[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/tech/ - Technology

"Technology reveals the active relation of man to nature"
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1684189430487.jpg ( 53.94 KB , 800x600 , forced ads.jpg )

 No.12110

So apparently google is going to attempt force-feeding ads to everybody, including those who really really don't want it, and they will try to break ad-blocker functionality. Many people think that there will be a war on ad-blocking.
Here is a short recap from a tech-channel that's pretty black-pilled about the future of technical work-arounds to ads.
https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=oQL9dVsEXT0

I think it's unreasonable to accept adds because they represent a security risk, because ads load random executable code on your computer. Ads also tend to infringe on privacy by data mining and tracking people. Adds have become crazy intrusive which probably is bad for your mental health, and use too much bandwidth and compute resources. Going online without ad-blockers is the technical equivalent to having unprotected sex with a hooker in a failed state where 30% of the population is infected with an incurable STD.

The tech-porkies will want subscription for freedom from ads, but:
Subscriptions suck in general because it's paying without getting ownership in return, which is a bad deal.
It'll be too expensive for many people who can't afford the paywall and still need another way to protect them selves.
Those platforms are not politically neutral, you'd expect that if you have to pay that you get unfiltered access, but they probably won't do that.

Many fear that if this spreads beyond the googstuff like YouTube, it will become a nightmare to manage a bazillion subscriptions even for those that are loaded enough to afford it. It could create even more walled-garden type distribution monopoly platforms, because the average person probably can't manage more than a handful of subscriptions and that will cause consolidation into a few distribution gate-keepers.

My questions:
1. Will there be a new type of adblock as a technical-fix that will overcome all the attempts of undoing ad-blocks, and all the black-pilled people are wrong ? Will there be new programs that can separate the content from the ads, what will that look like ? ad-blocking is human species being and nothing can prevent it

2. Will none of this matter because the corporate ad-supported online spaces will just stagnate into ossified neo-legacy media like Television and all the cool kids will flock to a hot new technology-thing, like in the 90s when the web got started, and what is upon us isn't a information distopia but rather marks the beginning of a new renaissance of authentic online communities like what the early web was ? escape via new-tech
2,5. Will people go for tech-minimalism and go back to simple static web-pages or Gemini capsules that are now cost effective enough to work with a small budget ? escape via legacy/minimalist-tech

3. Will there be something like a "culture-flat-rate". You pay a single subscription fee and that unlocks everything online, but without creating a new gate-keeper ? Maybe something like a censorship-resistant fully distributed decentralized peer-to-peer system that has a inbuilt functionality that automatically makes a tiny micro-payment that divides up your universally affordable monthly contribution among all the nodes you visited in the month prior, while maintaining your privacy. neo federalism

4. Everything becomes A.I. and that causes radical changes that are so dramatic that all our categories become meaningless. Adds will no longer exist because corporate A.I.-vertisment is going to do Inception style psychological manipulation to make you buy stuff, and if you try to resist it'll try to drive you into suicide. The people that survive will be the ones that went with something along the lines of GNU/AI ethical libre software artificial intelligence. Stallman is life
>>

 No.12111

Google has always had the option to embed videos with ads through the video transcoding process, but they have never crossed that bridge because they know that would instantly provoke a mass migration to another video host that doesn't pull that bullshit.
>>

 No.12112

>>12111
So you're saying that other sites like rumble or odysee will pick up the slack if youtube goes bad ?

YouTube has recently announced that they will start deleting content from Channels with 2+ years of inactivity from the uploader. To me this sounds like they are trying to save on technical expenses, or they are trying to make archivists and preservationists cry. So that raises the question whether other video-sites would be able to afford it. YT is owned by the Google Alphabet parent company, they have super deep pockets and might have been running YT at a loss, to make people sign up for a google account.

>embed videos with ads through the video transcoding process

They want to show different adds to different users, if they embed the ads into the video that would no longer work. Also the ads would be fixed in the time-line it's probably not that hard to make a program that auto skips forward over embedded ads.

I still hope that your right tho.
>>

 No.12113

File: 1684362742607.png ( 15.34 KB , 180x219 , peertube.png )

>>12112
For years (a decade at least?), Google operated Youtube at a loss. That's how they were able to corner the market: by purposely operating at a loss they could provide hosting and bandwidth that other video hosts couldn't compete against. Ironically Youtube probably would never have succeeded against all the others if it hadn't been bought out by a massive conglomerate with deep pockets. Google's plan was always to capitalize and become profitable after establishing a monopoly and walled garden. With their very aggressive datamining and ad pushing these days, I doubt they're operating at a loss anymore.

However, the fag in OP's video is incorrect that nobody has any way compete against Youtube now. He's a stream whore without a real job, so he doesn't understand the importance of the following. One of the principle advantages that PeerTube has that currently no other video hosting system has is a peer-to-peer streaming system. This can help alleviate hosting and bandwidth strain on high-traffic videos and help to compete with profit-driven alternates in a new way that hadn't existed in the past.
>>

 No.12114

>>12112
>YouTube has recently announced that they will start deleting content from Channels with 2+ years of inactivity from the uploader.
Oh wow, just when I thought their was no limit to the depths of their depravity, they come up with another new way to fuck old users.
>>

 No.12115

File: 1684443549314.jpg ( 112.92 KB , 1280x720 , 1640433433295.jpg )

>>12110
there is always going to be a technical "solution" for the tech-savy people. worst case scenario, you could add all the google and google-affiliated domains to your hosts file. and more importantly, if you are here it means that your browsing habits are different from those of the average person. it would be hard for you to see ads even if you didn't have an adblocker

from a marxist perspective, if we accept that advertisement for a product is part of the product itself, this is, if we include marketing as a production cost, it isn't hard to see that adblockers are luddite artifacts, and that if they have not been banned yet, it is because of their obscurity and the incompetence of capitalist governments (which wouldn't be able to enforce such a ban)

but to answer your question about the near future I will reiterate my first point: you are here, this site doesn't have ads. libgen/chans/archives/invidious/nitter/proxitok instances, work VPNs, bank accounts, and college moodles don't have ads either. paradoxically, only low-quality content has ads. in other words, the internet has already regressed to what you call minimalism, or rather, it never abandoned it in the first place
>>

 No.12116

Just download the content with youtube dl and upload it to peertube.
>>

 No.12117

File: 1684547038481.gif ( 852.82 KB , 220x209 , 09.gif )

Wait, you fags STILL don't use freetube? LMFAO!
Fucking cattle, I swear.

You deserve google assfucking you retardoids.
>>

 No.12119

File: 1684547770433.gif ( 779.07 KB , 363x270 , I'll hit alright.gif )

Also, muh Googlag is not the main problem here. "Content Creators", ie Shills, Media prostitutes, and other sell-outs, are.

"Hit the Bell!" "Please let me know in the comments, I really care!" "Hit that subscribe button!" yada-yada
I WILL HIT YOUR FUCKIN WHORE FACE ALRIGHT BITCH!

every time sponsorblock misses this shit, I want to punch through my screen
>>

 No.12120

>>12116
>youtube dl
I thought development was discontinued?
>>

 No.12121

>>12115
>chans.. don't have ads
I'm preeety sure I saw some fleshlight ads on halfchan..
>>

 No.12124

>>12113
>>12116
about this peertube thingie..
where do you host it and how much does it cost? do you use an object storage?

I would like to roll out my very own BlackPillTube instance where I would stream all of the top blackpill content.
>>

 No.12125

>>12115
>there is always going to be a technical "solution" for the tech-savy people.
I guess that's probably true.

>worst case scenario, edit your hosts file.

This will be true as long as the information infrastructure for advertisement operates on similar technical principles as it does now. I don't see a plausible way this could be changed but i could be wrong about that. My guess is that the worst case scenario where adds can't be filtered, is that add-blockers have to invert them selves and become content detectors and filter out anything that isn't content.

>from a marxist perspective, if we accept that advertisement for a product is part of the product itself, this is, if we include marketing as a production cost, it isn't hard to see that adblockers are luddite artifacts.

I agree that consumer-information is part of the product, but adds are now emotional manipulation, even free-market libertarians want rational consumers making rational choices. Maybe if consumer-information was honest product reviews that appeal to the intellect and side more with the consumer-interest to promote rational decisions… Preventing Edward Bernays and those that followed in his footsteps from trying to hack your brain isn't a Luddite artifact. It's not opposition to commodity production to want to base consumer choices on good information. People have rational desires for products that make their lives easier or enrich their experience, the emotional manipulation crap is just a battering ram for anti-consumer praxis.

>but to answer your question about the near future I will reiterate my first point: you are here, this site doesn't have ads. libgen/chans/archives/invidious/nitter/proxitok instances, work VPNs, bank accounts, and college moodles don't have ads either. paradoxically, only low-quality content has ads. in other words, the internet has already regressed to what you call minimalism, or rather, it never abandoned it in the first place


This is an interesting observation, you are using the original definition of the internet as "information high-way" as opposed to a digital billboard.
>>

 No.12126

>>12120
No the youtube-dlc fork was discontinued, but the original youtube-dl still has commits on github and other forks like yt-dlp still exist too.
>>

 No.12127

File: 1684604463213.png ( 11.14 KB , 214x47 , peertube.png )

>>12124
>I would like to roll out my very own peertube thingie

Here check out their documentation
https://docs.joinpeertube.org/
under
<Create your own instance
>>

 No.12129

File: 1684714030902.png ( 11.78 KB , 450x450 , 1669491477976322.png )

>>12125
>adds are now emotional manipulation
two things that I want to clarify. you have an opinion on how things should be, I'm talking about how things are. that emotional manipulation is an integral part of the product because (1) it works, people "fall" for it, thus, it shapes the use-value of the product, and (2) they pay for it when they buy the product, marketing is then just another piece of constant capital

a big recreational truck isn't much by itself, but it becomes attractive and fulfilling when you attach a vague sense of virility to it. I think most people would feel empty (annihilated in the mass, so to speak) if they couldn't build their "personas" through consumption. marketing fulfills a need

is this how things should be? I don't know
considering the self-replicating nature of marketing, I can see even capitalist governments regulating data collection and marketing practices (I think some are already doing this) but I don't see it going away
>>

 No.12130

>>12129
>emotional manipulation is an integral part of the product because (1) it works, people "fall" for it,
Well that's only from the narrow perspective of the capitalist who hired marketing, but Marxists look at the systemic perspective, and if this manipulation is able to wrestle away agency from people than it's no longer a market economy.

This goes beyond ideological interpretations. Lets go with a really drastic thought-experiment to emphasize the point. If the capitalist can "mind-controle" you to buy what they decide you should buy, eventually they won't need money or market exchanges as intermediaries, if their level of control gets sufficiently advanced they can use this to remote control people directly. Of course they can't do this, but there is a reason why the capitalist ideologues insist on the rational consumer archetype, this is one of the developments that could brick capitalism.

>thus, it shapes the use-value of the product,

no the use-value is what people actually get out of it once they got the commodity, it's not about the illusions that made them buy it.

>and (2) they pay for it when they buy the product, marketing is then just another piece of constant capita

I'm hesitant to consider marketing material as capital, because it doesn't appear as if capitalist could accumulate that.

>a big recreational truck isn't much by itself, but it becomes attractive and fulfilling when you attach a vague sense of virility to it.

I'm not sure what you mean with this but it sounds idealist, a truck remains unaffected by how somebody feels about it.

>is this how things should be? I don't know

considering the self-replicating nature of marketing, I can see even capitalist governments regulating data collection and marketing practices (I think some are already doing this) but I don't see it going away
I think that the Bernays-type marketing will undermine commodity production, probably in a less dramatic way than the mind-control example, but you can already see the system moving away from commodity production to privatized non-representational taxation schemes like what they call the "subscription model". Private taxation schemes already existed in the past during feudal times and those were also upheld by a type of manipulation (theocracy). It seems kinda similar to that.
>>

 No.12131

>>12130
>that's only from the narrow perspective of the capitalist who hired marketing
it's called the material reality

>Of course they can't do this

I agree on your hypothetical consequences, but then as you say, what you describe isn't something that currently exists. if anything, marketing is voluntary mind control - everyone knows that they don't really need the last fashion item - and yet they act as if they didn't, because it feels good

>it's not about the illusions that made them buy it.

reality wants to disagree. the illusion is part of the product, first and foremost in a purely materialistic sense: it affects the costs and it affects the sales
in a more speculative terrain, as long as we agree that we haven't got to the point of absolute mind control, the implication is that falling for the illusion is, indeed, consumer agency. people choose to believe the marketing so they can get gratification from buying the product

>I'm hesitant to consider marketing material as capital, because it doesn't appear as if capitalist could accumulate that.

this is a non-sequitur, let me give you an example: labor - variable capital - is the capital commodity par excellence, precisely because you can't accumulate it but by transforming it into other commodities. any commodity that is used to produce other commodities is capital (variable if it is labor, constant if it is labor contained in an intermediary commodity)
>>

 No.12132

>>12131
>material reality = the narrow perspective of the capitalist
certainly not, lol

>marketing is voluntary mind control

>because it feels good
If it can control your mood, it's hardly voluntary. If marketing operates with the mechanism that it lowers your mood so that you feel a compulsion to purchase the product to lift your mood back up, that's a pretty dramatic interference into brain chemistry. Your rational mind only works if you can maintain a level mood. Only your rational mind can make choices that fall under the category of voluntary action, everything else is pretty much biological affect, not a "free" uncoerced choice. It's qualitatively no different than reflexively pulling your hand away after touching something painfully hot, there only is a quantitative difference with regard to how much mental effort it would take to override the reflexive action.

>the illusion is part of the product

Maybe you can say this for works of fiction, if we're very generous with the interpretation of definitions. But for your example with the vehicle, you can't say that the capitalist produced a vehicle + an illusion, because somebody somewhere definitely will look at it and think nothing beyond "transportation box based on wheeled locomotion". Material reality has to be persistent and objectively true independently from any minds experiencing it. I'm not sure i fully grasp what it is that you are looking to describe, maybe it's some kind of aesthetic pattern ?

>as long as we agree that we haven't got to the point of absolute mind control, the implication is that falling for the illusion is, indeed, consumer agency.

No this is not a reasonable definition of agency. Imagine that somebody can puppeteer your entire body except for your pinky finger. You get to wiggle one finger and the rest of your body does what ever somebody else makes it do, you wouldn't describe that as having agency over your body either.
Agency is full control. Maybe we can say anything less than full control is partial agency.

>constant capital

Capitalists can accumulate constant capital, if it can't be accumulated, then it's not that.
>>

 No.12133

File: 1684788075132.jpg ( 578.18 KB , 800x1115 , 1684707651029466.jpg )

>>12132
>certainly not, lol
negation isn't an argument - don't get emotional

>If it can control your mood, it's hardly voluntary.

sugar controls your mood, yet you can choose not to consume sugar. it would be easier to think of a consumer commodity that doesn't affect "control" the consumer "mood"

>If marketing operates with the mechanism that it lowers your mood so that you feel a compulsion to purchase the product to lift your mood back up, that's a pretty dramatic interference into brain chemistry.

everyone is bombarded with fashion ads, but from the people reading this post it would be hard to find even a single person that feels bad about not having the latest gucci belt. consumers choose to believe some of the marketing and ignore the rest

>rational mind

lmao

>somebody somewhere definitely will look at it and think nothing beyond "transportation box based on wheeled locomotion".

somebody? most people, actually. everyone, if the marketing campaign fails

>Material reality has to be persistent and objectively true independently from any minds experiencing it.

it is. you are having trouble understanding a simple part of reality, let me use an easy example: person A knows how to read, person B doesn't, does that mean that literacy isn't part of the material reality? or that the words in the books don't exist because person B can't "experience" them? knowledge is material because the minds themselves are material objects

>No this is not a reasonable definition of agency.

>Agency is full control. Maybe we can say anything less than full control is partial agency.
I don't really care about your particular definition of agency tbh. you can run in circles around the definition of free will but as long as your hypothetical puppeteer doesn't exist, the point stands

>Capitalists can accumulate constant capital, if it can't be accumulated, then it's not that.

so you moved the goal from capital to only constant capital? besides, this is another negation without elaboration. but don't elaborate, I don't care about your particular definition of capital either. let there be the commodity X, and let there be the set of commodities A that is used to produce X, then the marketing for X is part of A
>>

 No.12134

File: 1684857043926.png ( 196.97 KB , 1062x2160 , cocktail girl water color.png )

>>12133
>negation isn't an argument
Yes but since you just made a assertion without an argument, a counter argument was unnecessary.
But i can still give you one:
The capitalists like pretty much all other ruling classes think in terms of self-serving and self justifying idealisms. The capitalists also do engage in social exclusion behavior to oust members of their class that don't share their idealist views. Tho undoutably a few capitalists probably do have more realistic world views despite that.
The capitalist class like any other ruling class puts a lot of effort into making their ideas the most dominant ones in society. But those ruling ideas have to be differentiated from objective material reality. Ruling classes try to entrench their station not just in institutions but also in the heads of people. The concept of material reality originated as a motion of understanding reality without those distortions that ruling classes generate. The search for an understanding of material reality begins with understanding the tricks of ruling ideology that interfere with the pursuit of knowledge from measuring objective reality.
>everyone is bombarded with ads
Hence marketing is not voluntary, it's very hard to opt out off. Consider that technically, only opt-in can be counted as fully voluntary.
>because the minds themselves are material objects
your idealism is that you think marketing produces changes in the minds of people in the process of generating an ad-experience. But technically that's not true, marketing just produces stimuli for the senses, which in turn may or may not produce mental changes. You're trying to skip a step.
>I don't really care about your particular definition of agency
>my point stands
Well if you dismiss my concept of agency out of hand, then i too will dismiss your point just the same.
<accumulating marketing ?
Lets look at this with less abstraction. Can capitalists accumulate marketing, the only thing that i can see is things like trademarks.

<original topic

I think that we should improve the information that people use to base their purchasing decisions on. I think it should be based on honest product reviews that appeal to reason.
>>

 No.12135

>>12134
I say it is a material reality, you say that what I call reality is actually just the narrow capitalist mind, and then proceed to explain why you call the capitalist mind narrow. you didn't provide an argument for why this objective fact - that marketing goes into costs, and that it in turn increases sales - isn't part of what you define as reality
my materialism can be measured in objective terms: cost and revenue. your mind control stuff isn't measurable, it implies and depends of your particular ideas of free will, rational mind, and other opinions

<there is fish in the world, therefore eating fish isn't a voluntary act

<you claim that the fisherman catches fish, but that's technically not true, it is the hook and bait assembly that catches the fish. you are trying to skip a step

>Can capitalists accumulate marketing

you always come up with this funny thing where you claim that commodities have to be nonperishable to be capital. I have already educated you in some other thread in the past and the error is so evident that there is no need to point it out for the lurkers. not to mention, again, that your particular definitions are irrelevant for the topic at hand, read the last paragraph of the post you were replying to: >>>/tech/12133 to see why

I accept your concession on all the previous points that you didn't address however

>I think that we should improve the information that people use to base their purchasing decisions on.

sounds like mind control to me
>>

 No.12138

>>12134
>Hence marketing is not voluntary, it's very hard to opt out off.
You are the one who is voluntarily visiting these ad laden websites. (Just because you want the information and services within doesn't mean you are being forced to go there).

>marketing just produces stimuli for the senses, which in turn may or may not produce mental changes

I guess you're implying that these mental changes are also involuntary. You still have a rational mind you can use to reflect on these advertisements and reverse their effects. Similar to the point above, but because you are too lazy to do that doesn't mean you've been robbed of your agency.
>>

 No.12139

>>12138
>Just because you want the information and services within doesn't mean you are being forced to go there
NTA, but what bullshit
if there is nowhere else you can get this information, then obviously you are forced
>>

 No.12140

>>12139
>if there is nowhere else you can get this information, then obviously you are forced
Nope. Just because you want the information within doesn't mean you are being forced to go inside. How fucking childish and entitled do you have to be to think that not getting everything you want on your own terms means you are being "forced" to do something.
>>

 No.12141

File: 1685460785434.jpg ( 109.03 KB , 1090x556 , calculator add.jpg )

>>12138
No there generally is little to no alternative to the advertisement model.

Some time ago people proposed to finance the internet with a culture flat-rate. There were many variations of this idea. Like a public option where everybody pays a tax into a money-pot and that would payout money to the online content creators, based on some form of metrics and user inputs. That would have needed international agreements to accommodate the international nature of internet connectivity. There also were commercial variations of this idea that worked on a similar principle. This was blocked by reactionary ideologues, for various reasons, it would have wiped out the monopolies of media distributors and most likely prevented new monopoly formation. Also it would have favored copy-left licensees over copy-ban licenses and because of that the copy-plight mafia has been an the warpath against it.

There are a few pay-walled websites and pay-walled content as an add-free option however normal people usually can't afford that, which rules out an appeal to voluntarism. Not being able to afford something that's a real restriction, like a barrier that restricts your freedom of motion.

>I guess you're implying that these mental changes are also involuntary. You still have a rational mind you can use to reflect on these advertisements and reverse their effects.

I disagree with your principles. If you put up artificial effort barriers, it can't count as voluntary. You can negate every type of restraint or imposition with enough effort, but are you really voluntarily choosing to not rob banks and get filthy rich, because technically that's possible with enough effort ?
There is an external control aspect that decides where those artificial effort barriers go and you as an individual have no choice in the matter, so all the consequences that come from that are not the result of voluntary action.

I understand that in most cases, everything that's worth while takes some effort, but that's no excuse for putting up artificial effort barriers. That's just somebody else that's fucking with you.

______


I think that you might be able to do more ethical advertisement. But you have to center it on consumer interest. So basically it has to serve the purpose of maximizing the value that consumers get rather than maximize the profits for capitalists. That means the ad-company has to get the money from you when you buy a product. It has to perform the role of consumer protection test reviews of commodities. The reviewers who make the "ad-content-reviews" could act as middlemen-resellers, perhaps take a cut from the sales to fund their review activities. I'm not sure about the technical details, one would have to experiment with this.

You also have to change the add-review placement mechanism. Right now advertisement-systems violate the privacy of people to create consumer profiles where capitalists get to choose what type of consumer they want to advertise to. That's not only bad because of the privacy breaches, but also why would the capitalist be the ones who decide that. So instead of placing advertisement-review-content based on the person that's looking at it, it's placed based on the context of the website content. For example a website that only displays text, is analyzed for keywords to figure out what type of ad-review could be contextually related to a webpage. For other type of content you need more sophisticated methods of figuring out context. There is also a societal bonus, categorizing people is prone to producing bad side-effects, if you categorize information that's less likely to have negative effects on people.

The person who runs the website basically submits a page to an add-review company and in return they get static ad-review-content-webpage-code, they can append to their page. That way there would be no need for dynamic add-servers that are prone to distributing malware that got embedded into adds, and no need to track web-users. The website gets money for hosting the ad-reviews and a referral bonus for a sale.
>>

 No.12142

File: 1685462127831.jpeg ( 24.63 KB , 680x383 , ew.jpeg )

>>12140
>How fucking childish and entitled
Yes, I'm entitled to free access to information. Problems?

Now piss off cunt. Go back to donating to your favorite twitch streamer.
>>

 No.12143

>>12141
>Not being able to afford something that's a real restriction, like a barrier that restricts your freedom of motion.
You're saying the producer is infringing on the rights of the consumer by not making the product of his labor easily accessible? And what about the producer, does he not have any freedom to decide what to do with the product of his own labor?

>are you really voluntarily choosing to not rob banks and get filthy rich, because technically that's possible with enough effort

You're conflating the action with the outcome.
>are you really voluntarily choosing to not rob banks, because technically that's possible with enough effort
Yes, every second you are not robbing banks is you voluntarily choosing not to rob banks. No the reason you are not rich is not because you choose not to rob a bank. It's actually kind of interesting to see how fucked up your reasoning ability is.

>>12142
>Yes, I'm entitled to free access to information. Problems?
No, say it properly, comrade. Say you want to be entitled to the product of other people's labor because without it you'd stave like the worthless parasite you are.
>>

 No.12145

>>12143
>Say you want to be entitled to the product of other people's labor
the thing is simpoid, that kind of labor that I'm "entitled" to doesn't need to be rewarded at all - that kind of labor is a reward in itself

and if it's not, then you're doing something wrong and maybe you should go be a lawyer or banker or something

anyway, keep crying and seething, while I keep enjoying my free content
>>

 No.12146

Actually, if any electron coders here can make a PR to freetube to integrate the sponsorblock better so that you could actually mark sponsor segments inside the app - it would make our world that little tiny bit better. For now I'm forced to mark them from my browser driven by the sheer spite alone.

Sadly I have no experience with js to do it myself.
>>

 No.12149

File: 1685488038845.jpeg ( 225.03 KB , 1920x1080 , trash.jpeg )

>>12143
>you want to be
I'm already *is*, fag
what are you gonna do 'bout it? sue me?

Look, the are only two ways this can go, ad-whore - either you become all anal and go cry to google/apple/daddy state to ban all those who infringe on your """intellectual property""", or you suck it up, find a real job, stick your "please support my work" in the end of your videos and hope that people don't skip your whinings with a sponsorblock

GOT IT?
>>

 No.12150

>>12143
>You're saying the producer is infringing on the rights of the consumer by not making the product of his labor easily accessible? And what about the producer, does he not have any freedom to decide what to do with the product of his own labor?

This is idealist, producers are capitalists that are using the labor of the workers to produce stuff and the working class only gets part of it back in the form of consumption.

The reason why there are poor people who get paywalled out, is because the ruling class is either stealing the surplus they produce as workers, or they are blocking them from accessing the productive forces when they are condemned to become part of the reserve army of labor.
>>

 No.12151

File: 1685551077571.jpeg ( 217.9 KB , 1920x1080 , gotit.jpeg )

>>12150
>The reason why there are poor people who get paywalled out, is because the ruling class is either stealing the surplus they produce as workers, or they are blocking them from accessing the productive forces when they are condemned to become part of the reserve army of labor.
dogmoid oversimplication to fit the 18th century philosophycel narrative

the reason people get paywalled out is because artificial scarcity allows "owners" to appropriate surplus value. It's that simple.

Situation of the direct producers of digital goods is not equivalent to the situation of the direct producers of the material goods. Direct producers of digital goods have a stake in keeping the scarcity, while direct producers of material goods couldn't care less about it.
Or in marxist philosophyspeak terms - direct producers in the digital sphere aren't alienated from their product.

So modern digital distribution platforms are not "exploiters" of the poor direct producers, but enforcers of their interests.

You need to update your narrative to the current reality dogmoid, or people will just laugh your stupid retarded ass out of the room.

GOT IT?
>>

 No.12152

>>12151
>oversimplication to fit the 18th century philosophy narrative
>the reason people get paywalled out is because artificial scarcity allows "owners" to appropriate surplus value. It's that simple.

<Workers get screwed over in the work-place when they collect their wage

<Workers get screwed over in the consumer market when they spend their wage

Both of those are probably true.

>Situation of the direct producers of digital goods is not equivalent to the situation of the direct producers of the material goods.

There are very few direct producers of material goods left tho.
>Direct producers of digital goods have a stake in keeping the scarcity, while direct producers of material goods couldn't care less about it.
If you make online content and you get money from patron-donations for it, artificial scarcity has no upsides.

>Or in marxist terms - direct producers in the digital sphere aren't alienated from their product.

This is technically true if you run your own website or something equivalent, but all those that produce content for the big platforms, i'm not so sure.
>>

 No.12167

>>12150
>This is idealist, producers are capitalists that are using the labor of the workers to produce stuff
Do you really think there are no content producers who make and sell all their own things directly? Or are you just pretending they don't exist because they completely destroy your position.

>>12151
>the reason people get paywalled out is because artificial scarcity allows "owners" to appropriate surplus value
Hosting and bandwidth are still physical scares resources that need to be paid for. Every website you visit with no ads, sponsors or paywall is running at a loss.

>surplus value

I'm trying to understand your marxist braindamage. What's the surplus here? Writers perform labor to arrange words into patterns that convey meaning and provide you with information and/or entertainment. It's not as outrageous as you seem think that these workers want to be paid for their work. Otherwise why would they continue working. If you want to continued benefit of their labor you have to find a way of rewarding them. inb4 real communism uses gulags to force people to work for free
>>

 No.12169

>>12152
>Both of those are probably true.
not with physical goods, because of competition

with digital goods tho..

>There are very few direct producers of material goods left tho.

*facepalm*
industrial and agricultural proletariat is still the majority

go check where all of the components come from in your latte coffee machine

>If you make online content and you get money from patron-donations for it, artificial scarcity has no upsides.

retarded
artificial scarcity means + even MORE surplus

>but all those that produce content for the big platforms, i'm not so sure.

maybe for the small fish, tho I would argue they alienate themselves due to them all chasing the big buck

but when you make it to the middle - silver button, twitch partnership, etc - the platform essentially becomes an enforcer of your economic position
>>

 No.12170

>>12167
>Hosting and bandwidth are still physical scares resources that need to be paid for. Every website you visit with no ads, sponsors or paywall is running at a loss.
ad-whores get "compensated" not for "bandwidth" and other "running expenses" lmao

>What's the surplus here?

the surplus is that part of he physical product that your neo-feudal ass COULD and WILL buy with the money you collect due to the enforced digital scarcity by digital distribution platforms

>It's not as outrageous as you seem think that these workers want to be paid for their work.

they are not getting paid for their work

they are getting paid for their monopoly rights

>If you want to continued benefit of their labor you have to find a way of rewarding them.

the end product is a reward enough

>inb4 real communism uses gulags to force people to work for free

nah, real gommunists just pirate your shit
>>

 No.12171

>>12170
>ad-whores get "compensated" not for "bandwidth" and other "running expenses" lmao
Those expenses are real though it's not that their entire business is "artificial scarcity" as you put it. Even if you want to forget your own ideology and argue that their labor is worthless, these other resources are still scarce.

>the surplus is that part of he physical product that your neo-feudal ass COULD and WILL buy with the money you collect due to the enforced digital scarcity by digital distribution platforms

Literally what. Was that supposed to be english. Try again. Where is the "surplus value" in a journalist paywalling their articles?

>they are not getting paid for their work

>they are getting paid for their monopoly rights
…which they created with their work. They have a monopoly on the thing because they are the ones who created it.

>the end product is a reward enough

Interesting. How much content do you create and publish for free? Let's see your website.
>>

 No.12172

>>12171
>Those expenses are real though it's not that their entire business is "artificial scarcity" as you put it.
running expenses are negligible in the ad-whore business model

try again

>Where is the "surplus value" in a journalist paywalling their articles?

*sigh*
the appropriated "surplus value" is that part of the physical product that your "journalist" will purchase
with the money collected from those paywalled articles

comprendo?

>…which they created with their work.

yes
>They have a monopoly on the thing because they are the ones who created it.
nah

they have monopoly because digital platform enforces it

>Interesting. How much content do you create and publish for free? Let's see your website.

I don't create "content". Only ad-whores create "content". Fucking whore-speak lol.

Anyway, the thing is, shilloid, you can't be paid for your work in the digital world - the physical properties of the digital world itself make this impossible - you can only be paid for your "rights" that are enforced by some authority
>>

 No.12173

>>12169
>not with physical goods, because of competition
>with digital goods tho..
The subscription model is also being applied to physical goods and that's undermining competition

>industrial and agricultural proletariat is still the majority

That is true but they are not direct producers, they produce intermediary goods. A direct producer for example is somebody that herds sheep and then spins the sheep-wool into yarn and then turns yarn into clothing.

>artificial scarcity means

It's just rent seeking, why bother with strange ideological rhetoric.

Now that I'm thinking about it why aren't free market capitalist demanding that copy-law gets changed so that there can't be distribution monopolies, and that every mode of distribution was allowed as long as it payed a royalty in the form of revenue sharing.

>maybe for the small fish, tho I would argue they alienate themselves due to them all chasing the big buck

I don't know it seems to qualify as precarious gig-work, it certainly isn't contractual wage work. As far as the capacity for blame in capitalism goes, i would say that has to be limited to the capital owners. Maybe it could be extended to include the top 10% income bracket, but certainly nobody below that can be blamed for anything that happens under capitalism.
>>

 No.12174

>>12172
>running expenses are negligible in the ad-whore business model
Running expenses are not artificial scarcity.

>the appropriated "surplus value" is that part of the physical product that your "journalist" will purchase with the money collected from those paywalled articles

The journalist is a worker who did work and sold the product of that work. Who did they "appropriate" surplus value from?

>they have monopoly because digital platform enforces it

That comes later. Initially they have a monopoly because they created the thing and haven't shared it with anyone yet. You are conflating the hopelessness of copy protection with the initial release.

>you can't be paid for your work in the digital world the physical properties of the digital world itself make this impossible - you can only be paid for your "rights" that are enforced by some authority

This is just your own ignorance and lack of imagination talking. Take crowd funding database dumps for example. The seller knows the more people he sells the dump to the more likely someone will release it and tank any possibility of future sales. So you set the price at something high that no single person would pay, and anyone interested pledges money to an escrow, if the fund reaches the asking price then the money is transferred to the seller and the dump is released to everyone who pledged money. Darknet markets have done this for years.

There is no "authority" preventing the buyers from getting the content some other way, just the laws of reality. Although ignoring the laws of reality is an important step to falling for communism I guess.

>I don't create "content"

But komrade you literally said the end product is a reward enough. Why would you not want to create your own rewards? Is it because you're full of shit
>>

 No.12175

>>12173
>A direct producer for example is somebody that herds sheep and then spins the sheep-wool into yarn and then turns yarn into clothing.
No. A direct producer is anyone who is involved in the day-to-day production process of the finished consumer good, including in the production of all of the intermediary goods.
>>

 No.12176

>>12173
>Now that I'm thinking about it why aren't free market capitalist demanding that copy-law gets changed so that there can't be distribution monopolies
https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0
It's your boys who can't seem to wrap their heads around digital products without copyright law.
>>

 No.12177

>>12175
No. A direct producer is anyone who is involved in the day-to-day production process of the finished consumer good, including in the production of all of the intermediary goods.
I thought that in the Marxist jargon that was just called the productive sector. Anyway it doesn't really matter as long as everybody is on the same page with terminology.

>>12176
Von Mises is against IP ?
Who would have thunk, communists and market libertarians agreeing on something.
>It's your boys who can't seem to wrap their heads around digital products without copyright law.
Communists want to license everything as either open-source or copy-left. If you want to be pedantic that's still copyright law. But you gotta slap licenses on stuff otherwise something else will fill the "license-void" with un-free licenses. That's how we got all the terrible copy-ban and patent-block chicanery in the first place.
>>

 No.12178

Google is going after invidious, they send a legal intimidation letter that's claiming that invidious would violate the terms of services of the Youtube api. Invidious however doesn't use the api, so at least the first punch that google throws is a miss.

https://invidious.baczek.me/watch?v=PTmZv7-eMrE

Google is pissing off a bunch of tech-nerds that so far have focused on building a front-end to YT that is bearable, unlike the official YT front-end. What they are missing here is the fact that people still got funneled to YT. If that type of thing gets sabotaged, they push people towards alternatives.

This feels like what MAO describes in his texts about materialism. That one big thing breaks into 2 and than keeps fragmenting until "a thousand flowers bloom". I don't know, but it seems like, that's now going to happen to online video.
>>

 No.12182

>>12177
>Von Mises is against IP?
I don't know about Mises himself but the libertarian consensus is that IP is just government intervention to prop up an ineffective business model.

I suppose you can simulate IP with a contract, I share this digital asset on the condition that you don't share it with anyone else. But then you can only sue for damages from the specific people you had contracts with. This idea that a corporation can use the state to go after everybody who ever made of copy of "their" digital asset is bullshit on every level.

>Who would have thunk, communists and market libertarians agreeing on something.

Anti-government is anti-government. What we disagree on is what kind of social order to replace it with.

>copy-left

Reverse stupidity is not intelligence.

>Communists want to license everything as either open-source or copy-left.

>you gotta slap licenses on stuff otherwise something else will fill the "license-void" with un-free licenses.
Why would your communist legal system enforce "un-free" licenses? A license is just a post-card to santa claus if there is nobody with a gun to enforce it.

Anyway, the thread got derailed a bit because your comrade was conflating a paywall with copyright.
>>

 No.12188

>>12182
>I suppose you can simulate IP with a contract, I share this digital asset on the condition that you don't share it with anyone else. But then you can only sue for damages from the specific people you had contracts with. This idea that a corporation can use the state to go after everybody who ever made of copy of "their" digital asset is bullshit on every level.

I guess that libertarian contractual style Ip is less egregious. Tho i'm not entirely convinced that somebody couldn't find a scheme to use this for mass copy-ban abuse. In that environment they could try to create chain-contracts that force people to rope others into their copy-ban schemes.

>copy-left is Reverse stupidity

What objections do you have against copy-left license ?

>Why would your communist legal system enforce "un-free" licenses?

Well ideally it wouldn't and the entire communist legal system was committed to upholding communist ideals. But realistically you'll always have people trying to screw it up from within. So you gotta have multiple layers of protection. If you make sure that all the things have a free license, all the schemes for inserting unfree licenses would have a much harder time. Also the proprietarians made their thumbscrew-licenses the default that automatically applies to everything even if people don't put a license on something, and if you don't want that, you need to take extra steps. We gotta learn that lesson that not setting a sane default, can leave the door open to this kind of stuff.

>A license is just a post-card to santa claus if there is nobody with a gun to enforce it.

That's partially true, there are other methods for coercion.
>>

 No.12189

>>12188
>they could try to create chain-contracts that force people to rope others into their copy-ban schemes.
<You are not allowed to share this but if you do then everyone you share it with are also not allowed to share it
Maybe you can word it in a way that makes sense. I don't think it works though because every link in the chain would be responsible for enforcing the contract on the next link and why would they.

>Well ideally it wouldn't and the entire communist legal system was committed to upholding communist ideals. But realistically you'll always have people trying to screw it up from within.

The whole point of copyleft is to exploit the machinery of copyright law to enforce a license that does the opposite of what copyright was originally intended to achieve. If your side already controls the machinery you don't need to exploit it from outside anymore.

>What objections do you have against copy-left license ?

It doesn't matter if you're trying to use IP law to keep things secret or keep things open, I'm against the principle of IP law itself.
>>

 No.12190

>>12189
>Maybe you can word it in a way that makes sense.
Chain-contracts is my attempt at word-smithing a generic term, a specific example would be a pyramid scam that obligates people to sign up others.

>I don't think it works though because every link in the chain would be responsible for enforcing the contract on the next link and why would they.

Yeah if there's no leverage differential that's true. But if you got big corporate doing this, they usually do have a lot of leverage, they probably can find ways to force people to make the enforcement propagate through the chain. Remember every big corporation eventually tries to be like a state.

>The whole point of copyleft is to exploit the machinery of copyright law to enforce a license that does the opposite of what copyright was originally intended to achieve. If your side already controls the machinery you don't need to exploit it from outside anymore.

Copy-left doesn't actually eat copy-right (by exploiting the machinery of copyright law). That's wishful thinking. It's more like people living at the edge of town who do their own thing, and nobody cares because it doesn't affect anybody in power living in the town-center.

But for the sake of the argument lets say hypothetically copy-left could eat copy-right. You would keep it in place even after you control "the machinery" because if anybody ever tried to restart the copy-ban praxis it would get eaten again. I'm assuming that even after civilization got "re-arranged" for the better, that the old abusive ways will reverberate like historic echos a number of times. If you don't plan for that your "new ways" might get knocked back.

>I'm against the principle of IP law itself.

Fair enough, how do you make it go away ?
>>

 No.12191

>>12190
>pyramid scam that obligates people to sign up others
This is all irrelevant in the digital realm anyway. Once the bits are free they're free.

>Remember every big corporation eventually tries to be like a state

The whole concept of a corporation is a legal fiction invented and maintained by the state. The dividing line though is that the state can initiate violence to get what it wants, a corporation can't. I know to spoiled commie brats not getting what you want is literally violence but it's not. Violence is violence. Until the day that men in McDonalds uniforms come to your house, beat you up and take 40% of your salary, a corporation is not a state.

>Copy-left doesn't actually eat copy-right (by exploiting the machinery of copyright law). That's wishful thinking. It's more like people living at the edge of town who do their own thing, and nobody cares because it doesn't affect anybody in power living in the town-center.

We're talking about the GPL right. This software is free and everyone who uses it must also keep it free. Otherwise we use the same legal system that enforces copyright secrecy to enforce copyleft openness.

>It's more like people living at the edge of town who do their own thing, and nobody cares because it doesn't affect anybody in power living in the town-center.

Except literally everyone depends on GPL software including Google, Microsoft and Apple.

>Fair enough, how do you make it go away ?

How would I make it go away. By removing state interventions. There's no such thing as intellectual property in a free market because there is no one to enforce it outside the scope of a contract between two specific parties.

How would you make it go away. Take control of the state and order the courts and police to stop enforcing it.
>>

 No.12192

>>12191
>Once the bits are free they're free.
Probably, but capitalism is still trying to enclose the commons.

>The whole concept of a corporation is a legal fiction invented and maintained by the state. The dividing line though is that the state can initiate violence to get what it wants, a corporation can't.

Corporations did try to field private mercenary armies, that failed spectacularly, but they still are doing private security forces and private spies and private hitmen. There also is the CEO of Exon Mobile saying that his corporation wants the same international legal status as sovereign countries. Corpos may not have the power of states but they sure are striving for it.
>Violence is violence.
<Ah a fellow member of the tautology club, greetings.
Violence is what causes harm/death to people, there is no reason to discriminate with regards to methods.
Violence can be many things, it might be overt physical attacks like your MC-storm-troopers example, but it can also be obfuscated structural violence that harms or kills people.

>We're talking about the GPL right. This software is free and everyone who uses it must also keep it free. Otherwise we use the same legal system that enforces copyright secrecy to enforce copyleft openness.

The GPL gets violated alot though.

>Except literally everyone depends on GPL software including Google, Microsoft and Apple.

Sure but you can't say that GPL software eats those companies or the proprietary stuff they build on top of the FOSS stack.

>By removing state interventions. There's no such thing as intellectual property in a free market because there is no one to enforce it outside the scope of a contract between two specific parties.

Not sure what that means specifically, do you want legislative changes that annul the laws for copy-rite enforcement ?

>How would you make it go away. Take control of the state and order the courts and police to stop enforcing it.

If cybernetic socialists get into power, DRM gets banned, because that's just violating personal property. And copy-ban duration gets reduced to something sane, like 5 years maybe (I'm not sure about the correct duration).

After that we begin a slow and incremental transitional phase creating a cybernetically planned economy that runs in parallel with the legacy capitalist economy with a compatibility layer linking the 2 together. The cybernetic system will have a market feedback mechanism for consumer choice but the planning algorithm decides the prices of goods by calculating labor inputs.

If you have entrepreneurial spirit and wish to organize production you can start a work-place, and in order to get resources you have to convince workers to join your work-place. The strategically important sectors will become public enterprises. The socialist cybernetic economy will use labor-time tokens instead of money, but those will be made compatible with the legacy capitalist economy which can continue using money.

The socialist cybernetic economy will obviously only use opensource and creative commons licenses. Over Time the capitalist legacy economy will do it's boom and bust cycles with all the economic crisis drama. People hate capitalist crisis and every time one of those happens it will convince more people to go for the cybernetic-socialist side of the economy. In the long run capitalism fades away and it's copy-right inquisition will too.

This cybernetic system will re-produce the free-market aspect about nobody fucking with you in terms of what you spend your labor-time tokens on, but it will not reproduce the wealth concentration aspect of markets.
>>

 No.12704

YouTube's plan backfires, people are installing better ad blockers

https://www.androidauthority.com/youtube-ad-block-installs-3382289/

<YouTube’s crackdown on ad blockers is causing users to uninstall the software in record numbers.

<However, an even higher number of users are instead turning to better ad blockers that won’t trigger YouTube’s warning.
<Some users are even going as far as to switch to a new browser.
>>

 No.12722

YouTube Is Losing To The Adblockers

https://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=h9UubIJRyV8

So Youtube is apparently running into EU Privacy laws because they did not ask users for permission before they ran anti-adblocker javascript in People's browsers.

The battle will probably continue, anybody care to speculate about how this will turn out ?
>>

 No.12725

>>12722
eu laws on internet stuff are strict. even Alphabet, Inc. will have to yield.
>>

 No.12726

>>12725
It seems so. Tho keep in mind it's very difficult to predict what laws mean for a layperson.

Many people think that Youtube is doing this because they're not making enough money with adds to break even on platform costs. My guess is that add-revenue is probably shrinking because most people have less disposable income (because wealth inequality is growing), and rich people spend a much smaller share of their income on commodity purchases, so all of those adds are chasing a piece of a shrinking pie. It looks like we're winning this round, but this is probably going to come back in some other form.
>>

 No.12769

google's add crusaders have come up with a new scheme.

They want to remove the ability of adblockes to update their block-lists independently from the entire add-on. Which means instead of daily updated block-lists, it might take upto 2 weeks, that delay will probably make them alot less effective.

I predict that Firefox will regain popularity, and some ad-blockers might actually become there own browser.

Unique IPs: 24

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome