161–170 of 360 posts
Funny how people want content but don’t want to support content creators via ads or paying for YouTube Premium. The internet in a nutshell. Ironically if people weren’t so avoidant of paying for digital content, ads, and the subsequent tracking, would’ve never emerged.
Not open source?
I'm a bit concerned about malware with APKs. Is it safe to use this app?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't feel any obligation to allow Google to use my own device and internet connection to serve me ad content that I don't wish to see. That's disingenuous because you're omitting the other half of the transaction: You are choosing, voluntarily, to consume the content that they are offering on their website. The implied arrangement is that you watch the ads (at least the first five seconds until the skip button a…
> You are choosing, voluntarily, to consume the content that they are offering on their website. And they are choosing, voluntarily, to serve you videos unbundled from advertisements.
Regardless, there is a loss, and they'll respond to it when it becomes significant enough.
edit: uBlock Origin has over 10,000,000 users, according to the chrome web store. I can only imagine something will change soon, or there's some serious technical debt holding things back.
Using YouTube only via Firefox with the uBlock Origin plugin works pretty well too. The simple solution without requiring any additional apps. Firefox has its own quirks which are discussed on Hacker News at length, but it's good enough. Actually, I've considered installing an older version of Firefox and disabling updates. But I feel that might pose security risks, and if at some point there's a novel virus requirin…
What is it about the new Firefox you don't like? I find Mozilla makes a lot of stupid anti-user changes, but at least most can be changed someone.
That is such a basic restriction that free YouTube places upon itself that ruins my main use case - listening to a couple of videos on my commute to and from work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if everyone were to start using Vanced overnight, YouTube wouldn't be able to justify staying up indefinitely. I personally find categorical imperative arguments to be ridiculous. almost anything could be bad if everyone did them all the time. the reality is that adblocking, torrenting, and similar workarounds are used by a small subset of technically savvy users. most people just don't care enough to configure any…
> I don't feel any obligation to allow Google to use my own device and internet connection to serve me ad content that I don't wish to see. That's disingenuous because you're omitting the other half of the transaction: You are choosing, voluntarily, to consume the content that they are offering on their website. The implied arrangement is that you watch the ads (at least the first five seconds until the skip button a…
What if the delivered content is subpar?
I have watched ads (ie paid with my attention).
How do I get my money back?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if everyone were to start using Vanced overnight, YouTube wouldn't be able to justify staying up indefinitely. I personally find categorical imperative arguments to be ridiculous. almost anything could be bad if everyone did them all the time. the reality is that adblocking, torrenting, and similar workarounds are used by a small subset of technically savvy users. most people just don't care enough to configure any…
> I don't feel any obligation to allow Google to use my own device and internet connection to serve me ad content that I don't wish to see. That's disingenuous because you're omitting the other half of the transaction: You are choosing, voluntarily, to consume the content that they are offering on their website. The implied arrangement is that you watch the ads (at least the first five seconds until the skip button a…
Those strong words would need a real, clear contract between google and the user.
"We serve you a video and we track everything you do, allmost wherever you go online"
I haven't seen it spelled out by google like this and surely this is genral knowledge around here, but most people still don't have a clue about the general concept.
In either case, even if the ads are blocked, you still pay with your data, by being tracked what you watch and when you watch it - and in combination with always online smartphone controlled by google - with whom you watch.
In other words, if it would be only about ads or no ads and just the service, I would agree. But this is not the case, so I also have zero question about moral with this one. It is more about self defense of your attention.
So yes, we need other payment models than advertisement. But I doubt this can come from google, no matter how much I would pay them, for a single service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if everyone were to start using Vanced overnight, YouTube wouldn't be able to justify staying up indefinitely. I personally find categorical imperative arguments to be ridiculous. almost anything could be bad if everyone did them all the time. the reality is that adblocking, torrenting, and similar workarounds are used by a small subset of technically savvy users. most people just don't care enough to configure any…
> I don't feel any obligation to allow Google to use my own device and internet connection to serve me ad content that I don't wish to see. That's disingenuous because you're omitting the other half of the transaction: You are choosing, voluntarily, to consume the content that they are offering on their website. The implied arrangement is that you watch the ads (at least the first five seconds until the skip button a…
Funny how people want content but don’t want to support content creators via ads or paying for YouTube Premium. The internet in a nutshell. Ironically if people weren’t so avoidant of paying for digital content, ads, and the subsequent tracking, would’ve never emerged.
However, YouTube content goes through waves, at the moment burnt-in ads are pretty significant in longer form content and fairly annoying to skip through. This might get way worse and it's not the fault of pirates, YouTube policy or as simple as content creator greed (unless they are shilling a scam I suppose). I predict in the coming years we'll start to see some creators making noise about Premium's payouts changing or being unfair, not unlike the ongoing conversation about Spotify and other music services.
Asking this question in good faith and in the interest of a productive discussion: Can someone give me their reasoning for why to use this over just paying for YouTube premium? They're providing a service that you value and spend enough time on to warrant looking for a way to not have to view ads, and if everyone were to start using Vanced overnight, YouTube wouldn't be able to justify staying up indefinitely. It fee…