1025
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world

🖕 Fuck PayPal

And fuck Linus Tech Tips for intentionally keeping quiet about this after they found out.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] theherk@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Same person that said ad blocking was the same as piracy.

edit: People downvoting me like I disagreed with him. Just saying how he looks at it. I think it’s a bit of a false dichotomy but they are definitely similar.

[-] tabular@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

They are similar only if you presume there is an agreement of content in exchange for revenue from adverts. If you view the internet as a place for open collaboration, or oppose (internet) advertisement, then you wouldn't presume that agreement and it looks very different.

[-] themakara@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago

Have you ever heard his full stance on the matter? Because he clearly stated that this is not a judgment against using it. Heck, he's been open about having sailed the high seas himself and still doing so for media he physically owns.

It's just that gaining access to media while circumventing the payment (ads in this case) is basically piracy. Which is fair.

Signed, A uBlock User

[-] tabular@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

If I hacked a server to get content then I would be circumventing payment at it shouldn't be up to me how it responds to requests, I don't own it. Google trying to enforce playing adverts via software running on my property is an unjust overreach. The user choosing what displays on their own monitor is not "circumvention", it's claiming ownership over your computing. Google could choose to verify on their servers if I've paid (in normal currency) but instead their servers act like adverts are an optional donation.

[-] tabular@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

I trust Linus is being sincere when he says "it's not a judgement" but blocking ads is being compared to a criminal doing copyright infringement (illegal). The word used is one originally meaning for a person murdering others on boats (immoral), and it's used because it's pejorative. It's unavoidably judgemental.

[-] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 day ago

How much you want to bet he uses Ad block himself but it's suddenly different when YOU do it on HIS content?

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It…is? You’re copying digital content without paying for it. I use uBlock but I don’t pretend to have the moral high ground.

[-] sardaukar@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It's... not? It's protection against malware and profiling by shady companies.

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 day ago

It can be both things at the same time.

[-] Whelks_chance@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

It is. Taking from a service without paying for it, and actively avoiding the service making money via advertising is basically the same as watching a film without paying for it.

Both ways, you consumed a service and the people providing it got nothing, but it cost them something to create and provide it.

this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
1025 points (97.0% liked)

Technology

60090 readers
2694 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS