Is adblock really piracy?

piracy is not a crime.

Sadly no, but it's still based.

Well it would be impolite, to say the least, if you were to stop me from raping your kids.

Attached: Slut.png (199x211, 8.01K)

This is the only correct option. Ads aren't the problem, it's the fact they don't do their part to make sure it doesn't harm the user. If some company sent out ads in the mail but it was using toxic ink that caused people to get cancer they'd be in deep shit. No reason the same shouldn't apply to internet ads dropping malware with no user input.

imagine not being a pirate, YIKES.

He's mad because he's rich, and rich people just crave for more money, because they never have enough.
If he could earn ten cents more by criminalizing adblocking he would be the first to lobby for the law.
For fucks sake, he even applied for a fucking canada's grant for content creators when he's probably the biggest canadian content creator and doesn't deserve that money.

he's retarded, that should be obvious to anyone who watches his videos

It's asking the wrong question. You need to ask what is wrong and what is right.

Is it wrong to try and block invasive ads?

Or is it wrong that ads not just track your cookies, but instead try and track your behavior, independent of your platform/device.

I'm betting if you let people vote on it, ads will be voted out with a landslide. But we don't get to vote on it do we, all we can do is try and 'reject all' on consent notices. And even then, click through and see what options there are under 'legitimate interest'

We're being fucked by ads, royally, like fucked with our trousers still on. And the question is are we being dishonest? Like for real?

If piracy is taking digital content without the expected payment (money, looking at ads) then yes. But you should ask yourself if then if this "piracy" is a bad thing.

In the current system, I run adblock and as such, the advertiser doesn't pay the content creator. It just makes sense.
So by the logic of retards like Linus, does that mean I should allow ads, even though I'll mute, ignore, and not think of the ads, just so they get money? Wouldn't I then be stealing money from the advertisers that are running ads by ignoring/muting/skipping them? Or should I click on all ads and make sure I stare at each one so the advertiser gets their money's worth.
If anything, I'm being the ethical one in this situation. I know no matter what I will ignore ads, so I'm making sure the advertiser isn't wasting money trying to advertise to me :)
It's unfortunate that people like Linus want us to facilitate in stealing from advertising companies just to give him more money :(
Hopefully he can take on 3 more Corsair shill jobs so he won't feel too bad about it.

piracy is downloading data files across the internet; adblocking is blocking content. Linus retard cocksucker is a fucking retard.

the funny part is that if you remove the concept of using the end user's machine to request ads, serve them all via the back end, and collect all necessary tracking data when doing the main GET request (no more tracking cookies or anything), you can have about 80% of what we have today, and the end user would never be able to tell. they're getting tracked just by way of requesting the information. you can do the fucking requests to 3rd parties, it just would be on the back end.