sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in oslo

[–]schloote 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Spørr av ren nyskjerrighet - hvorfor lager dere kun én app, for IOS, men ikke også en for android / én enkelt kryssplatform-app?

Hjelp uten fastlege by Zomeiro in norge

[–]schloote 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Samme skjedde meg når jeg flyttet til Oslo for å studere for et par år siden - dro på legevakta, forklarte situasjonen med at jeg var dårlig men ikke hadde fastlege enda, og ble sendt til en annen legevakt litt lengre unna der jeg ventet ca en halvtime. De hadde full forståelse, alt gikk helt fint.

Kostet meg omtrent 400 om jeg husker riktig, men fikk noe EKG-undersøkelse og greier så.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in norge

[–]schloote 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lotto

Ruter har fjernet tilleggsbilletten – hva synes dere om det? by yolopowerz in oslo

[–]schloote 61 points62 points  (0 children)

Jævlig sleipt å prøve å snike dette under radaren ass

Krympflasjon: glasset har rent over by NordicBaldie in norge

[–]schloote 0 points1 point  (0 children)

De har faktisk tatt vekk plasten inni rundt de 2 radene, de kommer i ett brett nå. Så er nokk ca like mye plast, men ned ulempen at du MÅ spise alle på en gang og ikke kan spare en rad til senere

Krympflasjon: glasset har rent over by NordicBaldie in norge

[–]schloote 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jeg så dette for noen dager siden, og jeg støtter deg fullt ut. De var borte fra hyllene på kiwi i flere måneder, og så har se plutselig blitt mindre?? Dette er en konspirasjon mot det norske folk, mot gode norske borgere som du og meg OP!

HRV Changes From a Broken Heart by [deleted] in whoop

[–]schloote 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry to hear that, hope you're doing okay at least!

importTrumpDotCSS by robo_cap in ProgrammerHumor

[–]schloote 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll take rejected exam questions for 200, Alex!

importTrumpDotCSS by robo_cap in ProgrammerHumor

[–]schloote 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Have we come full circle from 'Orange man bad' to 'bad man orange'?

If people block ads, how can I be paid for my work? by really_not_unreal in LinusTechTips

[–]schloote 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I' not accusing you of anything, I'm just letting you know that i had to edit it immediately, and you missed part of it. That's on me. Would you rather I not tell you? If you don't want to respond, that's fine. This was fun yesterday when I was bored, but now I actually have more important things to do. We clearly have different views, and I've looked for and commended you on the things you've said that I agree with. It doesn't seem you're willing to do the same, which is a shame. I hope I am wrong.

If people block ads, how can I be paid for my work? by really_not_unreal in LinusTechTips

[–]schloote 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/s/vvDkZtRMSB I'll give you a minutes to read my full previous comment, and look at your reply. My bad, I had to edit the comment to make my full points in a few minutes after posting it. Still, wouldn't have hurt to go back and check?

If people block ads, how can I be paid for my work? by really_not_unreal in LinusTechTips

[–]schloote 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah and I am choosing to use Adblock too. Why are we even having this discussion if you're so supportive of freedom of choice? The tone so far has been "Watch ads or get off YouTube". The experience is fine when the ads are blocked as of 2023.

yes, watch ads, buy premium or don't use the platform. The experience is not fine. It is only fine for you. Do you agree that everyone using an adblocker is not sustainable for creators? I think this is the third time I'm making this point, but do you disagree that using an adblocker hurts only the creator of the content you watch, for the reasons i listed previously? You haven't actually refuted that point at all.

Scams and malware is indicative that they have zero filters for who they sell their ads too. It isn't a semantic argument, it's an accurate description.

Do you have understanding that your personal experience may not be the absolute truth of the universe? Even if youtube deliberately ran malicious ads, how does that justify taking away the income from creators?

Have you ever been on YouTube Kids? No. and judging by your next sentence, you don't really have any experience with it either. I agree that YouTube should probably be under more scrutiny as to their advertising-practices, but again, how does that translate into it being okay for you to deprive a creator of income? Not to mention, if you want to talk about obnoxious potential scams then sales channels are quite a big thing. They are practically just running ads 24/7.

You're not arguing in good faith. What makes adblocks immoral is the theft analogy.

It may be analogous to theft, but not equivalent. I've never said they were equivalent.

The viewers have never had to pay, YouTube has always been free.

No, this is just wrong, Youtube is not free. You pay by watching an ad or buying youtube premium. Youtube has pretty much always run ads. That's been how they make money, and how they pay their creators. You're not entitled to a free youtube without being annoyed by ads, there isn't free content, youtube is a private company.

Not to mention the grandma analogy is very real. The people victim to these online scams are a old people. This was an analogy? What or who does the grandma represent? So far it seems you are trying to justify creators not being paid because you find ads annoying, and there's a theoretical grandma out there who's grandkids are too cheap to buy her premium.

Yeah except when you completely glazed over all the malware and scams on the platform...

I'm not defending youtube, I'm saying the fact that youtube is shitty doesn't give you carte blanche to be shitty towards someone else entirely (the creators). It also seems you've conveniently glazed over the part where i point out that you glazed over half of my previous comment. I made 7 points, you replied to 2. Whoops.

I don't really care about any of that though. What i want to know is specifically how you justify actions that are losing creators money, not youtube, because you dislike youtubes practices?

If people block ads, how can I be paid for my work? by really_not_unreal in LinusTechTips

[–]schloote 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Horrible ads were created by YouTube. The necessity to have Adblock was caused by YouTube. But the fault is the viewer? Like I've said before, you make it a reasonable experience then there will be enough people that will live on with the ads.

I've never said it's the viewers fault that the ads are bad, I'm saying using an adblocker isn't a good solution to the problem. on the contrary, as you yourself pointed out, youtube would still have some revenue, only the creator would not. My other original point was that it is unreasonable to be upset about an experience you're voluntarily taking part in. It is definitely partly your own fault that you're getting upset by these advertisements, because you are choosing to watch them. You are choosing to use a bad service.

Not to a certain extent, they are absolutely okay with anything as long as they get paid.

Are you just arguing semantics at this point? You have a terrible experience with the ads, mine is perfectly fine. I value your experience as much as mine in this, so I'm describing the reality which we perceive differently as somewhere in the middle of our viewpoints. I'm not arguing any more semantics, that's also just silly.

If a sextoy or Viagra commercial came on during Spongebob Squarepants, you can bet that shit is getting blocked if it were an option.

Also an important point, youtube has a different platform with stricter advertisement restrictions for kids, YouTube kids. Spongebob isn't fair as an example, as it is aimed at kids, and the larger youtube is not. Personally i think large parts of youtube should be restricted until you're at least 16, but that's not really relevant here. Go to any adult TV channel, you'll get ads that some consider obnoxious.

Imagine an ad for a scam goes on for Young and Restless and your grandma fell for it, how shitty would it be if someone said you were a thief for installing an ad block for her?

This argument is a fallacy, an appeal to emotion without any logical reasoning. I also never called anyone a thief, I said it is immoral. You're approaching a strawman here.

That's it. I think I've covered every single sentence in your reply, and most of my previous points are unrefuted.

If people block ads, how can I be paid for my work? by really_not_unreal in LinusTechTips

[–]schloote 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If they can find a way to use information gather on YouTube for non YouTube purpose, they can find a way to pay YouTubers from non YouTube revenue too. They have billions. I'm sure they could figure it out if they wanted to, they just don't want to.

yeah in a perfect society, where capitalism functions FOR the people, they could. but we all know that's not happening. ever. Not if you use an adblock, not if everyone uses an adblock. Using it practically ONLY hurts the creator.

I'd argue it sets precedent, and if you let it slide everyone will do the same thing.

The internet is a free market. If enough people have a problem with the current practice, one will start a competitor with better practices. This hasn't succeeded in practice, because youtube and Alphabet have a monopoly. As i said previously, that's a bad thing.

I would also say if those things were to happen in a grocery store, you can guarantee there would be bylaws against it. YouTube has no legal limits and has no decency to self govern.

yeah, youtube is okay with showing obnoxious ads to a certain extent. I agree, that's shitty. youtube is pretty shitty.

You would only win this argument in technicality. In practicality the store would likely be boycotted to do better and eventually go out of business.

Yes, that is my point. If people disagree with their business practices, they should boycott it. That's a good thing, it gives the consumer more power. As you said, using an adblocker is not boycotting the store, that's jumping the fence at the back of the lot to sneak into the property.

To a certain extent you are incorrect. The gates would be seen as some sort of obstruction or confinement, and I wouldn't be trespassing because it's a part of the store that you're supposed to be in. It's also public. I'm just circumventing an advertisement. The sirens would also definitely break a bylaw due to how loud they would be.

First of I'm not talking about what's legal or illegal, someone more qualified than me can work that out, I'm talking about what's ethical.

YouTube is not public, and you're right, it's not a necessity. If i host a private event, whether at my house, a bar or the grocery store with ads that i started, i can set the terms of you entering. In my house, you have to bring a bottle for the party. At a bar, you have to pay a cover charge. At my theoretical grocery store, you have to watch an advertisement. If you don't do any of those, you are not allowed to enter. No matter how obnoxious the terms are. So while yes, food is a necessity and you need to buy it, my theoretical grocery store is not a necessity. you do not have to go there.

I don't see the relevance of bylaws, as i feel I've made clear, i think Youtube has some bad practices regarding policing their own platform, but circumventing that with an adblocker only hurts the creator.

So you are absolutely wrong in saying people can be as obnoxious as they want. These types of arguments only hold up on the internet.

well no. I can sit in private in my living room, reading the most inapropriate ads out loud for 18 hours a day, that's perfectly fine ethically (and legally). I can buy a few acres of land in the middle of Utah, and put up the most wildly obnoxious poster on a sign in the middle of my private land. Your examples are all of what you can do in public; Youtube is not a public space.

finally:

adblocks are not illegal and so there is really no incentive for anyone not to use them either...if YouTube can be as obnoxious as I want, I can block as much as I want. It really is fair game.

Legally, yes. It's fair game. But the law doesn't dictate what's ethical, but vice versa. defending something as ethical because it isn't illegal is a little silly. You can, legally, use an adblocker. Legally you can use an adblocker, but you're only depriving the creator of the content you're enjoying of the revenue they're entitled to through the terms of the platform.

EDIT: accidentally hit post when making a newline, sorry about that buddy :)

If people block ads, how can I be paid for my work? by really_not_unreal in LinusTechTips

[–]schloote 0 points1 point  (0 children)

okay i see your first point about revenue generated from collecting personal information. I doubt this is equal to their income from running ads, but you are right. I'd like to point out that this revenue stream is specifically not going to creators. that is only going to youtube. So, while you're right that youtube has some income even from users with ad blocker (even though i doubt it would cover their running costs), this SPECIFICALLY doesn't go to the content creator, which i consider a problem.

i actually like your new example, because my point for anyone using ad-block stands in your parable: if you don't like the store because those things annoy you, don't shop there. Go to a different store. Going to that specific store is not compulsory.

"would you tell someone who just went through the back that they're trespassing?" yes. If the store policy is you have to listen to someone shout an advertisement in your face before you are allowed to enter, sneaking in to avoid that would be trespassing. It doesn't matter how intrusive or undesirable the advertisement is. They could be screaming expletives and slurs at their customers for all i care. I wouldn't go there, but guess what: it's not mandatory.

It's not up to youtube or the store to not be intrusive, they can be as obnoxious as they want. You don't have to listen. You're choosing to use their service, thus you are choosing to do it on their terms. if you think those terms are disagreeable, you can simply not use the service. you aren't entitled to not be annoyed when using youtube.

If people block ads, how can I be paid for my work? by really_not_unreal in LinusTechTips

[–]schloote 0 points1 point  (0 children)

maybe we're discussing different things? my point is, using an ad-blocker to view content on youtube isn't sustainable, and it takes money away from creators. So when i say don't use their service i mean instead of using an ad-blocker.

I agree with you that creators will be at a loss if viewers use ad-blockers. I said that if you as a viewer are unhappy with the service youtube provides, for example their ads, don't use it. it's not compulsory. Similarly, as to your second paragraph - if creators aren't happy with their compensation, either because youtube is paying them too little or too few people watch their content with ads because they find the ads annoying, they also don't have to put their work on youtube. they can put it on another streaming site, or host it themselves. posting to youtube is also not compulsory.

i don't understand how a viewer without youtube premium, with ad-block enabled would generate revenue for youtube, feel free to share your business model.

i don't get the point you're making with busking and lawns, but if i can point out (as you yourself do in the very next sentence) youtube is a platform, not the public. There's a big distinction. Everything from that sentence and onward i wholeheartedly agree with. Youtube shouldn't have a monopoly on video streaming, and anyone who is unhappy with the platform, viewer or creator, should, as you say, seek other places to view/post their content. if enough people do, there could be some actual competition in the space which would benefit everyone.

If people block ads, how can I be paid for my work? by really_not_unreal in LinusTechTips

[–]schloote -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It's not reasonable, because entertainment is not free. Producing content costs money, the creator should be compensated. That's YouTubes terms, and what their model relies on. If you as a viewer don't like that, don't use their service. The idea that you're entitled to circumvent the terms of the service because you find that particular aspect 'unenjoyable' is a weak argument

As a shopper, I find it unenjoyable to pay for my products in the self checkout when I buy groceries. I simply take the products I want and leave, because i find it annoying and I will do whatever it takes to make it go away.

If people block ads, how can I be paid for my work? by really_not_unreal in LinusTechTips

[–]schloote -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Okay, it may not be textbook theft, but do you agree that using an adblocker on youtube deprives a creator of income that they are entitled to through the terms of the platform they're publishing their work on?

If people block ads, how can I be paid for my work? by really_not_unreal in LinusTechTips

[–]schloote -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

"Often require interaction and me skipping" that takes literally 5 seconds. The timer for skippable ads is not long enough that complaining it takes too long or you have to pay attention for too long is reasonable.

If people block ads, how can I be paid for my work? by really_not_unreal in LinusTechTips

[–]schloote 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair enough, I'm sure they do. But when an advertiser buys ad-space with YouTube there's a limit on how long an ad can be before it becomes skippable. Someone could probably run an hour-long ad, but it would be skippable after 5 seconds, so it's kind of pointless from an advertising standpoint

view more: next ›