I meant it facetiously, but I’m definitely not kidding.
It’s my device, so I can choose what code executes on it. If I choose to block code from executing, that must mean I did not consent to its execution, because otherwise why would I need to block it?
I owe no debt to Google, especially since YouTube is often a non-consensual venue, in the sense that content I want to watch, which Google did not create, is only available on Google’s website.
I was not an active participant in the economic conditions that led to Google’s monopolization of the video hosting market. So if I am only watching a video on YouTube because it’s only hosted on YouTube, but I would have watched it if it were hosted elsewhere, then I am only passively responsible for the choice of watching it on YouTube.
I do not owe anything to Google in this case, because it implies I benefit from the existence of YouTube, but any benefit I derive is actually from the content, not the host of it.
The suggestion that I benefit from Google’s monopoly on video hosting presupposes the idea that free-to-watch video hosts cannot exist without serving advertisements. I don’t believe that, and I always choose alternative hosts over YouTube in the rare case where a video is hosted on both, or banned from YouTube.
I don’t use SponsorBlock, although I do manually scrub past promotional content.
It’s my device, so I can choose what code executes on it. If I choose to block code from executing, that must mean I did not consent to its execution, because otherwise why would I need to block it?
I owe no debt to Google, especially since YouTube is often a non-consensual venue, in the sense that content I want to watch, which Google did not create, is only available on Google’s website.
I was not an active participant in the economic conditions that led to Google’s monopolization of the video hosting market. So if I am only watching a video on YouTube because it’s only hosted on YouTube, but I would have watched it if it were hosted elsewhere, then I am only passively responsible for the choice of watching it on YouTube.
I do not owe anything to Google in this case, because it implies I benefit from the existence of YouTube, but any benefit I derive is actually from the content, not the host of it.
The suggestion that I benefit from Google’s monopoly on video hosting presupposes the idea that free-to-watch video hosts cannot exist without serving advertisements. I don’t believe that, and I always choose alternative hosts over YouTube in the rare case where a video is hosted on both, or banned from YouTube.
I don’t use SponsorBlock, although I do manually scrub past promotional content.