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

Tell HN: "Ad blockers are not allowed on YouTube”

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 168 posts

Re: Tell HN: "Ad blockers are not allowed on YouTube”

#151

Post by linguae »

w1nst0nsm1th wrote: post #92
avalys wrote: post #36

[flagged]

The contempt of ads network to serve outright scam or malware ads astound me also. When Newspapers of record are filled with 'sponsored link' leading to obvious medical scam, you know something is wrong.

Exactly. In principle I don’t mind advertisements; newspapers, magazines, and broadcast TV shows have ads, and I have no problem with them. I also don’t mind certain Web ads, such as the banner ads that were commonplace in the 1990s. What I do mind, however, is when advertisers feel they could do whatever they want to users. It started with annoying pop-up ads back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, which led to the creation of pop-up blockers. Then the ads started delivering malware, which necessitated ad blocking as a means of protection. Then ads started carrying audio with them, and later video ads were introduced. The ads themselves started to become scammy and in some cases outright grotesque in ways that would never be allowed in reputable newspapers or magazines.

I use YouTube Premium because of YouTube’s massive music collection; it and SiriusXM are the subscription services I use. I don’t mind paying for content, but what I do mind is the notion that somehow the website owner has a right to my screen and my computational resources. If I mute my TV or change the channel during commercials, it would be absurd to suggest that I’m “stealing” from the TV station. If I skip past the BMW or Tiffanys ads in a magazine, I’m not “stealing” from Time or Life or National Geographic. Why is blocking an ad on a website different? If I put a piece of paper over the ad, am I still “stealing”? Give me a break! Once something is downloaded on my computer, I have control over how the data is displayed, period. It would be different if users were hacking into systems to bypass paywalls.

My support for ad blocking is not about users feeling entitled to free content; it in reaction to the anti-consumer attitudes some website owners and advertisers have, which have led to degrading the user experience of the Web and increasingly desktop computing in general. Ads by themselves are not bad, but certain websites have brought the situation upon themselves by behaving in ways that are contemptuous to users.

Re: Tell HN: "Ad blockers are not allowed on YouTube”

#153

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

dns_snek wrote: post #147
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That will affect a large number of users but if word gets out that this weird fork of Firefox[0] will allow them to view YouTube with no ads, Google is suddenly forced to enable browser attestation such that only versions of Chrome will allow people to use YouTube. That will likely affect those in the US but EU authorities sometimes like to curb these antitrust behaviors. I also get the feeling that such a change wil…

> Amazon seems primed to start eating their lunch with Twitch That seems extremely unlikely, Twitch has already destroyed a lot of the goodwill they had with creators. Policy changes (or attempts) regarding baked-in ads, revenue splits, forced exclusivity, there's probably more.

All good points and I do agree. What I mean is that they have the compute infrastructure to manage it, assuming Youtube makes some colossal mistake with the goodwill they have with viewers.

Re: Tell HN: "Ad blockers are not allowed on YouTube”

#154

Post by GTP »

nvm0n2 wrote: post #149
GTP wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is using YouTube to promote what he does, but AFAIK not in the form of YouTube ads, instead he publishes content about what he does in the form of videos on his channel.

But ad blockers are happy to edit videos to remove sponsorship segments, so they'd also be happy to remove his self promotion. Ad blockers don't care about the exact form of ads, right? They just want to get rid of all of them leaving the content.

I think you're not familiar with Rossman's videos, he doesn't have sponsorship segments.

Re: Tell HN: "Ad blockers are not allowed on YouTube”

#156

Post by ta1243 »

sli wrote: post #29
ta1243 wrote: post #22

Youtube premium doesn't stop the adverts, you need sponsorblock for that.

This is conflating two otherwise unrelated things that just look similar if you squint.

An advert for grammarly inserted by youtube and an advert for grammarly inserted by the content creator. Both are adverts.

Re: Tell HN: "Ad blockers are not allowed on YouTube”

#157

Post by nvm0n2 »

GTP wrote: post #154
nvm0n2 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But ad blockers are happy to edit videos to remove sponsorship segments, so they'd also be happy to remove his self promotion. Ad blockers don't care about the exact form of ads, right? They just want to get rid of all of them leaving the content.

I think you're not familiar with Rossman's videos, he doesn't have sponsorship segments.

I know, but what I mean is that he must obviously inform people about his shop in some way, and so ad blockers can just remove those references. With modern AI they could theoretically even re-render his videos on the fly to write out any indication he's selling anything.

The point here is either you're OK with ad blockers in which case, you accept all your work is charitable and unmonetizable (because you can't even advertise what you're selling directly), or you have to accept ads in any form.

Re: Tell HN: "Ad blockers are not allowed on YouTube”

#158

Post by GTP »

nvm0n2 wrote: post #157
GTP wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're not familiar with Rossman's videos, he doesn't have sponsorship segments.

I know, but what I mean is that he must obviously inform people about his shop in some way, and so ad blockers can just remove those references. With modern AI they could theoretically even re-render his videos on the fly to write out any indication he's selling anything. The point here is either you're OK with ad blockers in which case, you accept all your work is charitable and unmonetizable (because you can't even…

On his YouTube channel, he mostly cares about the bigger picture of right to repair rather than talking about its shop. I'm also quite sure he doesn't see his videos as a source of revenue. But saying "it's ok to remove ads from videos" doesn't imply saying "all the work I do is for free, including repairs". Those are just two different things. In discussing ad blockers you're also talking about how they could potentially work in the future, but there's no indication that what you talk about will happen. If it will happen that someone starts using AI to deeply modify a video, content crearors can re-evaluate their stance on the topic, as it would present a very different scenario than the current one.

I would also add that the real world isn't just black or white, one could totally be fine with a certain kind of ads and not with others, as long as is able to provide an argument for it.

Re: Tell HN: "Ad blockers are not allowed on YouTube”

#160

Post by HenryBemis »

mistermo wrote: post #122
allanwind wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any workarounds for smart tv apps (browser, player)? They probably already "won" there and the user experience is horrible.

Maybe a pihole.

If it is Android, try NoRoot Firewall app.
Post reply on HN