Hacker News Reader

Comment by notheguyouthink | Hacker News Reader

I thought they allowed that? Though, pay only via Red

edit: Why the down vote? I was serious - I thought with Youtube Red you could listen with the screen off, am I wrong? Perhaps I misunderstood your screen on statement.

edit2: Well, as others confirmed, it is indeed allowed via Youtube Red like I said. So my post being down voted makes no sense, the OP was wrong. Get your shit together HNer.

edit3: Well, the down vote has been reverted (or upvoted out of it) - regardless, I probably overreacted. To be clear, I don't care about the "Karma" (I try to recreate accounts somewhat often for privacy), I just get irrationally angry when it feels like people try to silence you for an unexplained reason. It's why I hate Reddit.

View on HN

Just getting YouTube red is a great solution - for those two or so countries where it's available. Most of us here in the non-US part of the world don't really have that option.

This is payback for everyone else getting Spotify before we did.

I often forget how broken the web is for the rest of the world.

I flip out if a Youtube video isn't "available in my country", I can't imagine seeing that frequently. My sympathies.

Making you pay to turn your screen off is not "allowing" it in the normal sense. It's valid for someone to see your comment as wrong. And since it's easy to figure out why, you should not get upset over lack of explanation.

I mean, it's a video service that is paid through visual ads. Expecting free content is a bit entitled, imo.

Though, if Youtube was to become "Soundcloud", having Radio specific ads would be a nicely adaptive feature for the "free" audience. However, given that ads are required, screen on vs pay is very reasonable. There is an avenue for screen off, legit and implemented as a feature.

> Making you pay to turn your screen off is not "allowing" it in the normal sense. It's valid for someone to see your comment as wrong.

I disagree, the feature is there, that someone just doesn't like how to access it. Saying something doesn't exist / isn't allowed is a false statement if it does exist. The requirements for being allowed were not being discussed.

This isn't about presence of ads. They are there either way. I will be looking somewhere else either way. This is purely about annoying the user.

> I disagree, the feature is there, that someone just doesn't like how to access it. Saying something doesn't exist / isn't allowed is a false statement if it does exist. The requirements for being allowed were not being discussed.

You are not allowed to park here. And by that I mean you are 100% capable of parking here, parking here exists as an option, but you will be fined $75.

It's valid to see turning off the screen as "not allowed".

Well in your parking example, I think the better example would be, "not allowed to park here without a pass".

You are allowed to park there, if you have the pass. If someone told me I wasn't allowed, I'd assume there was no way for me to park there. If someone told me I was allowed with requirements, then I know I can, if I can obtain the requirements.

However I see your point of capable vs allowed, I just think it's a valid distinction to make. I'd never tell someone that they'd not be allowed to park somewhere, because that's not the complete picture. They might leave, thinking that there's no way for them to park there. That's not true at all, and I'd be in the wrong for misleading them, imo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com