Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

vancedapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 360 posts

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#201

Post by toastercat »

wbobeirne wrote: post #198
toastercat wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everytime* we have a thread about third-party YouTube clients, there are comments like yours by folks who fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of these third-party tools. The same happened year(s) ago with a thread about NewPipe. The purpose of these apps (including Vanced) is not solely to get past ad-block; Vanced (and NewPipe, and Piped, and Invidious) do far more than just give an ad-free viewing experience --…

You're totally right and I wish I had clarified that more in my original comment. I will probably try out Vanced even though I pay for Premium. I was really looking to hear from the people who primarily use it to circumvent ads, which I assume is the primary draw. But there are a lot of other good features worth discussing.

I think it is definitely a primary draw; I no longer use Vanced (used it years ago) but I remember the killer feature back then was being able to listen to audio from videos while having your phone screen off (a feature that YouTube eventually added to the official app).

I primarily use NewPipe. I enjoy the benefit of not having ads, but more than that, I enjoy the simplicity and the drastically lower system resource usage.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#202

Post by bduerst »

Teever wrote: post #200
bduerst wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This rule creates a negative feedback loop to a world where every single person cares about no one else.

As opposed to some Woodstock hippy utopia where everyone cares so much for everyone else that love conquers all?

How is that the only alternative?

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#203

Post by hutzlibu »

hysan wrote: post #191
okdood64 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. YouTube Premium

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t you still being tracked by Google even when using YouTube Premium? So while you not get ads, you are still paying an additional cost that is your data which is used for ads elsewhere.

Those who pay for Premium are highly valuable ad targets by definition.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#204

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

mkdirp wrote: post #48
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel content on the internet was free for so long, people just feel entitled to it. Now everyone is anti-ad, with most not being able to support an argument as to why targeted ads are bad (like any human at Google cares how user 1839028934 watches vtubers for 8 hours a day), but they still feel entitled to consume content for free.

On average only 3 pieces of information are needed to identify a person. Sure you're person 1234567890, but all the information linked to that user can find out exactly who that person is.

So? If your issue is government surveillance, take it up with them, get a law created so they can't look at it. If it's the company, they truly don't care who you are, you truly are 1234567890 to them. If that, it's unlikely a human being will ever actually look at your data.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#205

Post by evilthrow »

wbobeirne wrote: post #18

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…

If I can not pay, I will not pay.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#206

Post by manholio »

wbobeirne wrote: post #18

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…

Youtube and Google make money by being monopolists. They had (or in the case of Youtube, bought) a first mover advantage, grown their platforms aggressively and now they are milking the network effects.

There is almost no way someone could break the monopoly by making a better video sharing platform, not even Google could do it, that's why they bought a rapidly growing market leader instead of making their own failed copycat (Google Plus, anyone?).

So there is absolutely no connection between this reality and the "fair world" fantasy you describe, that could maybe apply to copyright, torrenting etc., but not adblocking on monopolistic platforms. The amount of money and ads views you generate for Google is a monopoly rent, it bears no relation to the value of the platform or its operating costs in a competitive market, or any other justifiable and "fair" income.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#207

Post by mda »

giordano-bruno wrote: post #53
wbobeirne wrote: post #18

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…

The same reason we all use(d) The Pirate Bay. Information deserves to be free, remember? We can distribute videos for free, you remember that, right? We can also pay content creators, who get ripped off by YouTube anyway. Ask them about that. Are you suggesting that HackerNews readers should also remove their adblockers? That we are bound by a Kantian moral obligation to be subjected to enticement and manipulation fo…

"I am an amoral antinomian rebel bad boy". People on HN never ceases to amaze.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#208

Post by Mezzie »

wbobeirne wrote: post #158
DetroitThrow wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On hn I find people often talk about how as individuals we shouldn't ignore the negative externalities we might create for massively profitable monopolies, but never in the same breath do we talk about the negative externalities those monopolies thrust on us as individuals or on our governments. I'm sure most are aware just how well Google will be regardless of whether they bypass ads or not.

My main consideration is for content creators, especially since the ad revenue is passed through to them. Any concern I have about YouTube not being able to sustain itself does not come from a place of caring about Google's livelihood. I also have a whole laundry list of complaints and gripes about YouTube and Google as a whole. But I'm probably not going to get much productive engagement from them airing those here,…

I would argue that the ethical thing to do in this case is used Vanced/blockers and then support the content creators directly. (I happen to pay for YT Premium now, but I understand and sympathize with objections to it and used Vanced before I switched to an iOS device).

In fact, in that case, the creators see more of the money, and they get data indicating what stuff people will and won't pay for. That $15/mo. YT Premium budget could easily go to supporting content creators.

Content creators are screwed, long term, if they continue to rely on ad revenue, because both the ad companies and the platforms have incentives to keep the content creators' cuts as low as possible. Creators need revenue sources not under external control.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#209

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

generalizations wrote: post #80
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel content on the internet was free for so long, people just feel entitled to it. Now everyone is anti-ad, with most not being able to support an argument as to why targeted ads are bad (like any human at Google cares how user 1839028934 watches vtubers for 8 hours a day), but they still feel entitled to consume content for free.

This feels like a really condescending take on the people you disagree with. Why do you assume it's entitlement? Netflix thrives because they're worth paying for. People have the right to not be watched, no matter how "anonymous" it is. Why do you have a problem with that?

You can, today, pay for youtube premium and receive an ad free viewing experience.

>Why do you have a problem with that?

Why do you have the problem with simply paying? Or simply not using any websites that have ads? Speak with you 'wallet' (in this case, view impression) if you will.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#210

Post by agentdrtran »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #126
leetcrew wrote: post #81

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…

Is it truly voluntary when everything you want to watch is only available on youtube? there's no way for an individual to pay or do anything for an alternative option.
Post reply on HN