736

It seems so strange to me that we are locked in battle with providers mining our lives for whatever, and we have to work our asses off trying to stay anonymous, to the point of being denied service (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 10 months ago by Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

130 comments fedilink hide all child comments

or even pseudo-incriminated for attempting to maintain our own life.

It seems so stupid that I'm like a suspect for wanting an exchange of information without dropping my pants and bending over. No, I don't want cookies. Yes I want to read the article but no, I don't want to "sign up."

It makes me feel like being a f*cking hermit. But I prefer to pirate. Even though I'm not that good at it. Screw them. I got two private trackers, a VPN, and I hope that's enough.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 4 points 10 months ago

I don't see why a free market can't take care of this problem. Let the suppliers run their ads and if it's not profitable then let them fold. None of this "please stop using ad blockers our business model sucks and we need you to accept worse overall service so we can stay in business".

I don't really care that much either.

This is the most important thing imo. Some people just don't care (not saying it's a bad thing). Others do so to each their own.

[-] CallumWells@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago

Sure, let everything require that you pay upfront for everything. Those too poor to afford to pay don't deserve to have access to it anyway, right?

I'm not saying that ads are good, but having an option for people to pay to access a service that isn't directly tied to money they have accessible seems better than barring them from that access. At the same time that option cannot be too intrusive or otherwise be too much of a negative before it becomes predatory. We can wish for the world to be perfect as much as we want, that doesn't make it so. We can work towards a future where people don't have to work to be able to live comfortably and where we have very different ways to compensate people for their time and effort on top of that. But we're not there.

I'm not quite sure what you meant by your last paragraph, though.

[-] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 2 points 10 months ago

Those too poor to afford to pay don't deserve to have access to it anyway, right?

Those too poor to afford to pay get it for free, comrade.

I feel like a lot of people are wholly unaware of FOSS. But anyway my free market idea would require consent, for example a pop-up that says "would you like to pay $0.30 or watch an 8 second ad to view the content?" and then people could make their choice. If their choice is neither then they will go somewhere else for the information or entertainment. Consent is absent from the current model, aside from using an ad blocker to signal your refusal.

There are tons of videos (educational and otherwise) on youtube that have never paid out to their creators, either because they were from the era before youtube enshittified or because the algorithm decided that the content creator has earned nothing. It reminds me of the old argument that "you shouldn't pirate music because it's not fair to the artist" but man you've got to see those record contracts, especially those made to black or otherwise underprivileged artists. Being fair to the artist was never an imperative, but this argument still persists with people who identify themselves with their jailers, or who actually don't really care that much (not saying that in a bad way).

Humans by nature are creative and helpful. We will always make how-to videos, guides, music, stories, and art. We don't need megacorps to facilitate this, it's the megacorps that want in, and they're going to have to come up with a better business model.