This is exactly what I was going to say. Copying and pasting passwords is definetely a no-no for me.

That's a lot of rice though. Looks like a healthy meal if you take away like 3/4 of that rice.

I mean, unless you do muscle training after breakfast, in which case you need carbs to replenish your glycogen levels.

Also the fact that they were sneaky about it. But this is just how YouTube does things. They know being loud is the best way to get hate, just like what happened to Netflix. They have pushed longer ads in sneaky ways over the years. Now they are evaluating blocking ad-blockers, also in sneaky ways, they are never loud about it.

Do you think Spez should be decapitated? You see guys, this is why I say "do not promote violence" on the internet. There's always that insane guy.

I mean, fuck that place, but this particular instance of censorship seems acceptable and even good. Some schizo dude on the interweebs could think this is God speaking to him or something. Don't promote violence online.

OK, so is Redhat breaking any license? Do you really think a company like Redhat would open itself to thousands of lawsuits like that. The CEO already explained that this is totally legal and covered by GPL. They are in fact distributing the source to the people receiving the product. This is exactly what GPL says. They are not forced to open the source code to people who aren't getting the distributed software.

What is your complaint then? They are not breaking any law and they are following the GPL license.

I was using the webframework/language as examples because you said this wasn't a matter of law but a matter of principle. So why does the principle apply to Redhat but not the million other products that totally depend on FOSS on their core?

So many projects do in fact distribute the FOSS, but they use more permissive licenses like MIT, Apache or LGPL. BUT you're saying the law is not relevant, what matters is the principle. So why don't everyone release their code if they depend on FOSS on their core products? Because they aren't breaking the Apache or MIT licenses? Well, that's great! Redhar isn't breaking the GPL license either. Why must Redhat follow whatever subjective principles you have?

— "hey there's this company creating a commercial product around FOSS. They aren't breaking any license."

— "Nice, as long as the licenses aren't compromised"

— "It's Redhat"

— "Those mofos! How dare they!"

In that scenario, the only aggressor is the business owner then. Legal immigrants should be paid the same as native workers.

I thought the post was talking about illegal immigration.

Why is it impossible to get this rich without taking advantage of other people?

Many successful businesses don't exploit their employees.

Then why aren't they using these alternatives? Why does every company and place need to follow their ideals?

So you're saying YouTube is an abusive husband and you're a wife who can't get away from that relation because you're too afraid for your life or your children's future?

I never saw it like that. I hope YouTube doesn't kill you or take away your children.

You're comparing very serious cases with the most ridiculous type of dependency ever. You're comparing an abusive employer/employee relation with YouTube making you watch ads. Holy shit. A husband beating the shit out of his wife with YouTube making you watch ads.

What's next, are you going to compare this with African-American slavery? A level 7 intergalactic species dominating the milky way and extracting resources from defenseless planetary systems?

I really need to know what's next.

So please give me the objective definition of what is abusive. Because in my book that is totally subjective. I just told you they created an almost perfect service that let's you stream infinite amounts of information with zero downtime and minimal buffer times, and they are asking a few minutes of your time per day, so they can make a profit and pay fairly to content creators and very smart engineers.

For me that is fair. For you, that's abusive. Who is right? You because you agree with yourself?

Yes, corporations get to do whatever they want with their property. If you don't like it, you can choose other services, nobody is forcing you to stay there.

Well, if it is abusive or not will be determined by the majority of people. If their numbers start going down because of this, they'll act on it. If not, it means the majority of people are willing to see the ads to get to the content. People also complained when YouTube implemented ads in the beginning, very short ones. Clearly, the majority of people were fine with it. Free market, supply & demand.

Personally, I run away from ads so I don't use YouTube that much. I watch Veritasiun and 3Blue1Brown mostly and every time I see an ad come up, I like it because I know I'm giving money to the dudes giving me great content. It's my way of giving back.