• stephen01king
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    And yet he never said not to adblock, so the only thing he claims are the categorization of adblocking.

    • AstralPath@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’d argue this as well. I see it in a similar way. Linus is obviously not trying to sit on some high horse and condemn piracy, he’s just calling a spade a spade.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        No, he’s calling a spade a backhoe. Piracy is one of two things, depending on your definition:

        • sharing/accessing copyrighted material you don’t have the rights for (i.e. seeding or downloading a torrent)
        • circumventing technical restrictions on copyrighted content (e.g. DRM)

        Blocking ads does neither of those things, it merely blocks loading of content that you don’t want to see. It’s basically the modern version of a DVR, where you can choose to cut out portions of a video that you don’t want (e.g. the ads).

        These things are technically piracy:

        • using a YouTube downloader
        • sharing downloaded YouTube videos
        • posting a YouTube video that you don’t own
        • using substantial portions of a YouTube video you don’t own w/o authorization in your own video (i.e. beyond Fair Use)

        Blocking ads isn’t one of those things, neither is skipping over parts of a video you don’t want to see (i.e. the sponsor segment).

        Blocking ads reduces revenue to Google and the video creator. That doesn’t make it piracy, it’s just being a jerk to the platform and the creator.

    • Ilandar@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      And yet he never said not to adblock

      In those tweets? Sure. But that’s not an argument I was making, so this is a strawman from you that doesn’t actually counter any of the evidence I have provided. Did Linus say ad-blocking was piracy? Yes. Did Linus say ad-blocking was theft? Yes.

      Whether you think this is moral hypocrisy is irrelevant to me. I was only calling out the previous commenter who straight up lied about Linus’s history and then attempted to frame the people who were right as uninformed and wrong.

      • stephen01king
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The comment was replying to one about it being funny that Linus made a video about adblocking when he considers adblocking piracy. That would imply he is against adblocking in general, which your links does not show.

        Yes, he considers it piracy, but he is not against adblocking, which is why the original point of the parent comment doesn’t make sense.

        • Ilandar@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Read that second paragraph from me again:

          Whether you think this is moral hypocrisy is irrelevant to me. I was only calling out the previous commenter who straight up lied about Linus’s history and then attempted to frame the people who were right as uninformed and wrong.

          If you want to have a debate about the parent comment, debate the person who made the parent comment. That’s not me and I do not care about the point you are trying to make here.

          • stephen01king
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I did read it the first time, which is why I brought up the context of the first comment, which implied that Linus is against adblocking.

            The comment you claimed to be lying is talking about the actual context of why Linus compared adblocking with piracy, which is about content creators and payment of their content.

            I’m only calling you out for making a point that is not in the context of the actual thread, not against the proof of what you posted in the first place, so I’m not sure we’re even in disagreement here.

            • Ilandar@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              I brought up the context of the first comment, which implied that Linus is against adblocking.

              It didn’t. Read it again:

              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 Linux we’re talking about, its not like he has a particularly big issue with theft.

              He literally said both of those things. I have proven this. Someone asked for a source. Another person replied with:

              No, because that isn’t Linus’s take.

              But because he uttered something in favor of ads on his videos-which is how they got paid-he’s now considered ultra pro invasive ads by the user above

              As I have proven, Linus literally said both of those things. That was his take in 2022. At this point in the comment chain, no one has implied Linus is “against ad-bliocking”. They have only stated that he believed it was no different to piracy and theft, which is true. This third person in the chain was the one who actually brought up the “he’s against ad-blocking” argument as a strawman - that was never never implied in the original parent comment.

              The comment you claimed to be lying is talking about the actual context of why Linus compared adblocking with piracy

              No it’s not. That is quite clearly not what it was in response to. Again, read the the comment chain carefully here. You are taking things that were said or implied in other comment chains (or just completely fabricated) and pretending that they were what the comment chain I was involved in was related to.

              • stephen01king
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Why would the first comment said it is funny for Linus to make a how to adblock video if he is not implying that a Linus against adblock? Please explain how that logic works.

                • Ilandar@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  It is funny that YouTube took down his video detailing how to circumvent its revenue stream after he claimed doing so was piracy and theft.

                  • stephen01king
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Yeah, because you YouTube is against adblocking. It would be more surprising if they don’t.

                    Now answer my question why it’s funny for Linus to make such a video when he isn’t against adblocking, and how that would mean the parent comment wasn’t implying that he is against adblocking.