• LostXOR@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    20 days ago

    The whole idea that it violates the terms of service of a company to not let them show things on my screen without my consent is insane. It’s like if every time you went to the grocery store, the employees held you down and force fed you a free sample, then banned you from the store when you started running away from them.

    • Abnorc@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days ago

      It’s not that bizarre. They don’t have to serve you the content without showing you the ads that make the platform profitable. The freedom goes both ways. I use an ad blocker too, but I don’t think that YouTube is really doing anything wrong here. (Other than possibly ruining their own platform, but that’s their problem that they’re making for themselves.)

      • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        20 days ago

        If they weren’t a monopoly, I’d agree, they can do whatever they want.

        But since they are a monopoly, its a de facto the equivalent of a town square, and they are policing people’s speech, and broadcasting annoying public announcements that nobody wants to hear.

        • Robin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 days ago

          A privately owned platform cannot serve the public good. There will always be conflicts of interest. A proper public square should be funded by a competent government (but those are rare) or decentralized.