets the ads anymore, but that’s not a bad thing for you, is it? The foodgiver gets no ad revenue for now until delivery is re-established.
Edit: Please say why you think that I’m wrong, just as I did. Thank you for your cooperation. Let’s not be redditors.
There’s no suitable metaphor for ad blocking IRL
Sure there is.
Every week, your community puts on an old movie in the town park that everyone can watch for free. You, an avid movie enjoyer, watch this movie every week.
But, the movie equipment isn’t free. To make this event happen, the community accepts a donation from The Church of Microwaving Babies and Kicking Puppies. In exchange, the Church of Microwaving Babies and Kicking Puppies pauses the movie every 50 minutes and puts on a small two-minute presentation about why you should consider joining and what puppy-kicking can do to improve your life.
You don’t care. You do not agree with their views, and you definitely are never going to join. Instead of paying attention to their mandatory presentation, you stare at your phone and read Lemmy. Then, when the movie is back on, you once again pay attention.
That’s ad-blocking. Some group gains revenue from their publicly available service by having an advertiser peddle their crap through said service. You take an active role in ignoring said crap, while most people just sit there twiddling their thumbs and pretending to care. The only tangible difference between you ignoring the ad while it plays and you blocking it is 60 seconds of your time and the bandwidth required to serve the ad.
Advertisers don’t like it—but fuck the advertisers. The difference that you as an individual makes in how much money is made through advertising is less than a hundredth of a cent. If the impact of the collective using adblockers is enough to be an issue in sustainability, then advertising was not the correct business model to begin with.
Again, that is not ad blocking. That’s just reading the phone while the ad is playing. That preserves the ad revenue, blocking does not.
The difference that you as an individual makes in how much money is made through advertising is less than a hundredth of a cent.
That’s just one view. It adds up within the month.
The thing being stolen is the advertisers ability to advertise, which in turn pays for the platform. So, it is stealing from the platform.
Also, if you take a quick look at the pamphlet and throw it away, that’s the same thing as looking at an ad and ignoring it afterwards. You were still looking at it, so the ad did its job.
Btw, don’t get me wrong, I also use ad blockers for a lot of things. But I do pay for anything that I use for a good amount of time, like Youtube, video games, movies or music.
Nope, you’re not taking anything away from the advertiser. They are free to display but they’re not entitled to being watched. You don’t get penalized for ignoring or closing your eyes during trailers at the cinema. But that is exactly what arguing against ad blockers is. The entitlement of advertisers to your attention. This fundamentally breaks the social contract of ads. Imagine corporations arguing that municipal anti-billboard laws are theft
I’m not arguing against ad blockers, I’m arguing that they are still a form of piracy. Also, if you go to a cinema, you’ve presumably already paid for the ticket, so the cinema has already made money from you…
Yes you are. When closing your eyes during trailers, the cinema still gets paid. When blocking ads, websites don’t get paid.* Billboards are also different, as they don’t give you some sort of service benefit except “land”; they’re equivalent to domain parking ads which are absolutely awful, for which I see no plausible justification whatsoever.
*There was this fork of µblock that tried to just hide them instead of removing them, but that didn’t seem to work when I tried it. I also forgot the name.
Does that make me a pirate if I go to the bathroom during commercial breaks? If I get to a theater late and miss the commercials, am I a pirate?
You’ve already paid to view the movie, it’s not funded by ads. Same with commercial breaks. I presume you’re already paying for the channel or service in some form.
No. The owner of the media has already been paid in both of those scenarios. It makes zero difference to them whether you’re watching the ads.
Adblocking, on the other hand, is actively hurting the owner of the media because they get paid based on how many ads they can serve. If you block the ad, it isn’t served, and they don’t get paid.
Personally, I definitely think it’s piracy. I also still do it.
The thing being stolen is the advertisers ability to advertise, which in turn pays for the platform. So, it is stealing from the platform.
FUUUUUUUUUUUUCK THIS! You seem to think they are somehow entitled to force people to view their shit. They are NOT! I have sovereignty over my computer and my eyeballs, and I have every right to control what happens to them.
Okay, and you are not entitled to use the platform. How do you suppose people are to keep it running? Charity? Good luck with that. In the case of Youtube or Twitch, video streaming is more expensive than you can imagine.
Requesting users play ads but giving them the content even if they don’t means it’s more like asking for a charitable donation than a transaction. They could paywall it but they don’t, and it’s not like there’s a competitor with the same content.
Also, Google feel entitled to record your voice on your phone and send it to their servers. Do they think their users are a charity, or worse?
Youtube can’t paywall the site, since that would create an even bigger outrage than longer ads. But they are already working on unskippable ads, so people won’t be able to block them with conventional means. So to them, it’s not a simple request. Either you watch ads or you pay. I’m personally not a big fan of that, since it feels way too intrusive and dystopian.
And yeah, Google as a whole sucks ass, we all know that. Again, I’m not arguing against stealing from them, but just that it IS indead still stealing/piracy to block ads. If you want to do that or not is a personal decision, but people still need to be aware of what they’re doing.
They are not entitled to force people to look at them, but they are entitled to load them in the browser and display them.
No they’re fucking not! My browser on my computer is my property, not theirs! I have every right to control what it does!
Where the fuck do you get off, claiming that corporations have some sort of right to colonize my computer and subvert it against me? Why do you hate property rights?
Let me spell it out for you even more explicitly: you’re arguing that a fake corporate “person’s” fake “right” (i.e. privilege) to their fake “property” (i.e. temporary monopoly) is somehow superior to an actual person’s actual right to their actual property. (In fact, it’s even worse than that: what you’re really arguing here is that fucking website terms of service – which barely even qualify as a contract! – are superior to property rights.) Do you comprehend, at all, how fundamentally ass-backwards your argument is‽
Yes, you may pirate with your computer and vote for your local pirate party. No, it does not cease to be piracy. You think money just fell out of a coconut tree? Edit: I often do it, and it is piracy, plain and simple.
jinx!
Exactly. Getting media without paying (either in currency or in data for ads). Which they also address and talk about plex and jellyfin to consume the newly “liberated” media. I find his opinion on this quite fair.
Piracy is distributing media you don’t own. How does blocking ads equates with acquisition and distribution of media you don’t own? It doesn’t.
Evading advertisement is not piracy.
Piracy refers to the taking, not the giving.
Pirates didn’t sail the seven seas heading out gold to others.
LTT always seemed “slimy” to me, especially after the whole mistreatment allegations ordeal
Yeah, ever since all that stuff came out just before the new CEO took over, including the video/audio of the sexual harassment meeting which was treated as a total joke, I unsubscribed and stopped viewing their content. I couldn’t reconcile their fun and approachable/friendly image with how they’re treating staff. Moved on to watching more from other creators like Jayztwocents. Unfortunate that people keep turning out to be shitty left and right.
All I want is a tech youtuber that doesnt do clickbait, currently I only know hardware unboxed
GamerNexus and Level1Techs are pretty good at that since they target a much more technical audience. For mobile devices I thought Michael Fisher is also great. High production value and has a very different style.
deleted by creator
Gamersnexus?
Tech Jesus does not fuck around. Jokes aside- it’s a good channel.
He’s a driven-but-not-that-smart type of person from the videos I’ve seen.
I find what happened, and their response to everything, completely unacceptable.
But even if you forget that entirely, i decided to see if anything has changed after a year, and the quality of videos is genuinely shocking. A production studio of such scale makes videos, that your typical 14 year old would find embarrassing. The attitude towards everything, and the overwhelming fake energy, are both very repulsive
He’s right that it’s piracy, he doesn’t go on to say piracy is wrong, and neither would I.
It’s piracy to block ads, and piracy isn’t always wrong, so who cares?
I put the local football game on my tv over antenna. Oh a commercial, I guess I’ll walk away to take a piss now. The swat team busts down my door. I run for my scabbard to resist but with one peg leg I’m not quick enough. The seas are rough sailing for pirates willing to skip ads mateys.
You’re not violating their terms of service by doing that.
But you’re not preventing them from showing the ad if your TV is open while it’s running, so no it’s not the same, what you’re talking about would be you doing the same for ads on YouTube (going to pee while they’re playing) instead of stopping them from playing altogether.
I DVR the game. Later that night I come home to watch. Oh it’s commercial time, I guess I’ll just fast forward 2 minutes.
Peter pan and tinkerbell float through my window. They capture me and tie me up. They shout at me, “Watching ad-supported media without watching the ads is a crime you monster!” as they hold my eyes open while ad after ad replay on the tv. Crime like this isn’t worth it folks.
Again, not the same thing.
I’m close to shore on my ship. “Arr FM plays the best shanties” I say as I tune my radio to my favorite station. After listening for 15 minutes, “Not another ad, I hate these.” I turn the dial to another station still playing some music for 3 minutes and then start to turn the dial back to Arr FM. Just then a cannonball whizzes across my hand. “Oh no, the HMS Pearl is on my tail” I shriek, but it’s too late chain shot has already shredded my sails.
Robert Maynard boards our vessel and puts a sharp sword to my throat. “What say ye in defense you dirty ad-skipping pirate?”
I yell out “But ad-skipping and even ad-blockers are legal! Even the FBI itself suggests using ad-blockers. It’s the responsibility of companies that serve free ad-supported media to ensure the efficacy of their ads but there’s no legal doctrine that says I can’t skip or block ads. Sure it might violate their TOS but they can find ways to block me or make the ads harder to avoid - or even switch to a paid delivery format that is covered by the legal system.”
“That’s no excuse!” he says as he decapitates me. A just punishment for a obvious pirate trying to squirm out of responsibilities such as I. Don’t steal free media kids.
Next time ““piracy”” comes up this is how I want to write a reply.
Aaaand… Again…
But nice story though…
Actually think that’s a rather apt description. Entertainment companies already went after Dish when they had an “AutoHop” commercial feature which included basically a streaming server from your home it would download and be accessible through (link). Kinda interesting because I didn’t know Dish was thinking ahead and had a pre-setup package for people wanting to remote stream home content.
That’s not the same because the advertisement company has already paid the content creator.
Creators also get paid for in video ad reads and product placement. Media providers also make money on data collection regardless of the ads you skip. And furthermore advertising prices have always been based an statistics of reach. Companies like youtube have clearer data than the old Nielsen ratings but they’ve had a pretty accurate numbers of how many users skipped ads through time shifting too that have only gotten better since.
It legally is not piracy in most places. Ethically just watching they are probably making money off of you even if you skip the obvious ads but if you really want to go over the top you could still skip and just find other ways to give money to the platform or creator.
If it’s funded by live ads and the ads fund the creators, then skipping the ads means skipping your payment.
It’s not legally piracy, but it’s the same spirit and the effects are indistinguishable on the creators.
This is nonsense. Your argument is that you’re a pirate if one corporation with no relation to the content fails to pay a corporation which distributes but does not own the content. If you watch an ad then the advertising company refuses to pay you do not suddenly become a pirate.
If a struggling McDonald’s franchise fails to pay some franchisee fee that does not mean you pirated your big mac.
I don’t see how your example is even vaguely similar to mine, and the fact that you used that as an example means you don’t understand my argument.
It’s really not. YouTube doesn’t get to decide what I play on my browser, I do. I just choose to not load the ads, and I choose to skip over sponsor segments manually. I don’t use sponsor block or anything automated like that, I just use a content blocker and the fast-forward buttons YouTube provides.
At what point did I pirate anything? I asked YouTube for content, and it gave it to me. I didn’t ask it for the ads, and it didn’t give it to me. I fail to see where the piracy occurred.
I’m certainly breaking their TOS, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I’m pirating their content.
If I find value in a platform, I’ll pay. I pay for Nebula, for example, because I’ve gotten a lot of value from a number of their creators and prefer to watch their content there than on YouTube. I’ll occasionally buy merch from a YouTuber, and sometimes donate. But YouTube actively tracks me in ways I’m not comfortable with, so I block their trackers and their ads.
…So, you skip the ads using an external program, which prevents the youtube channel you’re watching from getting their money.
That’s the part that makes it piracy. Of course you have the right to do this, I have no ethical problem with it, i’m doing it now, but you have to understand that when you’re doing this you’re preventing the youtube channels you’re watching from getting paid, you’re taking their content without paying them what they asked for in return.
If the youtube channel disables the ads themselves, that’s one thing, but you not watching those ads is not what the youtube channels want… because that’s how they get paid. Getting free content without paying the content maker is… piracy.
I understand your reasoning for calling ad-blocking for piracy, but I’m not sure I agree, or else we have to split “piracy” into degrees.
So what if it has to be split into degrees? The world is a complex place and wishing it was simple doesn’t make it so.
Just use another word for something that is in some ways similar to piracy, but isn’t piracy.
2pt… Had an important point: piracy = copyright infringement.
Blocking ads is a ToS violation, not piracy.
By describing what you mean, instead of a word which often leads to discussions on word definitions, you can avoid the latter.
I found saying “homophobia” lead to talk about “I don’t fear them” (phobia) rather than discussion on mistreatment. So instead I would say “aversion to homosexuality”.
It’s like a free booth that offers products and says donations welcome. It legally is not stealing if you take a free product and don’t give a donation. The enrichment of the creator legally has nothing to do with whether skipping ads is piracy. The creator has the option to stop offering their content for free in the future if they don’t like the money they’re getting from the amount of people watching the ads.
…except that’s violating youtubes terms of service, and skipping paying the content creators.
Which makes it for all intents and purposes piracy.
A restaurant has a sign that says “no shirt no shoes no service”. I walk in barefoot and order a burger. They serve me the burger. They had the right to deny me but they served me anyway. The responsibly to enforce their own terms of service is on them. Similarly youtube has the right to deny service to people blocking ads and sometimes does. That does not make ad blocking piracy for all intents and purposes. The onus to enforce their own terms of service is on them. And it would be very easy for them to take more drastic measures but they don’t.
I get that you’re trying to make an argument that morally it can feel like piracy, but it’s just not actually piracy. No copyright was violated. Youtube’s TOS doesn’t change that.
It’s actually not easy for them to take more drastic measures, and they’re actively working on enforcing it.
The part where the content creator doesn’t get paid and is supposed to according to the rules of the platform that you’re violating is the part where it’s piracy.
There’s no external program, it’s just an extension on my browser, which uses APIs within the browser to instruct it which content to load and which not to load. I tell it to block all kinds of things, from malware to large media elements to ads. YouTube doesn’t get to decide what content it displays in my browser, I do, because it’s my computer.
Yes, I’m preventing channels from getting ad-revenue, but that doesn’t make it piracy. What we call “piracy” is more correctly called “copyright infringement.” I’m not violating anyone’s copyright, the video is freely available to load and watch, I’m just choosing to not load and watch the optional extras that get shipped along with the video. I’m violating YouTube’s TOS, but that doesn’t mean I’m violating copyright in any way, and I don’t even need to login to YouTube to do this either, so it’s not like I formally agreed to anything here.
What the channels want isn’t my concern. If they want to enforce payment, LTT can post the videos to floatplane exclusively, or join up with Nebula.
Getting free content without paying the content maker is… piracy.
That’s absolutely not true. Piracy is copyright infringement, and I’m not infringing anyone’s copyright here.
Here are examples of things that would be piracy/copyright infringement:
- downloading the video and reposting it as my own
- downloading the video and uploading it to another site
- downloading the video and sending it to someone else
Each of those violates copyright because I’m sharing the video with people I am not authorized to share it with. Just watching the content and refusing to load the ads doesn’t violate anyone’s copyright, it just violates YouTube’s TOS, which, AFAIK, isn’t legally binding in any way. They can choose to block me from the platform, but not loading optional extras doesn’t violate any copyright.
Your copyright license to download the video content from YouTube is granted to you by the YouTube Terms of Service. By not agreeing to them, you do not get a license to watch the content.
Copyright law may be dumb and over-reaching but that doesn’t mean you get to redefine it to just avoid an icky word.
If that was true, I would have to agree to YouTube’s TOS to watch videos. That’s not required, so there’s no legally binding agreement between me and YouTube since I haven’t actually signed or accepted anything. My understanding is, I’m not bound to something that’s hidden in a link somewhere and never presented to me.
But even if I were legally bound to the TOS, nothing in the TOS says copyright is granted on the condition that I watch ads. This is the closest that I could see:
The following restrictions apply to your use of the Service. You are not allowed to:
…
- circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage with, or otherwise interfere with any part of the Service (or attempt to do any of these things), including security-related features or features that (a) prevent or restrict the copying or other use of Content or (b) limit the use of the Service or Content;
I don’t think blocking ads counts as “disable… any part of the Service,” it’s just blocking certain web requests. It’s close I guess, but it seems they’re more worried about “hacks” on the service to get access to things you’re not supposed to. For example, accessing adult content w/o making an account would probably count as a violation under this TOS.
There’s no external program, it’s just an extension on my browser
That’s… external software. But even if it wasn’t, it’s still circumventing the youtube terms of service with software.
You’re breaking the terms of service of youtube by doing this… that makes it piracy…
No, breaking TOS doesn’t make it piracy, those are two completely separate concepts.
The part where the content creator doesn’t get paid and is supposed to according to the rules of the platform is the part where it’s piracy.
Honestly you’re just showing your complete lack of knowledge on the topic. Using your logic, downloading a pirated movie and watching it myself, then immediately deleting it, is not copyright infringement.
Despite the fact that it literally is.
Not according to German, French, and I suspect most of other european countries laws. Only torrenting copyright-protected content is against the law because you’re uploading the content (distributing) while downloading.
I can torrent without seeding btw
deleted by creator
That… isn’t at all what is being talked about here.
You’re really spending a lot of energy calling piracy not piracy.
Would you call it piracy to yank out the ad insert from a free newspaper and throw it into the trash without looking at it? Because that’s the exact analog from the non-digital world. Just because the mode of payment changes with the technical abilities of the medium doesn’t change that.
No because the content creator got paid for the ad.
If you show me how that’s physically possible I will concede your point, but until then: No, that’s not nearly the same. You can’t just selectively block physical ads.
While the comparison may make sense when not thinking it through, print is a completely different medium than digital where comparisons only make limited sense. In this one they don’t at all.
Physical media does not track views (directly) or click through numbers, for example.
Request I watch an ad but give me content either way means I can decline the ad. Demand I watch ad and withhold until I do, then I have to watch the ad (or seek another distributor). They asked for a donation, not payment.
If they could they would do that, they just can’t stop you.
They’re trying desperately these days, it’s just a hard problem.
Paywalling content would easily make this a transaction, but they choose to make this optional.
If Google didn’t have such influence over web browser specifications maybe they would give up on adverts - while users are the ones in control of their computers then it will never be up to YouTube what is played on our machines.
It’s really not. YouTube doesn’t get to decide what I play on my browser, I do
Could use the same argument for most games, streaming services, movies that you bought etc. Games that require you run Denuvo or Steamworks to function, streaming sites that require you run that particular browser or app with that particular DRM software, Blu-ray discs that require HDCP to work etc.
You can avoid these companies dictating what you run on your computer by doing one thing…
There is an argument that bypassing cryptographic and security features is a violation of the DMCA and therefore a copyright violation (not piracy unless you distribute though), but that’s also a gray area. E.g. I flashed my Bluray drive with software that allows copying the raw footage after it has been decrypted, so I’m not breaking the encryption, I’m just bypsasing it by copying the decrypted content while it’s in memory. I’m guessing that’s covered under the DMCA.
But blocking ads is nothing at all like that. I’m not breaking any security measures, I’m just not loading their ads. It’s like a DVR only storing the non-ad parts of the video, and those were commercially sold and AFAIK totally legal. I am not legally required to download everything the website asks for, requiring that would be insanity.
And yeah, I could completely avoid these companies, and I could choose to actually pirate content and likely totally get away with it. But what I’m doing (blocking ads, bypassing copyright on content I own and not distributing copies) is in a gray area. Blocking ads isn’t illegal AFAIK, and ripping DVDs and Blurays is in a gray area of the DMCA because I own the physical media (so it could be considered a “backup,” which is allowed).
Let’s go to the early days of “piracy”
You are claiming that fast forwarding the opening trailers and adverts on a rented VHS is piracy.
No, i’m explicitly not, those aren’t tracked and nobody gets paid based on whether or not you fastforward. That makes it not piracy. The content creator gets paid.
nobody gets paid based on whether or not you fastforward
You know skip exists. Advertisers only pay when viewers watch at least 30 seconds of a long ad or engage with it.
Is it piracy if I skip the ads on the DVD I bought?
No, the ads on the DVD you bought have already paid the company that made the DVD.
You skipping those ads has no consequences for anyone, and nobody cares if you skip them.
Calling it piracy doesn’t mean you think it’s the worst thing in the world. I do it unless I like a service, and c’mon, it is piracy.
I’ve literally voted for the “Pirate Party” in my country
There are dozens of us, dozens!
Isn’t he the same person who calls adblocking piracy?
Yes. Because it is, and I do it gladly.
It’s really not. Piracy is sharing content you can’t get legally. Blocking ads is just picking and choosing which content I allow to load on my computer. It’s certainly against their TOS, but AFAIK there’s nothing illegal about it, therefore not piracy.
Yeah, on the WAN Show.
Also I found this, https://archive.ph/VavFc.
Youtubers have no morals? What kind of idiotic generalisation is that?
BTW, adblocking is a form piracy, that I’m completely fine with.
No, that’s called nuance and honesty.
Well it is compareable to piracy just like piracy is effectively stealing. I still partake in both but unlike much of my peers, I’m not lying to myself about what I’m doing.
just like piracy is effectively stealing.
IRL piracy, sure. Digital… not so much.
Stealing is not the perfect term for it but it’s the closest equivalance.
Artists need to be compensated for the work they do, agreed? You wouldn’t expect a photographer to give you a high resolution version of their picture for free despite the fact that they could, for no cost to themselves. They could hand out a million free copies if they wanted to, but they don’t, and we all understand why, right? You need someone to put in the effort to create the original in order for those copies to be made. That’s what we’re paying for.
Now how is pirating movies or games any different? How is that not unfair for the artist(s)?
I was with you until the last paragraph.
The difference is that i don’t give two shits about not enriching multi-billion-dollar media conglomerates that hoard all profits and leave pennies for the actual creators. Hollywood, the music industry and YT fit the bill.
Which is why i buy merch of local bands and/or buy their digital music if it’s available as downloadable media i can keep on my devices (i won’t buy into subscription crap), that way i’m indeed benefiting the actual artist and not some fat middle-man. Bandcamp and hdtracks have served me well lately, other suggestions welcome.
But then the difference is in your personal attitude, not in the act itself. That’s a bit like saying that it’s okay to screw over a small artist because they’re a jerk. It’s just an excuse to justify the behaviour to yourself.
Btw. that’s how I justify pirating movies as well. I still consider it stealing though. I just don’t feel any remorse for it.
Yeah, piracy is illegal and it’s, in practice, stealing IRL but digital piracy ain’t stealing for sure. You’re not subtracting anything…
They can and do claim that they lost revenue but they can never claim you stole the movie - they still have it, you just didn’t pay them for an extra copy. Rip a friend’s DVD, same thing.
Now if you were to hack them and steal all the movie raw material… but then again, Hollywood just spews out garbage nowadays,
Anyway not a lawyer, don’t care, stay safe.
But it is? Don’t lie to yourself. We all do it but it’s still piracy, and it’s okay.
He’s already way past caring about anything other than money. He just gets the script and lends his known face for the video… regardless of anything else.
Can’t entirely blame the guy though, cuz when he gets going you quickly see what an asshat he actually is, but he did have passion for the content a few years ago.
I just wish LTT would fade into irrelevancy already, it’s just shallow clickbaity content that hardly provides any value. I’m also just waiting for their next workplace abuse accusations… the place is known to be abusive for years.
This is what I’m referring to https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZjJUVsmjIj4
It has been definitely downplayed and sugarcoated for public audience, but the shitty workplace smells a mile away…
Massive cunt is actually a massive cunt irl.
I don’t care for Linus these days but respect for that.
Yeah, I got tired of his videos half-assing the work and the failed reviews hurting small manufacturers while Linus doubled down after GN documented their failures.
But this I can get behind.
Doubled down? After being called out they slowed the upload cadence, are taking more time to make sure mistakes don’t get through, and changed their production process. They also formed a volunteer team of “beta tester” viewers who see each video pre-release to catch any mistakes they didn’t internally. I think they handled it well. Of course it would be better if they didn’t have a problem in the first place, but I’d never call it “doubling down”.
There was an initial reaction from Linus on his forums where he massively doubled down on his stance that he had not done anything wrong with the review model LTT had auctioned off without permission (I can’t remember the name of the company). He had even accused GN of not following “journalistic standards” by not giving LTT a chance to put their side forward.
This was met with another video from GN, and overall criticism over the dismissive attitude Linus was displaying. That’s when they came out with a YT video, admitting their numerous faults, and Linus himself admitted that the way he responded on the forum was not acceptable.
Pretty much doubled down initially, till they realised that they’re in actual deep waters.
I would wager money on the suspicion that deep down, Linus probably still thinks he did nothing wrong.
And that the actual change only came about because the people around him (like his wife and executives) threatened/forced him into changing positions.
Cause we got a good glimpse into the kind of person Linus was when that whole thing started, by selling the prototype that wasnt his, then going out and lying about being in contact with the company, who he lied about forgiving him and making a deal to make up for it… Which was quickly rebuked by GN asking the company if Linus had contacted them, to which they said “No”
And the kind of guy that does that kind of shit, isnt the kind of guy that suddenly goes “Okay, I screwed Up, I did it, I’m sorry” without someone behind the scenes threatening catastrophic personal consequences.
Cause we got a good glimpse into the kind of person Linus was when that whole thing started, by selling the prototype that wasnt his, then going out and lying about being in contact with the company, who he lied about forgiving him and making a deal to make up for it…
10’000%
This is what all his rabidly loyal fans miss. He showed true colours during this incident.
Fair enough. Still commendable for taking the heat himself without ever mentioning which employee made the mistake with misallocating the review item to the charity auction.
It is, but it also genuinely isn’t their fault.
He pointed to their failure at inventory management because the fact that they didn’t have a functional setup for it is a systems problem, not the individual.
It’s their inventory, it’s their fault.
It isn’t the fault of the employee he refused to call out.
It’s the fault of the company.
He has a legit point that Steve did not give LTT a chance to comment. “He doesn’t have to!” Maybe. But he gave the other side a ton of airtime/chances to comment. It was very one sided and while GN made some good points, it felt like a hit piece. And Linux, imo rightfully, felt a little betrayed by a guy he’d worked with in the community.
His reaction wasn’t great but it was that of a guy who was defending his team and from someone he’d probably consider a ‘friend’ impugning his integrity and dragging them without giving them any opportunity to comment or even letting him know it was coming–two very common practices/norms.
A unflattering view of GN vid is that he felt threatened by LTT labs entering the space and he wanted to get out in front of that an expose"how unreliable" they are. He didn’t give LTT a heads up or allow them to comment because he knew they’d have a solid response. He blindsided him on purpose.
All that said, GN did Linus a favor. It accelerated his transition away from CEO and forced them to review their dumb production rates and the videos that are coming out now are better than ever.
Ironically, it left a sour taste in my mouth about Steve and I haven’t watched any of his videos since.
deleted by creator
That was AFTER the backlash increased after he doubled down.
Not initially. Linus mouthed off as he likes to do on his own podcast before eating crow after GN reinforced their claims.
Yeah, I don’t like Linus all that much but I do enjoy LTT’s content overall. He tends to drastically and publicly overreact to literally any criticism, and then the rest of the team gets involved and he walks it back. Whether they legitimately change his mind or just convince him he’s gotta look like he’s changed his mind I have no clue.
My favorite instances of Linus are when he’s an absolute idiot on the WAN show and we just get to see Luke’s reaction live. The hard-r thing was absolutely hilarious.
Yeah Luke’s look of “oh no bro, stop” is pretty much a staple of the WAN show.
but I do enjoy LTT’s content overall.
I used to as well, up until the storage server video and their Linux challenge.
I lost every shred of respect and interest after Linus showed his true colours during the Billet Labs nonsense.
They said they did all that. But actually Watching the videos? It’s the same shit as before. Sloppy edits, errors in the comments etc.
After being called out, this genius doubled down on his actions and defended his methods all the while inserting an ad right in the middle of a response video.
It was then that he lost my respect.
Doubled down?
Yes, doubled down. After being called out Linus made two separate long posts about why he wasn’t wrong.
They also formed a volunteer team of “beta tester” viewers who see each video pre-release
So using free labour instead of just doing their jobs? If they can’t “catch any mistakes internally”, then they’re just bad at their jobs (which they are).
I think they handled it well.
Yes, the PR team they used gave them a good corporate playbook to work with.
“Slowed the upload cadence” is just another way to say “wait for this to blow over”.
I used to watch LTT, mostly because it was interesting from the “let’s see what those guys have to say”. I had zero interest in their technical expertise because, well, they don’t really have any. They’ve always been clowns, but after their storage server video and their Linux “challenge” I lost all respect for any talent or knowledge they claimed to have. After the Billet Labs incident I lost any shred of respect I had for them.
They are clowns.
I have no longer watched their content since the scandal.
Which one?
Probably the sexual harassment one that’s when I left. The billet labs stuff was bad too though.
Feels like I remember that one getting pretty good proof Linus didn’t do anything, but could be wrong
Linus wasn’t accused of sexually harassing anyone. His company was accused of being a hostile work environment with sexual harassment by a former worker, but the accusations weren’t against Linus himself. LTT hired a 3rd party law firm to investigate - LTT said the law firm basically said there wasn’t legal liability based on the documentation they could find and LTT used that to absolve themselves and threaten to sue the accuser if she said anything else.
But this was an LTT hired lawfirm and LTT themselves reporting on what the report said - and since it’s confidential you kind of just have to take their word that they’re accurately reporting the findings. Further there were initially some corroborators of Madison’s story who retracted and apologized quickly (assumingly after being threatened with legal action - Aprime is the example). Besides that a lot of the accusations were things that happened in person that wouldn’t necessarily leave a digital trail so it’s possible even if the 3rd party investigation was completely unbiased that everything Madison said was still true.
In the end believe what you want but it seems slimy enough that I stopped watching.
One of the major accusations was that they asked too much of Madison for a single person to accomplish, and fired her over not meeting their expectations. While this is not great, it’s not legally problematic.
Yeah you’re correct on the accusations, I should have clarified.
But with that approach it doesn’t sound like there is anything an organization could do against false accusations that would absolve them of wrongdoing. I’m all for bashing corrupt/horrible companies, but it feels like there should be at least some presumption of innocence unless there is any kind of proof. Painting all accused with the same brush just leads to devaluing the brush IMO. But like you said, people may (and will) believe what they want, and people are under no obligation to watch or support any creator unless they want to. In my case I just haven’t seen any proof of wrongdoing (in this case, gamersnexus controversy was worse IMO).
What do you think a company should do in that situation, assuming it is being falsely accused? What would a “perfect” response be? I cant think of a much better one than what LTT did, given their circumstances, but would love to hear what a better response would look like.
People can say nothing was done but the only info you’re going to get is going to be from the accusers. The company isn’t going to speak publicly about it and so we won’t ever know what their views are or what proof they have.
They hired an external firm to investigate themselves and they found nothing, while the accuser had zero proof. There is plenty of things to accuse them for, the gamers nexus thing for one, but I’m a bit annoyed about false accusations sticking so hard when there is little reason to believe it. If anything it makes people less likely to believe actual victims.
This was my impression. All of their scandals they’ve taken extremely seriously(it appears), done the work to fix and improve, and a lot of their issues seem to be results of fast scaling and organizational level problems that can be fixed.They haven’t just swept things under the rug where they’re able to be transparent. I just think the problem is what Luke has always said: When you open a company up to transparency, you gain criticism, and then the company has large incentives to shut down that transparency because all you use it for is to cause them problems.
Aside from that, the LTT community and outsiders seem very toxic toward them.
Okay Amber, what’s the verdict on that?
I stopped because they are bro douchebags.
Even Luke, who I always agreed with the most and seemed the most level-headed has talked about their hiring process and said that, if you don’t have personal projects, it’s highly unlikely that you’ll be considered for a position in LTT.
Supposedly it’s because that shows a “lack of passion”. Personally, I find that rather toxic. Like, dude, I do this for work and I also have a life. I literally do not have enough time to exercise, take care of my loved ones and also maintain personal projects.
I don’t see the problem… having side projects will improve your chances at MANY jobs, and even applying for university if they’re related to your field. Even if you have no time at all, if you’re genuinely passionate about technology, I’d expect you to at least have aspirational goals for things on the side. A side project does not have to be finished or maintained to show “passion”.
The entertainment company doesn’t want to hire boring 9-5 drones just in it for the paycheck. Big surprise. They’re allowed to be selective.
Having hobbies outside of your profession does not mean you’re a “drone”. Quite the opposite.
I think you’re completely misunderstanding what I’m trying to say. The hobbies ARE the side projects. They don’t have to be the same as your job.
But it’s still sitting in front of a computer programming. I do that but not that often. I’m already programming 8-9 hours a day. My interests go way beyond that.
I have not once said anything about programming in this discussion. The side project could be knitting for all I care. I specifically said it’s not important if the side projects are directly related to your job.
Well, don’t think their IT positions are competitive when it comes to salaries, compared to major tech companies. Also considering their offices are in Vancouver, you probably aren’t going to work their to make bank.
It’s a bit of a selection bias out of necessity…
*there
None of the things you mentioned justify having a toxic hiring policy/work culture.
I’ll be that guy. I don’t understand why LTT gets so much crap from people constantly, they seem to have a very toxic community even without the scandals. But in regards to the more recent scandal, I really think a lot of those things are fixable and I’ll be watching to see if they fix them.
As far as the sexual harassment stuff goes I can see that as a legitimate reason to stop watching. At the same time though, how should we feel with such limited and one sided information? And especially how should I feel if the problems aren’t inherent to the company and if they don’t reoccur?
Maybe someone can help clear this up for me because I’m not that informed and I’m still giving them a chance but maybe I shouldn’t be.
Check the other comment thread from the parent, there’s a discussion which goes into it.
I don’t understand why LTT gets so much crap from people
Because their clowns. Literally. Their content is pure tech entertainment with constant immature humour and little substance. The way they present themselves is like a group of teenagers messing around.
Then there’s their “expertise”. They don’t know tech beyond a Windows “power user”.
But in regards to the more recent scandal, I really think a lot of those things are fixable and I’ll be watching to see if they fix them.
Linus showed his true colours during the Billet Labs incident. He doubled down hard, and I’m convinced that even today Linus feels like he did nothing wrong. They have zero reputation to salvage, IMO.
Same.
Thanks for sharing? Why is every Lemmy single comment section filled with unrelated iamverysmart comments.
Excuse me, I use Arch and Firefox with uBlock.
Ok linus.
Friendly reminder that pirates didn’t usually stole gold. Piracy was stealing shipping goods, then selling them for profit at some port. Digital piracy is thus defined as acquiring, and then distributing for profit, media that you don’t own the copyrights of. Ad blocking is categorically not piracy.
Well that’s a thumbnail I’d never click on
Their video about thumbnail A/B testing was quite interesting to see. Considering how they have dedicated designers to make these thumbnails I guess that works pretty well, despite your personal opinion on it, with which I agree too.
Unfortunately this is just the way it is on YT now. Post clickbait thumbnails, or miss out on hundreds of thousands of views. Because that’s the way YT likes it. They don’t want to positively weight long-term high-quality content, they want to promote clickbait.
If someone cares about their view count then you shouldn’t give their content your time of day
Quite the opposite. If they didn’t care about the view count the content wouldn’t exist in the first place. No one makes content with the intention of no one watching it, and they certainly don’t make high quality content that requires a team of people and expensive equipment.
They make them because it’s fun/they are passionate
And that makes them higher quality
At a bare minimum they make them because they’re passionate about sharing with others. In which case they care about the view count. Once again, no one makes a video and uploads it to a video-sharing platform and doesn’t care who watches it.
Having the time and money to dedicate to making high quality content makes them higher quality. If they have to work a 9-5 doing something else, and they record everything on a Galaxy S4 because they have no money, it’s bound to be lower quality or just non-existent.
You need to spend more time around small channels
LTT is a good example of how what you’re saying is bullshit. All the money in the world but they’re still tech illiterate people making tech videos
Dude, this isn’t the Youtube of 2006 anymore.
Content creating, whether for TV, Radio, or Internet is a job.
Just ignore the people trying to change that
As part of the mindless horde of sub-intellectual gremlins, i have to say that while i dont love thumbnails like that, i still click on the video because i know it’ll be quality
And that’s why I have Dearrow. Bye bye bait thumbnails and titles.
Problem is that these people still get views then
People start yt channels for a lot of reason and probably the biggest reason is money. I don’t really understand your fixation over yt channels only being passion project.
Especially with some channels being financially successful labors of love like Red Letter Media.
i understand even less when people are saying that when someone does something out of passion it should allow us to consume it for free
You have to understand shit like these thumbsnails arent made for people like you and me.
They are made for the mindless horde of sub-intellectual gremlins who are incapable of rational, independent thought. The kind that run out and put sandpaper on their windshield wipers and microwave their phones to “fast recharge” them because they saw a video that said to do that.
and the sad, terrifying reality, is these mentally stunted little goblins outnumber us by margins that are too terrifying to even think about.
Aren’t you just such a smart, special, edgy boy
Weird take, but you do you man.
Username checks out
This is why I love my username.
Cause its low hanging fruit that people who can mount no actual counter point cant resist the urge to reach for.
Whether or not it’s a valid counter point you continue to act superior when all you achieve is be a massive dick to people that don’t mind the thumbnail or video
Projecting a bit with that whole “Acting superior” claim, aintcha.
well, there are quite a lot of stupid things i did as a kid. kids just need to learn critical thinking through experience.
i would guess, that a large audience of youtube is kids: except retirees, they usually have the most free time.
Yes, because nothing says “intellectual superiority” quite like ranting about thumbnails on the internet…
We should all endeavor to learn from your shining example.
All of their thumbnails are unfortunately click-baity. They spoke about ut in an older video. Apparently, the click-baity images drive too much traffic for them to justify something more subtle.
Oh, no I totally get it. I’m well aware I’m in the tiny minority that are put off by them. It’s just the kind of illusion that once it gets broken you can no longer unsee it.
It’s the same with clickbait headlines. If it’s a question, the answer is no.
“Is this the end of Russia?”
No.
keeps on scrolling
There’s a Firefox plugin that replaces YT thumbnails with stills from the video. It makes browsing YT so much better.
Why does this and maybe something to replace the title with just an accurate thesis statement kind of titlesounds so good to me!
Dearrow does both.
what the shit is going on with that neon ass hair
They let Luke bleach it on the wan show.
He’s never done it before, and took too long so some parts are ultra blonde and others are barely different.
Doesn’t matter how good the video is if nobody clicks on it, Veritasium already made a great one about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng
/r/punchablefaces material
I bet they removed it faster than a porn video on YouTube Kids! 😲
don’t you know, it’s hate speech against corporate profits
Funny, considering in the past he’s gone on big rants about how adblocking is no different from piracy, and is theft.
But then again, its Linus we’re talking about, its not like he has a particularly big issue with theft anymore.
I don’t understand why people are all pro-piracy but then get offended when someone accuses them of piracy…
He never went on any “big rants”. He’s mentioned it a few times, and he’s right. You’re bypassing payment (in the form of watching ads) to watch the video. LTT doesn’t really care because AdSense only makes up a small portion of their income, which is why he’s shown many different times, many different ways to block/bypass advertising. I could make an argument about how he’s “pulling up the ladder behind him” but I digress.
Regardless “piracy” is a fairly convoluted term with no concrete definition and it’s a dumb argument for anyone to have.
I think he mentioned that ad-blocking is priacy, but I don’t recall he said piracy is theft or piracy is inheritly unethical.
He mentioned many time that he pirates stuff, except he would pay for them first.
He did address this in the video
Do you have a source? I’ve watched his videos for awhile but I don’t remember hearing this take from him.
It’s a little bit more nuanced than that. Yes you’re denying ad revenue but it’s not a bad thing.
“These are my Principles and if you don’t like them, I have others”
Of course de-googling your life is a violation of the terms is service…
What happened to his hair?
D-Brand paid him to bleach it.
i don’t know if this is serious or a joke
They gave him, quote, “a big bag of money”
Respect. I’d do the same for a big bag of money. Im bald btw. But even…
Hey wait, this is monopoly money!?
Serious
Ah so its war you want, YouTube.
Obligatory Louis Rossmann commentary on the matter. https://youtu.be/qHwP6S_jf7g?feature=shared
It has been reuploaded already with a nice “re-upload” added in the thumbnail.
I don’t see it, probably it was removed again
Actually, it’s not on their channel. I just checked again, its on a channel called “floresdorf gaming”.
I was wondering if i had misread foreskin gaming.
…to the surprise of absolutely no one who’s been paying attention. They got rid of the coalmine canary clause like a fucking decade ago.
