Doesn't the same apply to YouTube then? People who want to block ads are entitled imo. Those people outright refuse to pay or to simply not use the service if they don't like ads. And it enrages so many people when this is pointed out.
Google made a mistake in offering free drive, gmail, Google docs, etc etc. Imagine telling someone in the 90s all the shit we get for free with a couple ads/our data being sold.
People have free will, they should use it, and stop using these services if they don't like ads or want their data sold.
Pay for email instead of your Gmail. Everyone refuses to do this, they'd rather shake hands with a devil and then cry when their soul is taken.
Why does youtube have a paid option to avoid ads but not to avoid the violation of our privacy?
Everyone talks about how no one cares about their privacy and just want free stuff. When the world was signing up for gmail or watching youtube, where was the big click to acceopt that explained the (obscenely unfair) trade users were making?
Entitled? Google is the one that feels entitled to our data.
> Those people outright refuse to pay or to simply not use the service if they don't like ads. And it enrages so many people when this is pointed out.
YouTube used to offer “Premium Lite” which was reasonably priced and only offered ad-free YouTube.
But now Google has shut down that subscription and only offer is one more than twice the price which includes lots of things people don’t want. I can see why some people refuse to pay for that.
> People have free will, they should use it, and stop using these services if they don't like ads or want their data sold.
People have free will, and they should use it the way you want them to?
No thanks, I don't agree to the rules set forth by the ad-supported companies. I think I'll use my free will to install an adblocker.
I don't use Gmail any more, but that's because there are viable alternatives for people with my technical abilities. Not everyone is a software dev. The tradeoffs for most people switching off Gmail aren't acceptable.
When the choices are "conform to what this company wants" or "don't have working email", that's not freedom of choice. Freedom requires real viable alternatives. Only in late-stage-capitalist hellholes like Hacker News is this sort of choice considered freedom.
I literally read someone on HN recently saying that if people didn't want to pay tens of thousands yearly for insulin they were welcome to not, i.e. the choices are pay a pharma company or die. That's a much more extreme example, but it's pretty typical of HN these days.
The way I see it, Youtube feels entitled to get some of my ad viewing time. If they'd pay me 14.95 USD per month, I'd probably watch their ads. But they never made me that offer, they believe I should spend my time to increase their business revenue for free. Not only that, they've convinced tens of thousands of unemployed people to make content for them!
Google made a mistake in offering free drive, gmail, Google docs, etc etc. Imagine telling someone in the 90s all the shit we get for free with a couple ads/our data being sold.
People have free will, they should use it, and stop using these services if they don't like ads or want their data sold.
Pay for email instead of your Gmail. Everyone refuses to do this, they'd rather shake hands with a devil and then cry when their soul is taken.