Is this immoral or nit-picking?

This question alone shows me what an awesome person you are, MMXX. If everyone worried about the little things this way, what a truly wonderful world this would be.

I'm guessing the movie wouldn't play with an ad blocker running in the background, anyway. But let's say it does, and you watch it, would this keep you up at night? If so, it's not worth it. The movie is not really free, then, if it makes you feel lousy afterwards.

MMXX said:

Youtube has free movies, with a little tag that says "free with ads". But there's an adblocker installed on the computer I want to watch a free with ads youtube movie on. Since I don't own the machine, I figure I shouldn't be messing with any settings. So the question is, would it be morally wrong to watch a moive taged as "free with ads" when the ads are blocked?

Click to expand...

I would not pit pick this stuff. I had an add blocker on my computer previous to this new build I got now. If your machine functions like mine use to it will time out every 3o minutes or so... forcing you to have to get up and click your mouse or hit your key board.


By the way not having an add blocker is pretty painful where I'm looking to get one back. Sometimes those people want to run an add that are the size of one hour infomercials (The add will play an hour or more unless you get up and hit the skip button, not a problem when your at your desk but a real annoyance if you aren't)! That does not happen a lot, but I've seen that 3 times so I don't have any sympathies for You-tube, even content that was personal and demonitized with no adds previously is now running adds, sometimes a minute into the video after you already watched an add before the video!

MMXX said:

Youtube has free movies, with a little tag that says "free with ads". But there's an adblocker installed on the computer I want to watch a free with ads youtube movie on. Since I don't own the machine, I figure I shouldn't be messing with any settings. So the question is, would it be morally wrong to watch a moive taged as "free with ads" when the ads are blocked?

Click to expand...

(Rev 21:6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.


not if it's focused on the Gospel - God has decreed the spreading of the gospel to be free - Youtube can't override Him

MMXX said:

I've watched a bunch of "free with ads" movies on youtube with adblocker with no problems. But today the "free with ads" part caught my attention.

Click to expand...

was it about God? if it wasn't, then the law of the land should prevail

the ads aren't that distracting; you can skip about half of them after a few seconds - not a burdensome price

Don't worry you are not harming anyone avoiding being 'pestered' by ads.
You should disable adblocker if you want them to get a few cents i guess, not worth it in my opinion.

MMXX said:

The two such movies that caught my eye are The Bible and The Greatest Story Ever Told.

There's no law involved and there's nothing spacific about it in youtube policy.

I'd turn off the adblock if I could, but I can't/shouldn't.

But this is really about an exercise in eithics.

Click to expand...

(Mat 25:21) ... Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.


(Luk 16:10) He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
(Luk 16:11) If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?
(Luk 16:12) And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?
(Luk 16:13) No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

do what is ethical - the little it costs you to do so is actually much less expensive than 'lightly esteeming' ('despising' in KJV parlance) His word to feed the convenience of your flesh