A little too much spin there. They don’t have to offer a free service, they choose to. YT can do whatever they want with their platform as far as I’m concerned, but implying that people are stealing is disingenuous. YT got popular in the first place by offering a free service, and they are still offering a free service with ads that I’m not obligated to watch. They could, if they wanted, charge admission for all viewers, and skip the ads, they could choose to not offer free service. They’re intentionally not doing that so that they can have their cake and eat it too by offering a free service but inserting ads into it. It’s YT’s choice alone to offer the costly service for free, their wish is that people watch the ads, but fortunately whether we watch them is our choice. Note that YT’s testing here isn’t primarily to punish people, in part it’s to do an experiment to find out if they’ll lose viewers by demanding they watch the ads, precisely so that they can continue to choose to offer a ‘free’ service, and in part it’s to normalize the kind of spin you’re repeating here, to get people to believe they should submit to ad-watching and that they’re obligated to participate. They have been turning the screw on this for years and they will continue to, because it statistically works, but by participating in their narrative, by suggesting people are grifting when ad-blocking, you’re helping them normalize this concept.
If the venue is fenced and charges admission, then yes sneaking in is stealing. Legally speaking.
Wait, you consider ad-blocking to be stealing, and sneaking into a paid concert, for which you could face legal consequences to be not stealing? That seems very weird.
Anyway that analogy is not at all what YouTube is doing though. The valid analogy would be more like there’s a free concert in the park and people accuse you of stealing if you don’t buy their optional T-shirts, or I dunno watch an optional real-estate presentation beforehand or something.
Hahaha you need to tell YouTube that, not me. Lol why are accusations of bad faith always made in bad faith? I guess you just don’t want to address your own inconsistency? You didn’t answer the question of why you consider sneaking into a paid concert to be not stealing yet claim you must pay for YouTube somehow. That makes no sense. You could be fined or jailed for sneaking into a concert because it’s illegal, it’s stealing by definition. You cannot be fined for not watching YouTube ads.
What, exactly, is your definition of free? Does YouTube agree with your definition, do they say it’s not free? Where? Can you link to language that outlines the non-premium YouTube payment procedure? Can you demonstrate that failure to pay could result in legal consequences?
YouTube is in fact free in the sense that it does not cost the viewer money to watch. And unlike concert tickets or any other paid product, there is no legal obligation or expectation to “pay” for YT with time or attention, and there is no tracking or record of any such payment. Just because they want you to watch ads while not asking for money does not make YouTube not free.
