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

ReVanced

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 248 posts

Re: ReVanced

#101

Post by matheusmoreira »

Flankk wrote: post #95
slenk wrote: post #69

It always suprises me how unwilling the tech community is to support creators on YouTube. You're not hurting YouTube by blocking ads, you're hurting the people who get ads from their videos. Just pay for Youtube Premium - its no different than Spotify or Apple music price-wise and people shell out for that without thinking every month.

Every time this discussion comes up on HN I get downvoted for being completely against adblock. It's crazy how far people will go to justify taking food off other people's plate. Usually the argument about tracking comes up. As if it's used for anything other than attempt to sell you products and services. Completely screw over small businesses and screw the content creators. On a venture capitalist forum. The hypocr…

> It's crazy how far people will go to justify taking food off other people's plate.

We don't have to justify it. We simply don't want to see ads. That's the end of it. The second they insist on showing us ads despite our preferences, their software becomes malware and will be blocked.

And nobody is "taking" anything off anyone's plate. They're the ones sending us free stuff bundled with ads. We're just deleting the noise. Just like ripping ads out of magazines and throwing them away.

Re: ReVanced

#102

Post by rmellow »

timdaub wrote: post #7

Youtube's frequency of ads has become so extreme that I've just yesterday opted to pay 11€/month for YT Premium. I had tried before disabling them with a Pihole or by blocking domains. It didn't work. Also, on a Samsung TV, you can't really install another front end.

1. Get an Android TV device. This is not actually a TV, but a device that connects to your TV via HDMI. Prices vary, but it's not expensive.

2. Install SmartTubeNext on the Android TV. Now you have something better than YouTube Premium: This app supports SponsorBlock, which not only gets rid of YT ads, it also skips filler segments, self-promotion segments and sponsor segments.

3. You can also install a SponsorBlock browser extension.

Both of these are Open Source Software.

Re: ReVanced

#103

Post by vageli »

outadoc wrote: post #99
judge2020 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It uses an alternative backend where videos pre-removal had their dislike counters archived, and anything post-removal uses dislike data from users with the extension to crowdsource a likely dislike counter. (in theory, if 5% of viewers of a video are people that have the extension, and only 10% of those viewers hit the dislike button, chances are that's a good sample size to assume that this video should have a 10%…

Quoted post unavailable.

> What a complicated process, all just to express your hatred.

Since when is a downvote equivalent to hate?

Re: ReVanced

#104

Post by judge2020 »

hundchenkatze wrote: post #67
blibble wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not sure MS will be too concerned about Google losing ad revenue

Maybe not, but MS does follow the DMCA takedown process. > "If the notice alleges that the entire contents of a repository infringe, or a package infringes, we will skip to Step 6 and disable the entire repository or package expeditiously." [0] This is what was going on with some Grand Theft Auto mods[1] and youtube-dl [2] [0] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-polic... [1] https://www.thegamer.co…

So does everyone else. Only self-hosted gives you the ability to ignore DMCA takedowns because the same entity is taking liability for either not following a dmca or performing the actual copyright infringement.

Re: ReVanced

#105

Post by pbhjpbhj »

outadoc wrote: post #99
judge2020 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It uses an alternative backend where videos pre-removal had their dislike counters archived, and anything post-removal uses dislike data from users with the extension to crowdsource a likely dislike counter. (in theory, if 5% of viewers of a video are people that have the extension, and only 10% of those viewers hit the dislike button, chances are that's a good sample size to assume that this video should have a 10%…

Quoted post unavailable.

"Dislike" doesn't mean hate, personally I've only downvoted YouTube videos when they were badly made, or badly presented to the extent that almost any other video on the topic would be better.

It's not about hate, it's a signal that the video is probably going to be a waste of time for the watcher.

Re: ReVanced

#106

Post by TheRealSteel »

nfriedly wrote: post #57
Aissen wrote: post #5

Apparently Vanced was a patched YouTube app for Android, removing ads, adding a dark theme and YouTube Premium features (probably more ?). It was discontinued two weeks ago: https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/13/22975890/youtube-vanced-a...

It also restored the dislike button and added support for sponsorblock (which can automatically skip sponsor segments, as well as intros, outros, "like and subscribe" reminders, non-music sections of music videos, and other fluff.) The name comes from it being an "advanced" YouTube app, only without any "ad"s ;) Oh, and you could disable the comments section! All-in-all, it just made YouTube a much better experience.

Oh wow, I just assumed it was made by a guy called Vance.

Re: ReVanced

#107

Post by TheRealSteel »

outadoc wrote: post #99
judge2020 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It uses an alternative backend where videos pre-removal had their dislike counters archived, and anything post-removal uses dislike data from users with the extension to crowdsource a likely dislike counter. (in theory, if 5% of viewers of a video are people that have the extension, and only 10% of those viewers hit the dislike button, chances are that's a good sample size to assume that this video should have a 10%…

Quoted post unavailable.

You've never downvoted anything on any website ever?

Re: ReVanced

#108

Post by Flankk »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #101
Flankk wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time this discussion comes up on HN I get downvoted for being completely against adblock. It's crazy how far people will go to justify taking food off other people's plate. Usually the argument about tracking comes up. As if it's used for anything other than attempt to sell you products and services. Completely screw over small businesses and screw the content creators. On a venture capitalist forum. The hypocr…

> It's crazy how far people will go to justify taking food off other people's plate. We don't have to justify it. We simply don't want to see ads. That's the end of it. The second they insist on showing us ads despite our preferences, their software becomes malware and will be blocked. And nobody is "taking" anything off anyone's plate. They're the ones sending us free stuff bundled with ads. We're just deleting the…

> We don't have to justify it. We simply don't want to see ads. That's the end of it.

Replace "see ads" with "pay money." Pirates are thieves and content theft is piracy.

Re: ReVanced

#109

Post by Nadya »

outadoc wrote: post #99
judge2020 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It uses an alternative backend where videos pre-removal had their dislike counters archived, and anything post-removal uses dislike data from users with the extension to crowdsource a likely dislike counter. (in theory, if 5% of viewers of a video are people that have the extension, and only 10% of those viewers hit the dislike button, chances are that's a good sample size to assume that this video should have a 10%…

Quoted post unavailable.

If the signal you are picking up from downvotes is that the channel must be hated in some way you should watch fewer outrage-bait/drama channels and more learning/tutorial channels. Some tutorial videos are made so confusingly and poorly, or worse teach incorrect information altogether, that the only signal for people to know "This video is absolute bollocks and you shouldn't waste your time watching it" is when he gets downvote bombed by anyone watching it. It's a single to then check the comments section where you'll probably see some comment explaining all the problems/incorrect parts of the video with more likes than the video itself has often with a recommendation to a better video on the topic.

Sure - channels absolutely used to be downvote bombed because people were mad at the content creator for whatever reason they may have had. But for a good section of videos the downvotes only spoke about the quality of the video itself and nothing about the content creator.

Re: ReVanced

#110

Post by matheusmoreira »

Flankk wrote: post #108
matheusmoreira wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's crazy how far people will go to justify taking food off other people's plate. We don't have to justify it. We simply don't want to see ads. That's the end of it. The second they insist on showing us ads despite our preferences, their software becomes malware and will be blocked. And nobody is "taking" anything off anyone's plate. They're the ones sending us free stuff bundled with ads. We're just deleting the…

> We don't have to justify it. We simply don't want to see ads. That's the end of it. Replace "see ads" with "pay money." Pirates are thieves and content theft is piracy.

Nope. "Piracy" is just copyright infringement. It is literally just copying bits, no theft of any kind is occurring. The only loss here is the corporation's artificial monopoly rights which shouldn't even exist anyway.
Post reply on HN