Log in | Sign up

They’re not spending ANYTHING like 50% on the tech work. Reminder: one of the most profitable companies on the globe. The huge profit comes from the HUGE gap between their costs and their income. So no, it’s not proportionate at all, and it’s gullible for anyone to pay them to reduce ads when they could block them for free.

You don’t think it’s a little hypocritical to call people stealing when they’re just skipping ads automatically? You see a huge moral gulf between clicking a button and having a piece of software click the button? You pirated a bunch of stuff when you were a teen and now you’re on your moral high horse over someone blocking an ad or 300?

I’m guessing you feel like a bit of a mug for paying your hard earned money to faceless mega wealthy corporation so you want to believe that people who skip the ads without needlessly paying Google are stealing.

Well, they’re not. They’re just skipping ads.

And you want to make other people feel guilty for skipping ads because it’s easy for them to get your experience without paying uber-wealthy corporations, so you try to make out that they stole something? Get off your high horse. Your giving would be far more beneficial if it went to a charity instead of Google.

The content creators make content using which YouTube/Google earns vast sums of money in advertising. They top slice most of the money for themselves and forward very little of it to the people who worked to create it, so in that sense they change the content creators. They’re one of the most profitable companies on the globe. Where does that profit come from? It comes from underpaying content providers. Still don’t know why you’re defending them. They dropped the “don’t be evil” plan and they meant it.

You know full well that Google is charging content creators way, way over their costs, even if they qualify for the more lucrative partner programs (most don’t - the long tail - and those who do are the better off YouTubers), exploiting their monopoly position to extract money to an unfair extent from both content creators and advertisers.

So, I do think it’s weird that you defend one of the richest and financially exploitative corporations on the planet and all your criticism is for me for skipping the annoying and repetative ads and not for the exploitative monopoly corporation.

Do you let the ads play in full, or do you press skip as sin as you can?

Guess what, pressing skip means the advertiser isn’t charged and the content creator isn’t paid. Far more people press skip than get ad blockers. You should be criticising me for pressing skip, surely! Ad skippers hurt content creators far more!

And IT IS NOT THEFT! None of it is stealing. The outright LIE is that skipping or blocking ads is theft.

I actually don’t use an ad blocker, I just skip the ads, and I skip them guilt free, because the majority of content creators aren’t in Google’s more lucrative partner programs, so Google keeps most of the money, and if their content doesn’t qualify for monetisation, Google keeps all of the money from ads on their content.

But I put an ad blocker on my elderly relative’s computer because those ads that you keep defending kept tricking her into installing malware, and it’s not even slightly illegal and it’s not even slightly morally questionable.

You’re spending a lot of time and effort defending one of the richest corporations in the world. It’s weird.

Has put occurred to you that young impressionable minds are hurt by you lying on the Internet that skipping ads is theft or that it hurts people?

So stealing is defined (in some states) as taking property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. So you’re incorrect and commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com might be breaking YouTube’s terms and condition not the law, and it’s not theft.

If Google were paying the content creators anything even remotely resembling the kind of income from advertisers the content earns, I might have a shred of sympathy for them losing a tiny bit of advertising revenue if some user watches a video without watching the same three ads they’ve seen ten times already that day.

You’re spending a lot of time and effort defending one of the richest corporations in the world. It’s weird.

If OP bad mouths the company, annoying colleague can snitch on them if they disagree.

He spent half the weekend swearing at me and calling me names but then when I posted my data on his realtesla community he said he was loving rent free in me head, but when I replied with links to his ranting and raving here, he banned me for harassing mods!

I don’t really care about how irate and irrational he acts, he’s called me all kinds of nonsense just to get me to shut up but it didn’t work. He’s kind of given up now though. Spent all his energy and once he got closure banning me he calmed down a lot. Somehow he thinks it shows he wasn’t biased!

Your test is just saying what the car claimed. Same as ever, you trust Toyotas data unless it’s electric when you do some weird shit with your home electronics kit and magically prove the car is lying about it’s electrical efficiency.

If you think it’s lying about the electrical efficiency, why on earth do you quote its gas efficiency, and no, I don’t believe you turned off the regenerative breaking and just did a pure gas test either.

So yeah, I’m calling you out on your double standards when you’re posting “hey folks, don’t trust Toyotas data on electrical efficiency” in the same thread as “look, Toyotas data shows how efficient the car is on gas”.

I think it was because I linked to your shouty behaviour here. When it was just that I spend about a fifth as much on electricity as I did on petrol, you let it stand, but as soon as I linked to your rants over here it got mod deleted (by you).

I think you like to come across as fair and even handed when you’re just trying to score points against EVs, so you don’t want folks over there to see how abusive you got over here.

Apparently you’re not just willing to insult me, you’re willing to delete everything I said in realtesla where you’re a mod and ban me! Lol. Great debating technique from brave “dragontamer” right there.

Well, I can see that you’re going to protect your little EV hate club from anything that might be construed as good about pure EVs.

For the record, Musk is a dick and I won’t ever buy one of his cars, the after sales support is non existent and there are no buttons, only touch screens, but you were never looking for any points of agreement with me, you were only trying to shut me down for daring to question your wholehearted devotion to manufacturers gas efficiency claims.

Did you mod-delete my post on realtesla because it linked to your shouty behaviour here, or because you really genuinely think that it’s off topic to point out that it would have been fairer to treat the gas efficiency figures with the same skepticism as the electricity figures?

Oh and now your using your mod powers elsewhere to delete my posts! Lol.

I think the main reason that we don’t have a reasonable discussion is that you take even mild disagreement as a huge personal insult, fly off the handle and, swear and call me names rather than address any of the substance I ever posted. I pointed out that you quote manufacturers data on gas efficiency uncritically but are supremely skeptical about their electricity efficiency and you responded with rage that I dare question you. If you can’t debate people who even mildly disagree and you think your only recourse is insults shouting, I think that’s unusual, doesn’t support your position as much as you seem to think, and certainly doesn’t sweep away the impression of bias you were so angry about, far from it.

You explained elsewhere that the shouting, anger and insults are a debating technique you use to shut down dissent. I’m afraid it’s not quite cowering me into silence the way you wanted it to and it certainly doesn’t make me think you are at all objective or even handed.

Swearing at me doesn’t make your figures or methodology less one sided, I’m afraid.

I’m glad you found more peace with it and you’re less angry now. Can you take at face value that your skepticism was a little one sided now?