A possible answer is because the creators that have their own sponsors in their videos want the view even if you don’t see the Google ads, so Google on one hand want you to watch their ads while on the other hand cannot afford to really lose you since that would reflects on the creators and then if a creator leave for another platform (a big if, I agree) Google lose all the traffic generated by said creator, both who use an adblocker and who don’t use an adblocker.
Replying to you, but it is valid also for @porksoda@lemmy.world.
If you ask for permission to do certain works in your house, you present the project to your city council, or the required office, and if after a given time (depending on what what you want to do) they don’t object then you have the permission. Before the introduction of the silent consent, you have no idea about how many time you need to wait before you get an answer and it was prone to corruption while now the “yes” is the default unless there are real problems. It is not a perfect solution, but it is way better than before.
Basically all the interactions with the authorities are on a silent consent base when the authority in question does not need to produce something to give back.
All the minor changes to the contract with banks, utility companies and so on: they propose the new terms and if you don’t accept in a given time from the moment you read it you accept it. By law in the event I refuse the new terms, I don’t end with the old ones but the contract end and in the case it has penalties for early terminations, these are nullified if the penalties are applied to the other side.
On the other hand, this way a company has a certain deadline after which the new terms come into effect and as a side bonus the fact that it has to handle only the exceptions (who don’t accept) and not all the ones that are ok.
Wedding publications, since we have not the whole “if you disagree to this marriage talk now or shut up forever” part of the ceremony, to be sure that there is no hidden problems we put an announce in a designated public place (usually a notice board at the town hall and/or your church) for a given period of time, usually 2 or 3 weeks, and then if nobody object you can marry.
I agree that this is probably something old that were done back at the time but it work on the same principle. Of course now there are other ways to know if someone is already married (on the civil side) or is divorced (on the religious side) or there are some hindrances.
And before someone ask, we also have examples where this approach were shoot down: the last of these is when a big back decide to move part of their clients to a virtual back (a different branch of itself) and they were stopped on the basis that this change it too radical to be done this way (even if the notice was about 6 months). Other cases hit utilities companies which in some cases where forced by a judge to pay compensation to the customers because what they done was basically illegal and the silent consent where then void.
Nope. The silent consent concept is a nice thing, it solve a lof of problems both for companies and private citizens. I could offer plenty of examples of the correct use of the concept that solve problems.
23andMe is just doing a big dick move trying to avoid to be sued for the leak.
The default is very obviously “no”.
Fine by me, I am not arguing that the default must be “yes”, but that you need a default.
If someone does not agree to the new terms, they did not agree to the new terms.
True. Problem is that from a company point of view, it is better to handle the (supposed) few exceptions that the (supposed) overwhelming normality, that why this questions are posed this way: you simply pose the question in a way that you minimize your work.
I can’t send you a new set of terms for reading my comments and just assume you forfeit your firstborn child to me if you don’t answer within 10 minutes.
A little excessive as example, but on the other hand I can argue that if you not put a time limit on these type of changes or decisions, I can simply say today that your 10 years old wedding is invalid because I have some reason to challenge your 10 years old marriage publications. (To explain, in Italy if you want to marry you need to put an announce, usually for a couple of weeks, on a public space, normally the town hall building, to let people who has some valid reasons to challenge it)
Also, normally in Italy a change in the agreed terms has only two options: you accept the new terms (even by silent consent) or the agreement is no more valid and it is dissolved without any penalties if present, so what 23andMe is trying to do is formally correct. But a big dick move.
Then they are still subject to the terms they actively agreed to… It’s not like there’s no agreement if you don’t get a reply… There was an agreement before you asked for new terms, there’s an agreement still.
True, but somehow you need a way to know who accept the new terms and who don’t. And you need to know the point in time from which you can start to enforce the new terms. As @bob_lemon said, it could be that the default is a “no” but you need to give a time limit.
Where I live the concept of “silent consent” is used in many other occasions and does not seems to be a problem.
We need laws addressing shit like “if you don’t say no in 30 days, we’ll take it as a yes”…
If someone do not answer, then what ? Like it could be wrong to assume a “yes” it could be wrong to assume a “no”. The assumption is that those that had something against, which they hope will be the minority, will answer while the others don’t care.
I’m not going to watch ads, and I sure as hell am not going to click on anything, but my mother in law does now. My mom does too. They now feel like an ad blocker is “too much hassle,” so Google won that fight.
Google won until the next round when, to make even more money for the shareholders, they will put so many ads in a video that also your mother and mother in law will return to use an adblocker. Or leave YT entirely
Not sure about that, but it would be interesting to have some real number and not the ones from Google or the adblockers
Yes, but the point their are trying to make is to gain the adblocking users, not lose them. They need more people to watch the ads, not less people to watch YT.
As it is over for YT, probably.
True.
And not only for the quality. In the last weeks I noted that, aside being basically impossible to look for a product even querying with the full brand and product name/code, that buying the same item from the brand own on-line store is ofter less expensive than buying it from Amazon (even with Prime) also accounting for the shipping costs.
Their whole model with tech workers is to recruit them based on the “prestige” of working for Amazon,
At some point the “prestige” of working for Amazon will become less attractive than having a life…
True until it is not found out that they are keeping the data for more time than allowed…
If you don’t care to login in two years, maybe the memories are not that irreplacable…
They are no longer idealised, and CEO’s have decided to take company failures out on employees instead of their inability to target long-term success.
It is not CEO’s inability (or at least not always). You cannot think long term when the only thing that matter is the next quarter result.
They could, what can go wrong…
Here some for Firefox
So a fantasy story shit how yt loses all of its customer.
Fine, you think is a shit show story. I suppose only time will tell.
Especially the paying ones who don’t deal with ads 👌👍. Google doesn’t give a shit if the fee loaders leave.
Nope, paying customers still see ads put by creator, as per YT explanation. They don’t interrupt the video but if a creator add them to the video, the paying customer still see them.
It is only a question about how much time will pass before even the paying customer start to think that he is seeing too many ads while even paying the service and have his data harvested.
This assuming that YT would will never put ads also on the premium service, which I would not be that sure in these times…
Fight back 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
You are bitching about slow down on a forum with a 1000 active users. You aren’t even a blip. Normal people will just pay because the service is valuable.
Oh well, the fact that YT it trying to fight back AdBlocker seems to refute that. If the people using adblockers are really that few, why even bother ?
You are massively entitled.
If you say so…
If you think it’s so shitty stop using it. You can’t.
And why I can’t stop using YT ? Let’s say that an AdBlocker is way more convenient to have then the possibility to use YT.
And yet you’ll bitch about $12 a month.
It is not the 12$ a month. I pay some service more because they are worth more money and I am the customer, not the product.
I simply am not that happy to pay to be the product.
Which is basically true for every brand, not only Tesla.