cry about it

I mean it's true? GBAtemp would not be around any longer if we did not have adverts running.

We know it sucks and we're thankful not everyone uses an ad-blocker.

shaunj66 said:

I mean it's true? GBAtemp would not be around any longer if we did not have adverts running.

We know it sucks and we're thankful not everyone uses an ad-blocker.

Click to expand...

i mean there is a difference between just like "oh hey sponsored by 'insert company here'" and getting youtube's shitty popup ads or those giant ones that get in your face for all of 12 seconds.
For me, I have it set so non-intrusive ads are good
Think like... the little ones that are on the top right corner of a page.

Adblocking is not the same as piracy!

If I ask my browser on my computer to fetch a website freely available on the internet, it should do exactly what I told (and not fetch a shitload of garbage along with what I wanted). This is surely not copyright violation. Site owners are free to place a message: "We don't want you if you don't accept the ads on our site!" and enforce this with different methods. They can setup a paywall, they can redirect adblocker users to a "Not with adblocker!"-page. How should I know before, if my point of view gets accepted?
Nitpicking mode on: Afaik sites don't ask for permission to use my battery, my internet quota and my compute power before delivering ads. If adblocking without asking the site owner for permission is "literally piracy", then the analoge argumentation would be: Using things I pay for without my permission is "literally a form of theft".

Both is nonsense in my opinion!
It must be possible for both sides to utter their wishes and see if they can negotiate an agreement or not -- without any of them using buzzwords from a pseudo-juristic field.

We could *maybe* discuss about certain parallels to "piracy" when circumventing locks and ignoring the site owner's wishes.

• Let me try your service with blockers -- if I like your site, you'll get a paying customer; if I don't like it... well... I'll not visit your site in the future and you will not gain anything from me (with or without ads).
• Demand me to remove blockers... and you will remove me. Easy. No one loses anything.

@shaunj66
I'm happy that you and Costello tolerate various blockers and don't lock me out for using them (I need Pi-hole, uBlock, uMatrix/NoScript for different annoyances than ads only).
You know I put my wallet where my mouth is and pay GBAtemp -- for using and enjoying it every single day.

KleinesSinchen said:

Adblocking is not the same as piracy!

Click to expand...

Disagreed.

You browsing gbatemp (which is a service) while ads are running generates income for gbatemp. Its a substitute for you activly paying and getting the service without ads. You blocking the ads is basically restricting the income, which is the same as "not paying" for the service and thus its piracy (You getting a service without any kind of payment). Obviously if you generate income in a different way (eg donations, premium plans, whatever) you are not pirating anymore.

If the service provider has to stop you from getting this service "for free" (eg anti adblock measurements) and you are also circumventing these, you are doing way worse than just pirating. The site-owners wishes are already cicumvented with you using an adblock, not when you try to circumvent anti adblock measurements.

If I ask my browser on my computer to fetch a website freely available on the internet [...]

Click to expand...

It must be possible for both sides to utter their wishes and see if they can negotiate an agreement or not [...]

Click to expand...

The service is only free because of the ads. And that is the agreement. You are getting something that you dont have to activly pay for and you agree to have ads so the service can survive. Not sure if you understand that but it costs money to host a website. And it costs a lot to have a website like gbatemp, with databases, space for all the files uploaded, maintanence, possibly even traffic and the cost to have your server in a datacenter. (This is generalized. Some costs definitly apply, others might not - depending how the service is hosted).

If you dont like that agreement, well, then you have to use a different service with a paywall, instead of simply using a service and not providing the income.

PS: i know you stated that you pay for it. Writing it like this is just easier.

@Slluxx I prepared a very long reply, but decided to not send it. It sounded way more aggressive than I want.
I'm currently in one of my worse phases (feeling extremely bad from psycho point of view). If anything below still sounds rude, please be lenient and don't take anything personal. I actually enjoy different opinions and like discussing. Hearing different arguments is always nice.

Only if you want it, I'll fully answer to your post later (maybe in PM). In short: It is about applying double standards.
====



Some things I want to answer right now: (as it is somewhat aggravating for me):
1)

Slluxx said:

Not sure if you understand that but it costs money to host a website. […]

Click to expand...

Why, really, WHY, do so many people assume that another person "maybe/not sure"(?) didn't understand […], doesn't know […], doesn't really know […], if they have a different opinion? That is plain ridiculous and still it happens so d*mn often!

Honest questions for this particular case: Do you think I'm stupid? More than stupid? A complete moron? Do you think I'm too dumb to know, that in capitalist world, pretty much everything costs money and is driven by money? There is no need to question my very(!) basic understanding of economics (like literally a five-year-old kid should have them), just because I came to different conclusions.

Yes, this sounds aggressive. It's just… I've seen it too often (not only towards me). Again: Please don't take it personally. If somebody comes to a different conclusion, it must be the case, that they don't have all information or didn't understand them.


2) Yes, you acknowledged my payments to GBAtemp at the very end. Still a pretty bold move, literally accusing me of not paying here – which is a blatant lie… and not easier to write.

Slluxx said:

You blocking the ads is basically restricting the income, which is the same as "not paying" for the service and thus its piracy

Click to expand...

Lastly:
The word "piracy" – not counting the real, initial meaning, the one with the pirate ships – is as far as I know, used for copyright infringement. Even following the argumentation "dodging some indirect form of payment", it needs a lot of fantasy to find a direct form of copyright infringement here (quite possible with going around some corners – if one wants, they will always find some kind of argument).
Hint: Big companies bringing forward arguments like you just did in your post above, would go all out with their legal department to have adblockers attacked… just like the anti-circumvention laws in various countries banning hard- and software circumventing DRM measurements.
If the equation "adblocker = picracy" was true in at least some jurisdictions, I'd fully expect to have seen A LOT of legal action in this regard.

KleinesSinchen said:

If anything below still sounds rude, please be lenient and don't take anything personal.

Click to expand...

Dont worry, i completly understand

KleinesSinchen said:

Do you think I'm stupid? More than stupid? A complete moron? Do you think I'm too dumb to know, that in capitalist world, pretty much everything costs money and is driven by money? There is no need to question my very(!) basic understanding of economics (like literally a five-year-old kid should have them), just because I came to different conclusions.

Click to expand...

No, i dont think that. But its easy to simply not know (doesnt equal stupidity) or to forget just how many different aspects of a webservice can cost money. Sorry if the wording was bad. That sentence was purely to remind of all the things that contribute to cost, not to bash on you.

KleinesSinchen said:

Still a pretty bold move, literally accusing me of not paying here – which is a blatant lie… and not easier to write.

Click to expand...

I didnt try to accuse you of anything. I wrote the text to you as in the defendant of adblockers who uses them. Which doesnt just apply to you but to millions of people without acknowledging that you pay for the service in other ways, because the majority doesnt do that.

KleinesSinchen said:

The word "piracy" – not counting the real, initial meaning, the one with the pirate ships – is as far as I know, used for copyright infringement.

Click to expand...

You know what was meant with the word piracy. Using a service without paying for it in some way. Debating about if its the right term or not has nothing to do with the initial argument and thus i dont want to go into that.

KleinesSinchen said:

Big companies bringing forward arguments like you just did in your post above, would go all out with their legal department to have adblockers attacked

Click to expand...

I am also not talking about big companies. The scope was a webservice, completly unrelated to any kind of greedyness, legal departments, copyright or whatever.

I am sure we both can agree that ads are used way too much, way too offensive gets way too much into anyones privacy. But again, thats not the topic of this discussion.


I am not seeing any argument or thought against/in fav. of the core of my text.
Which was that someone using an adblock is taking away the revenue a service provider gets by you browsing it. That the agreement of a free site is that anyone doesnt have to pay anything directly and instead see ads (instead of a paywall service without ads - the negotiation that has been made by you using the service.). And that someone trying to circumvent an anti-adblock solution is even worse than just taking revenue away, because its not just ignoring the providers wish of usage but by now basically an active scam to get something "for free" without providing the revenue.

Obviously thats also the case for adblock alone but its "one step further". Its hard for me to explain in english what i actually mean by that but i think you get my point by now.

man i started a flame war i just wanted to make fun of linus

Terran0va said:

man i started a flame war i just wanted to make fun of linus

Click to expand...

nah, this is not a flame war. its a pretty solid discussion about ads on websites.
and there was nothing to make fun of :harold:

Terran0va said:

man i started a flame war i just wanted to make fun of linus

Click to expand...

Flame war? Oh. Sorry. I really have to return to a more calm way of writing.
The feelings overwhelmed me.

==================================
@Slluxx
Thank you for your interesting replies and your patience/understanding for my suboptimal tone. Really appreciate it.
Your disagreement will surely add something to my way of thinking.

In my opinion the biggest problem is, that many people want everything "free" on the internet. Full of ads is not free, but "free" with the quotes… just because the credit card didn't get charged for using a service.
I fully agree with you, that if I want to get something, I should also give something.
My personal decision is: That giving from my side must not be accepting ads.
==================================

I want to answer to object to one specific part:

Slluxx said:

And that is the agreement.

Click to expand...

An agreement involves two or more parties, not one party implicitly expecting the other one to just nod.


Visiting a freely available website is not an agreement (signing up and actively agreeing on Terms of Use is one). Yes the adblocker (potentially) takes away some revenue… but I never agreed on generating revenue just by asking an unknown page to be delivered. A bit shady to have some "implicit agreement", maybe because online ads "are common". There are a lot of freely available (mostly small) sites not having ads. As I said, I must have the possibility to compare my wishes with the site owner's wishes (who I owe nothing at first) before agreeing on something. I don't even know the "and that is the agreement" before the page gets delivered – how should I make a decision?

==========

Slluxx said:

You know what was meant with the word piracy. Using a service without paying for it in some way. Debating about if its the right term or not has nothing to do with the initial argument and thus i dont want to go into that.

Click to expand...

In understand what you mean (at least I hope so). My overreaction was indeed triggered by the buzzword "piracy", which gets thrown in everywhere, in every context, even for things not illegal. The problem is: When we apply arbitrary definitions, or everybody has their own definition of a word, it is hard to discuss stuff. How should we know if we are talking about the same thing?


Greetings

Sinchen

Again: Thanks for your thought-provoking replies.

Is like you say breathing is mass murder because on every inhalation you kill thousands of bacteria.

apples and lemons.

man, keep it real.