feddit.org

8 points

2 months ago

And yet he never said not to adblock, so the only thing he claims are the categorization of adblocking.

report

[ - ]

Ilandar@aussie.zone

1 point

2 months ago

And yet he never said not to adblock

In those tweets? Sure. But that’s not an argument I was making, so this is a strawman from you that doesn’t actually counter any of the evidence I have provided. Did Linus say ad-blocking was piracy? Yes. Did Linus say ad-blocking was theft? Yes.

Whether you think this is moral hypocrisy is irrelevant to me. I was only calling out the previous commenter who straight up lied about Linus’s history and then attempted to frame the people who were right as uninformed and wrong.

report

[ - ]

1 point

2 months ago

The comment was replying to one about it being funny that Linus made a video about adblocking when he considers adblocking piracy. That would imply he is against adblocking in general, which your links does not show.

Yes, he considers it piracy, but he is not against adblocking, which is why the original point of the parent comment doesn’t make sense.

report

[ - ]

Ilandar@aussie.zone

1 point

2 months ago

Read that second paragraph from me again:

Whether you think this is moral hypocrisy is irrelevant to me. I was only calling out the previous commenter who straight up lied about Linus’s history and then attempted to frame the people who were right as uninformed and wrong.

If you want to have a debate about the parent comment, debate the person who made the parent comment. That’s not me and I do not care about the point you are trying to make here.

report

[ - ]

1 point

2 months ago

I did read it the first time, which is why I brought up the context of the first comment, which implied that Linus is against adblocking.

The comment you claimed to be lying is talking about the actual context of why Linus compared adblocking with piracy, which is about content creators and payment of their content.

I’m only calling you out for making a point that is not in the context of the actual thread, not against the proof of what you posted in the first place, so I’m not sure we’re even in disagreement here.

report

[ - ]

Ilandar@aussie.zone

1 point

2 months ago

I brought up the context of the first comment, which implied that Linus is against adblocking.

It didn’t. Read it again:

Funny, considering in the past he’s gone on big rants about how adblocking is no different from piracy, and is theft.

But then again, its Linux we’re talking about, its not like he has a particularly big issue with theft.

He literally said both of those things. I have proven this. Someone asked for a source. Another person replied with:

No, because that isn’t Linus’s take.

But because he uttered something in favor of ads on his videos-which is how they got paid-he’s now considered ultra pro invasive ads by the user above

As I have proven, Linus literally said both of those things. That was his take in 2022. At this point in the comment chain, no one has implied Linus is “against ad-bliocking”. They have only stated that he believed it was no different to piracy and theft, which is true. This third person in the chain was the one who actually brought up the “he’s against ad-blocking” argument as a strawman - that was never never implied in the original parent comment.

The comment you claimed to be lying is talking about the actual context of why Linus compared adblocking with piracy

No it’s not. That is quite clearly not what it was in response to. Again, read the the comment chain carefully here. You are taking things that were said or implied in other comment chains (or just completely fabricated) and pretending that they were what the comment chain I was involved in was related to.

report

[ - ]

1 point

2 months ago

Why would the first comment said it is funny for Linus to make a how to adblock video if he is not implying that a Linus against adblock? Please explain how that logic works.

report

[ - ]

9 points

2 months ago

I’d argue this as well. I see it in a similar way. Linus is obviously not trying to sit on some high horse and condemn piracy, he’s just calling a spade a spade.

report

sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works

[ - ]

4 points

2 months ago

No, he’s calling a spade a backhoe. Piracy is one of two things, depending on your definition:

sharing/accessing copyrighted material you don’t have the rights for (i.e. seeding or downloading a torrent)
circumventing technical restrictions on copyrighted content (e.g. DRM)

Blocking ads does neither of those things, it merely blocks loading of content that you don’t want to see. It’s basically the modern version of a DVR, where you can choose to cut out portions of a video that you don’t want (e.g. the ads).

These things are technically piracy:

using a YouTube downloader
sharing downloaded YouTube videos
posting a YouTube video that you don’t own
using substantial portions of a YouTube video you don’t own w/o authorization in your own video (i.e. beyond Fair Use)

Blocking ads isn’t one of those things, neither is skipping over parts of a video you don’t want to see (i.e. the sponsor segment).

Blocking ads reduces revenue to Google and the video creator. That doesn’t make it piracy, it’s just being a jerk to the platform and the creator.

report