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

281–290 of 360 posts

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#281

Post by niij »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #260
gtirloni wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fe…

Since at no point in time am I forced to read nor agree to those terms, I don't think they can be used as an argument.

You're allowed to be ignorant of trespassing statutes too. But you can still be kicked out of someone's business.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#282

Post by holoduke »

Used vanced for years. Works nice. But doesn't work on my shield. Casting from my phone to the shield results into annoying ads. After thinking for a while I thought that the premium YouTube membership isn't that bad. I use it so often. I think it fair to pay a price for it.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#283

Post by masterof0 »

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…

Because if someone gives a free magazine, I don't have to stare at the ads either. If they (Youtube) don't want people to block ads, they can stop serving ads and charge for the service. People will move to another free services and continue blocking ads. No company have the right to serve me content I don't want to consume. If not my responsibility as a consumer to justify/support a company's business model

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#284

Post by Nextgrid »

bdlowery wrote: post #271
Nextgrid wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a problem with paying for something that has been a basic capability of every computer made in the last 20 years. Not to mention, the obvious issue that paying for YT Premium requires you to provide valid personal details to Google (for payment processing) and remain logged in. That's way more tracking potential compared to Vanced/NewPipe/Invidious/etc.

Google doesn't care about you as much as you think.

They don't currently, but they (or whoever else gets their hands on their data, whether through breaking in or government interference) might start caring at a later date.

There's no benefit to me to have Google (or anyone else) stalk me so why let them do it?

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#285

Post by charcircuit »

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 main value adds to me other than blocking ads is sponsorblock and a black theme (as opposed to dark grey).

I have given YouTube money via memberships as they take a 30% cut.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#286

Post by wbobeirne »

DetroitThrow wrote: post #239
wbobeirne wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 it…

I said "It feels heavy on negative externalities" in my original comment which is not a strong stance by any means, and have not said that Premium solves the creator payment model anywhere, only that it gives you the ad-free experience that Vanced gives you, while still continuing to pay content creators for viewing their content. Those are two separate discussions.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#287

Post by FabHK »

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…

> 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 am served this when going to YouTube, which I have to agree to:

"Before you continue to YouTube

Google uses cookies and data to: Deliver and maintain services, like tracking outages and protecting against spam, fraud and abuse Measure audience engagement and site statistics to understand how our services are used If you agree, we’ll also use cookies and data: Improve the quality of our services and develop new ones Deliver and measure the effectiveness of ads Show personalised content, depending on your settings Show personalised or generic ads, depending on your settings, on Google and across the web For non-personalised content and ads, what you see may be influenced by things like the content that you’re currently viewing and your location (ad serving is based on general location). Personalised content and ads can be based on those things and your activity, like Google searches and videos that you watch on YouTube. Personalised content and ads include things like more relevant results and recommendations, a customised YouTube homepage, and ads that are tailored to your interests. Click 'Customise' to review options, including controls to reject the use of cookies for personalisation and information about browser-level controls to reject some or all cookies for other uses. You can also visit g.co/privacytools at any time. Privacy Policy • Terms of Service"

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#288

Post by gaius_baltar »

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…

> Can someone give me their reasoning for why to use this over just paying for YouTube premium?

YT Premium only makes the problem worse by still allowing native ads and requiring you to log in using an account that is tied to your real world identity (for payment processing).

You just end up giving more data points to Google to track and don't get rid of all ads.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#289

Post by Nextgrid »

bduerst wrote: post #274
Nextgrid wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the demand for subscription content is magnitudes less than ad-subsidized free content. A lot of ad-subsidized content only "works" because by the time the user realizes that the content is subpar it's already too late and they've "paid" and can't take their money back. This wouldn't work in a scenario where an explicit action needs to be taken (to agree to pay a fee) before consuming the content, and/or where due…

>A lot of ad-subsidized content only "works" because by the time the user realizes that the content is subpar it's already too late and they've "paid" and can't take their money back. Citation needed, because this sounds more like preference projection of someone who prefers subscription content than the majority of actual ad-subsidized content consumers. Again, the type of customer who pays for a subscription is goi…

> preference projection of someone who prefers subscription content than the majority of actual ad-subsidized content consumers

No - I'm referring to clickbait, chumboxes or low-quality articles whose primary purpose is to show ads - the content itself is only there to lure you into seeing ads and is universally hated even by freemium customers.

I suspect that there's a huge amount of content like this which subsidizes the platforms, ad networks and various middlemen.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#290

Post by wbobeirne »

kazinator wrote: post #266
wbobeirne wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Premium view nets more money to the creator than the average ad-supported view. How does that compare to just donating directly? > I haven't personally seen any content creators explicitly dissuade people from paying for Premium. If they were to do that anywhere in YouTube, you'd think that would be some kind of TOS violation.

> How does that compare to just donating directly?

It's definitely less effective than monetizing creators directly, I think that's the best option when it's available, and you have the time, energy, and motivation to do it. But if I watch just 2 or 3 videos from somebody but don't seek to support them outside of the platform, I prefer that they get _something_ for the value provided rather than nothing. I'll admit that I'm a bit lazy and it's convenient to have YouTube directly transform my views into dollars for them.

> If they were to do that anywhere in YouTube, you'd think that would be some kind of TOS violation.

I highly doubt that. Just search for videos about de-monetization or the dislike count removal, people make videos criticizing the YouTube platform all the time. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong if there's some special language around their paid subscription specifically.

Post reply on HN