Imagine if a (physical paper) newspaper could block you from reading an article because you didn’t spend enough time looking at the ads.
After the content gets delivered to my browser, it’s up to me how I want to consume that content. Anything that happens beyond that point is client-side. If I choose to pay attention to ads on purpose, that’s my choice. If I accept the webserver’s response and choose to view only parts of what I got, then that’s my choice, too.
Imagine if a newspaper could block you from reading an article because you didn’t spend enough time looking at the ads.
I don’t have to imagine. Many newspaper websites are exactly like that; or at least require an upfront payment in the form of a subscription to read. Just like a real newspaper.
Imagine if a newspaper could block you from reading an article because you didn’t spend enough time looking at the ads.
That’s a bad comparison. Newspapers cost money, so you either buy one or you don’t read the articles. Even in the case of free ones, they’re littered with ads. You don’t need to watch them, but they’re still there.
I hate what youtube is doing just as much as the next guy, but I’m yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it should be free. Many of the people complaining about this are gladly paying for Spotify and Netflix. Why not demand those for free too?
Imagine if a (physical paper) newspaper could block you from reading an article because you didn’t spend enough time looking at the ads.
After the content gets delivered to my browser, it’s up to me how I want to consume that content. Anything that happens beyond that point is client-side. If I choose to pay attention to ads on purpose, that’s my choice. If I accept the webserver’s response and choose to view only parts of what I got, then that’s my choice, too.
You pay for newspapers, though.
deleted by creator
Don’t …plenty of digital newspapers block you from reading the article if you don’t pay up
Even traditional newspapers usually have an upfront fee you pay.
You could go to a library to view the newspapers, but you could also go to a library to check out DVDs instead of using YouTube.
I don’t have to imagine. Many newspaper websites are exactly like that; or at least require an upfront payment in the form of a subscription to read. Just like a real newspaper.
They do that though. Most even require you to accept their cookies, pay or not be able to read the article at all.
That’s a bad comparison. Newspapers cost money, so you either buy one or you don’t read the articles. Even in the case of free ones, they’re littered with ads. You don’t need to watch them, but they’re still there.
I hate what youtube is doing just as much as the next guy, but I’m yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it should be free. Many of the people complaining about this are gladly paying for Spotify and Netflix. Why not demand those for free too?
It is free.
Put up with the ads and get it for free or pay to make them go away. That’s the deal.