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

301–310 of 360 posts

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#301

Post by gtirloni »

getcrunk wrote: post #264
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…

Irrespective of the larger argument; I mean many TOS are unethical and/or shouldn't carry moral weight. If it was one company sure, don't use it. But the majority of companies (web or otherwise) have excessive and dense TOS to which the average person cannot give informed consent to anyways. Let's not fool ourselves here

> I mean many TOS are unethical and/or shouldn't carry moral weight

Surely, some ToS are poorly written. Still, the owners of the service decided that those were the rules they want to play by. If they go against some law in a certain country, I'm sure a court would invalidate them in specific cases. Do you have reason to believe Youtube's ToS is unethical or shouldn't carry moral weight (specially the #2 paragraph I quoted)?

> But the majority of companies (web or otherwise) have excessive and dense TOS to which the average person cannot give informed consent to anyways.

YT's ToS seems pretty straightforward. Do you think the paragraph I quoted which talked about obstructing the service is written in excessive legalese? Was it unclear somehow?

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#302

Post by frontier »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #235
lapetitejort wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

The Chrome extension store has you covered!

I am using one called "I don't care about cookies" and I rarely see them these days.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#303

Post by stevage »

niij wrote: post #281
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's quite different. In criminal law, ignorance of the law is explicitly not a defence.

In contract law, you have to sign up to the contract. One side can not just assert that the other side agreed to some terms unless they can show that this happened.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#304

Post by Jxl180 »

axiosgunnar wrote: post #166
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…

> The implied arrangement is that you watch the ads (at least the first five seconds until the skip button appears) in exchange for them doing all the work of collecting, hosting, and delivering that content to you. What if the delivered content is subpar? I have watched ads (ie paid with my attention). How do I get my money back?

No refunds. You can't demand a refund from a movie theater because you hated a movie, and you can't return a new game to Best Buy because you hated the game. I don't understand why you'd imply YouTube content comes with any "satisfaction guarantee."

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#305

Post by vagab0nd »

These days I simply cannot use YouTube without Premium + SponsorBlock. The ad skipping works really well and pretty much makes the videos watchable for me.

For a year now I have been using YT exclusively on desktop, until I learned about Vanced recently. It has be a godsend as I can finally watch videos on mobile.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#307

Post by generalizations »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #209
generalizations wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Why do you have the problem with simply paying?

Never said I do.

You, however, seem to have a problem with the idea that not wanting to be tracked and watched is a legitimate desire. Why is that?

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#308

Post by notefaker »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #165

My "killer use case" for Vanced or NewPipe isn't even the ad removal, it's being able to continue playing the audio while the app is minimised or the phone is locked. 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.

I tend to use the Brave browser playlist to play ad free YouTube videos with my phone locked, but the “play when app is minimized” function for Vanced would be awesome. Thank for the tip.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#309

Post by LAC-Tech »

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.

I dunno what to tell you, except I feel absolutely zero guilt about it.

I did the Patreon thing for a year and a bit. Small time "content creator", kind of a weird scenario - I felt the guy was both struggling financially yet didn't want to do basic things so people could tip him more. Brilliant videos though.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#310

Post by jiggunjer »

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.

Blame their drug dealer model. YT could just be premium like Netflix but ofc then the largest group of content providers who don't care about money would move elsewhere.
Post reply on HN