04 September, 2013

Stealing from YouTube Content Providers? Hardly

I just had another thought which goes out to those folks who state that doing whatever I can to block online ads is somehow immoral or indecent:

So, you think it's reprehensible that I have BIND set up on my Linux router so that it answers authoritatively for domains like doubleclick.net and admob.com with ::1 and  You think it's bad that I would even consider using youtubeskip.com.  You really wish I would take down my Squid or Polipo cache which does URI inspection and substitutes a PNG of Tux the Pengin for certain URIs.  You think that I'm somehow burglarizing the people/orgs/sites who put ads on their site (especially YouTube), and that the people who put up that content will basically refuse to produce more content if those ads don't get viewed.  I see.  So...

Are you going to come to my house, go through my recycling bin (the actual one, not any metaphorical, computer desktop one), and extract all the ads which come via the USPS?  Are you going to insist I need to read each one?  After all, companies have paid to produce those ads, to print those ads, and to deliver those ads, not to mention make the products or do the services they're meant to promote and sell.  Sorry, e.g. ValPak, you aren't my bank, you aren't my credit card company, you aren't the Erie County Water Authority, you aren't the NYS DMV, you aren't my insurer, nor are you any of the other mailers I actually care about.  Unfortunately, in this economic time, I really don't have much spare cash to spend on anything I've seen in your previous mailings, so your envelope goes, unopened, into the recycling bin.

Oh, cruel-hearted me; I just did in the physical world what I do in the virtual world every day.  I examined the envelope (URI), made a judgement based on past experience (found the content at that URI or URI prefix of litte value or outright annoying), and discarded (blocked) the unwanted materials.  Oh, and BTW, especially in mobilespace or certain ISPs (notably in Canada), viewing these ads could actually cost me real money because they could make me go over my monthly quota, so no thank you.

I guess this also means I'm not allowed to reject any emails either based on spam filtering.  It's the same paradigm, really.  It's electronic stuff I do not want.

Again...if you are depending on 100% presentation of ads delivered that way, you're doing it wrong.  Use product placement deals, or, like TWiT does, live reads.  Make deals with another content distributor, such as Amazon or Netflix (I don't know...just not necessarily YouTube).

Direct all comments to Google+, preferably under the post about this blog entry.

English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when the speaker or writer chooses not to follow those rules.

"Jeopardy!" replies and randomcaps really suck!

Please join one of the fastest growing social networks, Google+!