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

231–240 of 360 posts

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#231

Post by abracadaniel »

lenova wrote: post #3

I love Vanced! The only downside is that it's not able to avoid ads when casting to Chromecast. SkyTube is a minimalistic Youtube Android client that can avoid ads when casting: https://github.com/SkyTubeTeam/SkyTube For those of you using Android TV, I highly recommend SmartTubeNext, a Youtube client with no ads, and includes SponsorBlock[1]: https://github.com/yuliskov/SmartTubeNext [1] https://sponsor.ajay.app

I was just looking at this project, and I'm surprised by the lack of homebrew streaming boxes. I find it pretty amazing that the only way to block ads on a streaming box is to use a google product. There doesn't seem to be any attempts to root a Roku or create an open ecosystem for streaming apps.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#232

Post by Qub3d »

wbobeirne wrote: post #188
operator-name wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vanced isn't equivalent to paying for premium. It includes features like ReturnYoutubeDislikes and SponsorBlock which would normally be available via extensions (as would the premium's lack of ads via adblock), as well as further customisability. It replaces some enhancements that are normally done via browser extentions and I personally find it extremely handy to be able to copy with a timestamp, set a video on infi…

That's a very good point, and I agree that Vanced brings a lot to the table over just ad removal. I may even consider using it even though I pay for Premium already. But I imagine that that's a demographic that a very small percentage of Vanced users fall into.

I use vanced, and I have YouTube premium. Sponsor segments and missing dislike counts are killer to my experience. I also like that I can turn off elements of the YouTube design that are clearly rushed and/or TikTok also-rans demanded by management.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#233

Post by gtirloni »

leetcrew wrote: post #182
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #126

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…

I don't know what to tell you other than I simply don't agree. at a high level, the YouTube website is a wrapper for endpoints that serve ads and endpoints that serve content. nowhere in the flow of clicking a video from the homepage and watching it does there appear any language saying that I need to hit both sets of endpoints to use the service at all. they merely make it inconvenient not to do so. this is essentia…

> this is essentially a rehash of the "what constitutes unauthorized access to unsecured resources?" debate

Youtube's Terms of Service[0] specifically say:

```

The following restrictions apply to your use of the Service. You are not allowed to:

...

2. circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage with, or otherwise interfere with any part of the Service (or attempt to do any of these things), including security-related features or features that (a) prevent or restrict the copying or other use of Content or (b) limit the use of the Service or Content;

```

It's not a matter of "disagreeing" on what is allowed or not. If you don't agree with the ToS, you're free to not use the service. Let's not fool ourselves here.

0 - https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#234

Post by TheNewAndy »

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…

I used to have no adblockers on anything, and I was fine with it. Then I had kids, and I wasn't really comfortable with bringing them up in an environment where when you tell a computer to do one thing ("Play this video") it does a different thing ("I will do that, but not before I do what I want to do"). There are a few websites that have ad supported videos that I am ok with my kids watching, and putting uBlock Origin on the computers means that when I tell my computer to play videos from those sites, I know that it is going to do just that, and I won't have my kids being manipulated by stuff they don't understand.

Ads in software are just a case of a computer not doing what you have asked it to do. It has always been ok to ignore ads - putting them on computers does not make them special in any way.

This is just my parenting, and I can imagine that other people want their children to value other things - and I might change things as they get older so they can understand how the ads work. Right now, they are not ready for that.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#235

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

lapetitejort wrote: post #130
arnaudsm wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This used to be true, but now that 30-40% of the web audience uses adblockers, a wake-up call is imminent.

The wake-up call should be directed towards ad creators, not viewers. Ads slow down pages, clutter content, potentially inject malware, negatively emotionally manipulate the viewer, etc. I pay for two sites that I use daily so I don't see ads. Every single ad-serving site should have this option. My only fear is that Facebook, Twitter, et. al. cannot survive on a subscription amount alone. Our data and ad viewing is…

The absolute worst is malvertising.

That was actually my #1 reason for using an ad blocker: to prevent ads from trying to exploit security vulnerabilities and hijacking my web browser. It's exceptionally rare, for sure, but I've had ads on legitimate web pages forward me to an advertising site with no input from me.

These days, though, the web is god damn near unusable without an ad blocker, especially on mobile. So much bandwidth (That I'm PAYING for! Data isn't free!) is wasted on content I don't want. I've seen a page have TWO ad videos playing at once, taking up well over 40% of my screen.

Advertisers can cry me a god damn river. If they didn't make ads so damn intrusive, I wouldn't need a blocker. I don't even care about trackers, at least they make my ads relevant so I'm not seeing ads for Tampax.

Now if only there was an easy way to block the god damn "WE USE COOKIES!" alerts.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#236

Post by doliveira »

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…

I paid for Youtube Premium just once. Then I opened Incognito mode in the app and it started showing me ads anyway.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#237

Post by nathias »

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…

I don't want to support the platforms in any way and hope they stop existing. Sadly, its very hard for competitors to take back market share from these global monopolies.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#238

Post by Drew_ »

JSavageOne wrote: post #64
endisneigh wrote: post #19

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.

The best way to support creators actually is to support them directly. Youtube takes half the ad revenue, and ad revenue generally doesn't pay much anyways.

Creators presumably receive more from YouTube Premium viewers though I haven't seen any specific details on the revenue split. Either way, lets not pretend that any ad block user tips every single YouTuber they view.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#239

Post by DetroitThrow »

wbobeirne wrote: post #229
DetroitThrow wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm mostly concerned with money going to the content creators. This doesn't really hold up when you gloss over his discussion of the broken YouTube compensation model. Even though it's not salient to your biases or original conjecture to bring up that YouTube's compensation system is harmful for most creators, it seems unproductive to put your head in the sand about the issue and keep claiming that you want to see m…

You're right that I didn't approach that issue, and part of that is because I have a bit more research I want to do before I take strong public stances on it. I agree that the ad-supported revenue model is pretty busted, and YouTube is the primary beneficiary of that. But as far as I'm aware, the Premium subscription model is pretty beneficial to everyone. I don't know exact percentages, but I'm under the impression…

>I didn't approach that issue

To be clear, you went as far to omit it from your mostly dismissive response despite your contradictory view underlying your original assumptions, you didn't simply take a stance of uncertainty.

> I have a bit more research I want to do before I take strong public stances on it

>I don't know specifics to strongly hold that view and publicly argue it.

You took a strong public stance on its negative externalities already and that the Premium model is actually a solution before knowing specifics about even how views are broken down into ad revenue, this doesn't hold up.

You're putting your head in the sand about arguments that don't seem salient to your original conjecture. You seem to only want only additional info to disprove your biases - not prove them, and YouTube has an incentive to keep that information private.

>I was hoping that prompting this discussion would lead me to some more good info on that.

This doesn't hold up given the above points about misrepresenting your original strong public stances and providing no information as to why your biases are correct.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#240

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

lelandbatey wrote: post #102
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.

> "They're still entitled to consume content for free." YouTube et al. are free. That's the whole point! The only reason anyone uses them is because they are free, as in free beer. If I crack open an incognito tab and go to YouTube, they serve me a page of videos, I click on one, and it starts playing. I didn't agree to anything, I never said "oh, but I agree I'll watch the ads/let the ads play/download the ads" in o…

Sounds like a typical timeshare pitch.
Post reply on HN