You are still not understanding. EU law doesn't protect you from having to pay for goods and services. EU law just banned tools like adblock detection, because you have a right to privacy under data protection law.

It's like going to the store and hiding a pack of chewing gums in your pocket. If a store employee accuses you of stealing, they have no legal basis to force you to show the gum. They don't have elevated law enforcement rights. Your pocket is private.

In the same way, google is not allowed to act on the information, that you use adblock. It's still violating their TOS, which you ACCEPT by accessing their platform. Since we don't have a petty internet police, nobody will proscecute you for it.

Immorality only lies in circumventing ads via third party solutions. By that, you don't follow the contract, you have no right to consume their content, then.

You are mixing two things. Nobody can just blast ads on your phone without your consent. But you did give consent by accessing YouTube.

I don't see how the pricing for Premium is unreasonable. I do, however see, how they are too aggressive with ads. That's why I said paying for premium is a better deal than watching ads. If you don't agree with either compensation, don't use their service

I think that's morally quite okay... well, compared to people's general mindset in this thread.

But still, think about your creators without YouTube. Where do they go? Nebula? Maybe something like that would work. Likely, if YT is no more. Would that change anything? Not really. There will always be problems, the bigger something is, the worse it gets.

Also, I don't understand your reference, but that's okay.

No, I'm not here to defend Alphabet. I'm just saying it's equal to stealing groceries at Wallmart. They request payment, you deny. Just because it's so much easier to do on YouTube doesn't mean it's any more justifiable.

Oh baby, you don't understand what you just said, do you?

Nobody forces you to watch ads. Close YouTube, don't look back, email content creators to have em send ad free video links directly to you.

Watching ads is your obligation as consumer, if you decide not to pay for their removal.

The nutella butter thing was kind of a meme, bit kf ragebait. It's a shit comparison, on purpose. It's so shit, you should understand my point through that.

IDK maybe I'm bad at english or something, but this is exactly my point. Either you pay, or you watch ads. Both is okay, they get paid. I just don't think YouTube with ads is a better deal than Premium, due to the amount of videos and therefore ads a regular person watches on the daily.

Watching with ads is completely fine. I just cannot justify watching 15-30 seconds of ads for a single video (it's probably more nowadays).

I actually did say just about that in my post, so I don't see how you disagree with me.

I think there's SmartTube for smartTv's. Not sure how parental control stuff works.

Yeah, Nebula is great. But other than being not Google, their platform works in similar ways. You pay, you get content.. I mean, how could they even change that anyway?

As of now, Lemmy is still quite niche. People wouldn't generate a high, stable income on Lemmy sized platforms. It's fine if it's just for fun, but it's not really viable as a full business.

Streaming platforms that compete with YT conform to most exactly the same conditions. They need some form of income.

I think you misunderstood. Them making money trough straight payments AND through ad revenue are both completely fine incomes.

However, there is no morality in denying them both while still benefiting from their goods and services. You'd support my argument if it was about some local busines. For some odd reason this shifts peoples perspecives. Someone offers something and says "hey it's not for free, but I won't actually know if you paid or not" (well YouTube does know, but that's secondary).. It's not right to deny them their pay. There are no consequences to it, but you know that it's not sustainable if everybody thinks like you.

I think you misunderstood. Them making money trough straight payments AND through ad revenue are both completely fine incomes.

However, there is no morality in denying them both while still benefiting from their goods and services. You'd support my argument if it was about some local busines. For some odd reason this shifts peoples perspecives. Someone offers something and says "hey it's not for free, but I won't actually know if you paid or not" (well YouTube does know, but that's secondary).. It's not right to deny them their pay. There are no consequences to it, but you know that it's not sustainable if everybody thinks like you.

I think you misunderstood. Them making money trough straight payments AND through ad revenue are both completely fine incomes.

However, there is no morality in denying them both while still benefiting from their goods and services. You'd support my argument if it was about some local busines. For some odd reason this shifts peoples perspecives. Someone offers something and says "hey it's not for free, but I won't actually know if you paid or not" (well YouTube does know, but that's secondary).. It's not right to deny them their pay. There are no consequences to it, but you know that it's not sustainable if everybody thinks like you.

If your answer to those questions is no...

You clearly know my stance about consumption of goods and services. I wouldn't say no to that.

Alphabet is a for profit company. They have every right to be. If they do something, it's to generate income in some way, at some point. Google Maps is here for a multitude of reasons. User data is what comes to mind. They also take sponsorship money. Be a restaurant, pay money to be on top of the "restaurants in x city" results. GSuite has a business model, the free model also tries to make you stay with Google. Of course this stuff can cost money. Of course it's also fine if they absolutely milk you for your personal data, as long as you agree, which in the past (and future) has been a problem... not topic of the day.

If they charge money (or ad consumption) for something and I don't feel like paying, I'm not using. This is the gist of it.

Explain how it isn't. If you're happy about removing mid to longform video content from the internet, yeah, whatever mate. I don't think I have an argument to disarm this attack, other than the fact that you stamd with a very small group of people.

If creators decide to use another platform, the other platform will also only exist aslong as people either consume ads or pay money, which, in your argument, wouldn't happen.

If creators decide to create individual small group platforms, have fun in border gore. People will not find nearly as many interesting videos with just curious browsing. Plus, I don't see many creators surciving that. Plus, I don't see many small creators rising in that economy.

I'm not sure if Linus Tech Tips agree with me, but from context, I'll assume so. Anyway, the free market isn't a real argument to me. All it tells me is that YouTube and most big creators have a solid business model.

My argument consists of basically two aspects:

Paying money for Youtube content is better value than watching ads for YouTube content. Your time and to an extent mental state is, for 95% of users, worth more than that money.

Not paying money and not watching ads is not sustainable and morally reprehensible. Their service doesn't finance itself if nobody grants it any income. It they demand a compensation for their goods and services, you are to either compensate them or forego the offer. You cannot just assume that a bunch of other people compensate for the lost income through you. It morally doesn't work like that. If you do that, you better be okay with financially stablr people stealing in grocery stores too.

Or 5. It holds 6 people... 4 € per person best case. As for now, they aren't enforcing same household sharing only, like Netflix do. I can't tell you about the future.

Also, not to support such behaviour, but if you aren't made of money, I'm totally okay with you teleporting to Argentina, subscribing to YT Premium at maybe 5 $ a month, and teleporting back to never go there again. That doesn't require an argentinian CC.

I'm not sure about legal technicalities, but I do know that it currently works. Personally, I don't risk it if they ever decide to ban associated accounts, because u know, they totally can refuse to service you, if they were to feel like it.

Basically, not sure how Apple does it though. You have a Google family group. You can add individual accounts to that. The group owner cannot see any activities of other accounts, but he could remove people without their permission.

Removed users only lose active family subscriptions like youtube premium and google one (storage). Their watch histories and whatnot will remain the same. Watch out with Google one. If you have Google one and use more storage than google free, then remove google one, you only get a limited time period to remove data over the limit. Afterwards it gets inaccessible, I don't think they delete anything, but no insurance on that.

The textbook this person owns:

service provider: "Hello, I'm a window cleaner, do you want me to clean your windows? I'll actually do it for free this time! Please recommend me to your peers"

customer: "yes please"

service provider: "all done! Want me to do it again in three months time?"

customer: "yes, I love free stuff!"

service provider: "actually, I'd have to charge for that, can't work for free all the time."

customer: "Racketeering!"

Homie missed the point. using ublock and sponsorblock is equal to petty theft. Disliking a company doesn't make it morally right to steal from them.

Google tells me 24 bucks for family. That's equal to what I do. I actually do pay that for all of em, but technically, it's just under 5 bucks a person since I share with 4 others.

ITT: "it costs more than 5 bucks a month!" yeah, if you don't share with friends with family, it does. Also, music service included, deduct your spotify payment.

"You can just block ads" You can just miss the whole point.

"I rather support creators directly" I'm happy you do that. YouTube hosting is not free for Google/Alphabet, pay them too, or you'll have to teach each and every creator how to webhost + help em search a "real job" because selfhosted won't pay enough. Also, good fun browsing videos then.

IDK man, paying for YT Premium really isn't that bad. Assuming you already consume YouTube content, that is. And I'm pretty sure that's like 98% of first world population between 4 and 70.

Blocking ads on YouTube is no sustainable solution. Hosting Billions of Gigabytes of on-demand content is SUPER expensive. Like, it actually costs money. Other, wayyy smaller indie creator on-demand video platforms charge 5 bucks a month, but i'ts okay if they do it, because they aren't big bad Alphabet.

If that's your view, you don't have a problem with pricing, you have a problem with morals. And if you still do voluntarily consume YouTube content in private, with or without ads in any which way, you inarguably have a huge problem with your own morals.

YouTube premium is a good deal. It's priced very well compared with competition, it actually does pay indie creators and it let's you access to features that many users really do use.

BUTBUT THEY ARTIFICIALLY LIMIT FEATURES FOR NO REASON WITHOUT PREMIUM. I mean, it's subscription software and streaming, what else would they do? Every for profit subscription software provider and their mother does this. I develop hospital software and we literally do exactly this. If hospital A has feature x and hospital B also wants that, we don't just hand that out for free even when we just have to add it to their system in like 10 minutes... what did you expect? They already use our software (like you use YouTube), we don't have a huge incentive to just randomly add features if nobody paid for it. If we do, be happy about it, send me a gift card, if we or they don't, that's just business.

Lass dir bitte durch dritte helfen. Manchmal ist das nicht so toll fürs Ego, aber für ein übermässig grosses Ego haben wir momentan eh keinen Platz. Sei stark und gestehe dir die Notsituation ein.

Falls möglich, gehe bitte zu Hilfsorganisationen wie die Tafel. Ich verstehe, dass das weh tut, aber alleine tuts noch viel mehr weh.

Darum geht's auch nicht. Koro ist ne lifestyle Marke (geworden). Die machen Werbung über Influencer auf Social Media. Rügenwalder ist IMO ne gute Marke, hat aber keinen Status wie Koro. Das lockt nicht veganer dazu, solche Produkte zu probieren. Das ist doch gut.

Hauptvorteil hierran ist doch ganz klar Marketing, Werbung. Rügenwalder hat IMO grossen Einfluss auf den deutschen convenience "Fertigfleisch" Markt. Früher pures Fleisch, heute eigene Fleischalternativen-Produktion. Ja, das ist Marktforschung und Gewinnoptimierung, trotzdem gut und schön.

Popularität und lifestyle (nicht nur unter Bestandsveganern) in den Markt der veganen Alternativen zu bringen, das ist gut.

Lass einfach gar kein Ziele mehr setzen, für die Umsetzung muss man ja was tun und das ist viel Arbeit.

Yeah I did it the other day on my lunch break.

Well, the F16 is called Prius and shooting down the F16 with an RPG is called grabbing McD from the drive through window. But you know, I was really far from the window and had to open the door to step out with one foot.

An die ganzen Auto-/Individualverkehrs-Hater: ein grosser Teil der "Kosten" ist Wertverlust der Karre. Das macht natürlich nur bedingt Sinn. Marktwert ist ja für nen Privatnutzer nicht dasselbe wie Nutzwert.

An die Öffi-Hater: Ich hab Arbeitskollegen, die kommen locker auf € 500 den Monat, tatsächliche Kosten. Man frage sich, warum die nicht mit dem Zug ins Büro kommen, bzw. warum die überhaupt jeden Tag ins Büro wollen. Zum Teil sind deren Zugverbindungen eh schneller, aber dann müsste man ja erste Klasse lösen, "in der Zweiten setz ich mich sicher nicht hin".

Aber ein Helm verhindert nicht Unfälle, sondern mindert das Risiko einer starken Kopfverletzung.

Ja, Verletzungen am Kopf fallen mit Helm im Schnitt deutlich weniger dramatisch aus, als solche ohne, sofern die verglichenen Unfälle gleichwertig sind.

Problem jedoch: Helme führen zu mehr Unfällen. Das wurde mal irgendwo in einem wissenschaftlichen Artikel behandelt und mit deutlicher Signifikanz für Wahr befunden. Ich selbst halte nix von Aussagen ohne Quellen, leider konnt ich die aber aufm Klo gerade nicht finden.

Tja, naja. Auch war im Artikel vermerkt, dass unklar ist, was dazu führt, dass Helmträger mehr Unfälle haben. Tragen riskantere, schnellere, sportlichere Fahrer öfter Helm? Wahrscheinlich. Wird bei der Frage ob man einen Helm trug gelogen? Vielleicht.

Die Idee ist jedoch, dass man sich selbst als Fahrradfahrer sicherer Fühlt, wenn man Schutzausrüstung trägt. Kann ich für mich selbst bestätigen. Auch realistisch: Dritte handeln "Fahrlässiger", wenn der Radfahrer weniger verletzlich wirkt.

Fazit für mich selbst: Helm tragen und so tun als wären alle Verkehrsteilnehmer inkl. mir selbst richtig dumm.

China gewinnt halt momentan das 21. Jahrhundert. Ist ja nicht schlimm, die machen zum Teil super Sachen, zum Teil auch super Scheiss, aber das gilt doch für jedes Land.

Hier in der Schweiz hab ich kürzlich Black November gesehen. Irgendwie macht das doch auch als Geschäft gar keinen Sinn mehr. Kein Reiz, schnell zu agieren und jeder weis bescheid, niemals ist das deutlich günstiger als sonst.

Edit: Galaxus (gibt's ja mittlerweile auch in DE) hat ne Black Friday Week???

Ich finde, man könnte dementsprechend Jahreszeiten-basierte Preise machen. Green spring: Alle Produkte sind überall um 10% teurer aber 10% rabattiert. Red Summer: Alles ist 3 für 2 aber 2 kosten so viel wie sonst 3. Orange Fall: Alles ist 80% reduziert, man ist aber dazu verpflichtet 5 zu kaufen und 4 zurückzugeben. White Winter: Die Preisschilder sind einfach weiß auf weiß.

Vegan ist doch auch nur ein Wort. Mir ist's egal ob ich Veganer oder Zimtschnecke genannt werde (obwohl das letztere schon ganz süss wäre). Mir geht's nicht um den Stolz, zum Wohl anderer zu verzichten. Mir geht's doch nur darum, was ich selbst von meinen Taten halte.

Aber all die typischen Gründe, vegan zu leben, treffen hier nicht zu

Nicht wirklich Tierwohl ist debattierbar, ich verstehe warum man da sagen kann "Grillen sind nicht in der Lage, aktive Gedanken, Schmerzen, Glück/Unglück, etc. zu fühlen" die Frage kann ich dir auch nicht beantworten.

Für mich ist die benötigte Energie extrem relevant. Darüber wird meisst nicht in dieser Form gesprochen, eher gibt's die Angabe, wie viel Futter für wie viel Masse benötigt wird. Man nennt das Futterverwertung, englisch Feed Concersion Ratio, kurz FCR. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio

Zum Verständnis, eine Futterverwertung von 2 bedeutet 2kg Futter führen zu 1kg Gewichtszunahme. Wenn nix spezielles steht, gehts um Trockenfutter als Input und Tiermasse NASS mit Knochen und allem ungeniessbarem als Output. Ein FCR unter 1 ist also auch möglich und nicht unbedingt aussagekräftig bezüglich der Energieeffizienz.

Hier ein guter Artikel: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211912417300056?via%3Dihub Da wird sogar der kalorische Ertrag angesprochen, also Energieeffizienz. Dabei wird sichtbar, dass halt bei jeder Art von Masseumwandlung viel Energie verloren geht. Bei Grillen und besonders Mehlwürmern ist der Verlust viel geringer, gegen z.B. Tofu kommt's aber nicht an. Jetzt ist's aber so, dass Grillen teils auch Nahrung essen können, die wir nicht möchten oder gar nicht essen können. also eigentlich Abfall. Gibt nicht genug Studien, um die eine richtig gute Antwort zur Energieeffizienz zu geben.

Persönlich muss ich dazu sagen, warum Grillen oder Mehlwürmer-Larven essen, wenn ich auch Tofu und Seitan haben kann? Klar, die Eiweissverwertung im Menschen könnte theoretisch besser sein und B12 haben Tiere normalerweise auch mehr in sich als Sojabohnen und Weizen. Aber willst du ernsthaft alle paar Tage Insekten essen? Ich ess ja nicht mal täglich Tofu oder Seitan. Mich persönlich macht Insektenkonsum einfach nicht an, aber energietechnisch verwerflich ist das nicht wirklich.

Gaming Mäuse halten IMO richtig lange. Ich hatte lange ne Zowie irgendwas Maus. Alles normale drann, 2 Seitenknöpfe, angenehme form. Die hab ich 2015 geholt, bis 2022 täglich benutzt und lebt immer noch, aber ich hab auf kabellos gewechselt. Ich brauch die nur noch fürs Büro, dort bin ich einmal die Woche. Zuhause hab ich jetzt irgendwas Pulsar. Auch die wird hauptsächlich fürs arbeiten genutzt.

So ne gaming Maus ist eigentlich auch nur ne normale Maus, die mehr kostet. Die Gamer scheinen einiges an Leistung bei den Sensoren und Knöpfen zu verlangen, deshalb wirkt die Qualität deutlich besser auf mich. Da zahl ich €60 statt €30, dafür funktioniert die auch locker mal die dreifache Zeit.

Ich hab übrigens auch ne MX Master und 2 mal MX Anywhere. Die MX Anywhere klickten beide nach nem halben Jahr doppelt. Die MX Master funktioniert noch.

Gebügeltes Hemd und Hosenfalt sieht schon gut aus. Das mach ich aber etwa alle 3 Jahre mal und dann geh ich zu Mammer bügeln. Ausserdem gibt's mittlerweile Hosen mit Falt, die liegen auch ohne Bügeln gut.

❓

Ein liebevolles ❓❓❓❓ an dich

Ich hab heute noch die normale DUG Kartoffelmilch probiert. Letztes mal hatte ich scheinbar ne "ungesüsste". Die gesüsste schmeckt milchiger, besser, weniger kartoffelig... leider trotzdem komisch. Kartoffel wäre an sich super. Der Anbau und Ertrag ist deutlich nachhaltiger als Mandel und scheinbar auch Hafer.