i just find the tension and contradictions of piracy kinda fascinating. "i hate this so much but i have to get it cause i apparently need it so badly". something being deserving to be obtained, yet not deserving to be paid for. and most of all, somebody feeling so entitled to it that they just can't actually refuse it completely.
You didn't answer the question, and overall you're being very mercurial in this thread. Write coherently.
> i just find the tension and contradictions of piracy kinda fascinating
You're calling watching a TV show without watching the commercials "piracy"? That's a very broad definition of "piracy" that I'd venture has almost no support outside of your comments here.
I'd call it piracy in a way. Ads are how that specific piece of content is made available - whether it be for paying file hosting costs, creator living expenses, video production, etc. Consuming media without providing compensation for it (through ad views in this case) would meet my definition of new-age piracy.
It's a yet another frontend that blocks ads (ads are a form of monetization), and so there's the question of 'do people deserve to be paid'. It's also talking about "taking ownership" over "your content" on its homepage, so there's the point about the content literally not being "yours".
