where it won’t obscure passwords. But, surprise, it will obscure DRM content

Yeah, we all know where the priorities really are.

How have our consumer protections gone so fucking far.

I have never in my life seen someone refer to CRT TVs as crtvs and it’s really fucking with my head lmao

Phone apps, tablet apps, TV apps…

But I want to watch things on my computer, and prefer having a computer hooked up to the TV over “smart TVs”. I bought things in HD/4K because I could watch them that way and for some reason they think it’s okay to revoke that ability unless I decide to watch elsewhere. It’s preposterous.

or other expensive setups

As much as I lost trust in his bullshittery a long time ago, his need to mention the cost of critical safety systems is what stuck out to me the most here. That’s how you know the priorities are backwards.

Fun fact: YouTube movies now doesn’t support browsers over 480p either… Except safari.

Found that one out the hard way.

Well if you really want to get technical about it… No programs or spending are really funded by taxes anyway, the government just says “OK” and the numbers in the bank accounts of the companies implementing said program go up. Taxes funding things is just a myth. Taxes just delete money. So technically, nothing is funded by taxes and taxes are just a money void.

Edit: People seem to be down voting because they think this is tinfoil hat BS or something. It’s not. Look up modern monetary theory. Governments with fiat currency don’t need to collect money to pay for things. They just invent and issue more currency. See this video: https://youtu.be/75udjh6hkOs?si=dVpp9V5f96kLDV4-&t=1628

This whole thread is a whole lot of hullabaloo about complaining about legality about the way YouTube is running ad block detection, and framing it as though it makes the entire concept of ad block detection illegal.

As much as you may hate YouTube and/or their ad block policies, this whole take is a dead end. Even if by the weird stretch he’s making, the current system is illegal, there are plenty of ways for Google to detect and act on this without going anywhere remotely near that law. The best case scenario here is Google rewrites the way they’re doing it and redeploys the same thing.

This might cost them like weeks of development time. But it doesn’t stop Google from refusing to serve you video until you watch ads. This whole argument is receiving way more weight than it deserves because he’s repeatedly flaunting credentials that don’t change the reality of what Google could do here even if this argument held water.