If you can’t modify it, sell it or know what the game software is even doing then calling that “ownership” would be rather lacking. I mean in terms of traditional ownership, not the modern definition: “page 69 of the EULA defines “purchasing” (the software) as a limited, non-transferable lease which can stop working at any time due to dependency on a proprietary server code we will never share I fucked your mom”.

Probably the gun industry lobbying for this 🫢

Do you mean out of touch as in unaware or diverging opinions?

Google can make it more difficult but it’s like anti-cheat, a losing arms race. In the end users control if adverts play even if Google controls the computer as strictly as North Korea OS.

Words do not have innate definitions and “piracy” can mean whatever you want (when not in a court of law). If people understand what you mean then no direct issue. Due to the association with stealing and murder on boats I won’t call copyright infringement “piracy” (thanks music industry propaganda) or when blocking adverts. If you insist on calling me a pirate I will respond with pirate talk, ye landlubber.

Requesting users play ads but giving them the content even if they don’t means it’s more like asking for a charitable donation than a transaction. They could paywall it but they don’t, and it’s not like there’s a competitor with the same content.

Also, Google feel entitled to record your voice on your phone and send it to their servers. Do they think their users are a charity, or worse?

Next time ““piracy”” comes up this is how I want to write a reply.

deleted by creator

Ownership implies a device should be controlled by the user. I don’t just mean not playing adverts but how about not recording my voice (or other data) to send it to Google servers for them to keep and exploit? You’re free to believe in this implied agreement but I doubt that’s in your best interests.

All words are made down.

Paywalling content would easily make this a transaction, but they choose to make this optional.

If Google didn’t have such influence over web browser specifications maybe they would give up on adverts - while users are the ones in control of their computers then it will never be up to YouTube what is played on our machines.

By describing what you mean, instead of a word which often leads to discussions on word definitions, you can avoid the latter.

I found saying “homophobia” lead to talk about “I don’t fear them” (phobia) rather than discussion on mistreatment. So instead I would say “aversion to homosexuality”.

There would be less talking over each other due to word definitions if the music industry had not convicted people that murder and stealing on boats was good way to describe unauthorized copying.

Request I watch an ad but give me content either way means I can decline the ad. Demand I watch ad and withhold until I do, then I have to watch the ad (or seek another distributor). They asked for a donation, not payment.

If it’s MY car why would adverts be in it? What’s next, adverts in my shed?

GPL over AGPL is a strange choice to me for a collaboration service.

I activate false dichotomy and flip the table.

Copyright is the legal method to limit redistribution of easily copied material, not as if there’s anything else people could appeal to.

I ain’t a fan of copyright but make it last 10 years instead of X + infinity and maybe it’s not so bad. I can’t argue against copyright fully as I think copyleft is essential for software.

Sometimes you have to fight with the OS to make it work but that should be due to a bug (or my incompetence in using it). When it’s not working because it’s actually working on someone else’s behalf you can probably delete the whole fucking thing mate.

Consider a universal basic income as a means to reduced the profit motive when authors create/share media.

I was thinking strong wind, flooding, fire, rockslides, etc