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

YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

andadinosaur.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 781 posts

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#81

Post by andirk »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #35
ketzo wrote: post #8

Why, from first principles, should YouTube allow this? Why shouldn’t they go thermonuclear? I understand ads are annoying - I block as many as I can! - but I’ve never seen someone put together a coherent defense of the practice.

If I were an advertiser on YouTube I would be very wary of YouTube's efforts on this. I wouldn't want to be paying YouTube for ad views of people who find advertising so annoying that they make such an effort to block it. Best case scenario, frustrated ex-adblock-users will ignore my ads by muting them or looking away, so I'm paying the same price for less value, sometimes as low as zero. Worst case scenario, these u…

Agreed, but I think the key is: targeting + good creative. Ad networks often allow targeting to some extent and I suggest targeting your audience as much as possible. 2nd, if the ad isn't relative to me BUT is interesting or funny, then I also often don't mind that.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#82

Post by tapoxi »

MostlyStable wrote: post #23
ketzo wrote: post #8

Why, from first principles, should YouTube allow this? Why shouldn’t they go thermonuclear? I understand ads are annoying - I block as many as I can! - but I’ve never seen someone put together a coherent defense of the practice.

Neither side is wrong. Youtube has every right to try as hard as it can to get users to view ads. And users have every right to try as hard as they can to block those ads. I don't have a right to ad-free youtube, but I do have every right to try and control what things get sent to and viewed on my computer. If I (and people like me) are abundant enough and succesful enough, then youtube and other services will be for…

But you can pay for YouTube Premium, they already have an alternative to an ad supported business model.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#84

Post by jasonboyd »

philipwhiuk wrote: post #26
crop_rotation wrote: post #9

Apart from the Youtube stuff, the post also highlights something else, entitlement towards free services like uBlock origin. > It’s one thing to play cat and mouse with YouTube. It’s quite another to deal with a wave of angry users. > And then one of the moderators actually deleted their Reddit account. “The ID in the post wasn’t updated because my mother was hospitalized,” they said. It’s sad to see them leave becau…

If they didn't have such entitlement they wouldn't be blocking the ads in the first place.

I allowed ads for a long time, believing a site should be able to earn revenue for the content they provide.

I started blocking ads when ad networks failed to properly vet their ads and allowed malicious ads to be distributed.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#85

Post by darthrupert »

ketzo wrote: post #52
MostlyStable wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither side is wrong. Youtube has every right to try as hard as it can to get users to view ads. And users have every right to try as hard as they can to block those ads. I don't have a right to ad-free youtube, but I do have every right to try and control what things get sent to and viewed on my computer. If I (and people like me) are abundant enough and succesful enough, then youtube and other services will be for…

I think this is a great take, with one exception: I think the loss of (free) ad-supported YouTube would be a devastating loss for the world at large.

How's that? Its algorithm is not exactly making the world a better place. It's filled with propaganda from all corners of the political spectrum with about zero responsibility.

But there is also TikTok, which is even worse. So yeah, in that way you could be right.

If only we could pay for the things we use, and only that.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#86

Post by djbusby »

gchamonlive wrote: post #54
crop_rotation wrote: post #9

Apart from the Youtube stuff, the post also highlights something else, entitlement towards free services like uBlock origin. > It’s one thing to play cat and mouse with YouTube. It’s quite another to deal with a wave of angry users. > And then one of the moderators actually deleted their Reddit account. “The ID in the post wasn’t updated because my mother was hospitalized,” they said. It’s sad to see them leave becau…

We could apply LLMs to act as an interface with the angry crowd, rephrasing angry comments into constructive criticism and summarizing needs. In turn LLMs could be applied to synthesise development progress and answer the angry crowd. Everyone would be happy.

Or, use an LLM to detect angry comments and delete them before any humans have to deal with the BS

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#87

Post by Aurornis »

A lot of the HN comments are about YouTube, but this article is really about how toxic the internet technology enthusiast community can be. The uBO volunteer teams are trying their best to give people the tools and information they want, but they’re becoming the outlet for people’s anger instead.

The part about people failing to follow instructions but then taking the time to complain about the instructions not working hits home for me. My limited experience being on the front lines of a much less popular project was marked by similar experiences: Many of the people who took the time to make accounts and participate in online forums seemingly had all the time in the world to complain about us, but couldn’t be bothered to read basic instructions. In many cases people would write pages of complaints about us and rant on social media about how awful we were before they’d even try contacting support.

Not everyone is awful like this. It’s actually only a small number of people. However, it doesn’t take many people to make forums and social media into completely toxic places for a subject. The first impression for anyone coming to Reddit or other places for support might be that it’s a dumpster fire, even though it could be as few as 20 in a vocal, toxic minority setting the tone.

The internet is a weird place. The demographic of users who complain that the volunteer support staff for their free ad blocker which lets them avoid watching ads on their free website being toxic is not at all surprising to me.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#88

Post by bruce511 »

>> Maybe that’s how YouTube will win this war of attrition.

YouTube will win because they are financially incentivised to so so. UBO and other free blockers will fail because there is so much downside, and no upside.

Wars are always won by those with the most resources, whether it is money or people or both.

I say this not to gloat (I'm no fan of google) but rather because it can be useful to understand both the goals, and where the goals are leading to.

I know HN doesn't appreciate some truths being spoken, and I imagine I'll be down-voted, but YouTube is paid for by advertisers. Content creators are paid by adverts (and embedded sponsors.)

Yes we all want our entertainment for free. Yes we done want ads. Yes we dont want to pay for our content (or our software.) I get that, I really do.

But content creators need to eat. Someone has to pay for the bandwidth. Since I'm not chipping in, I appreciate advertisers doing so.

Personally, and this is not a recommendation, or a judgement, I don't use an ad blocker. I'd there are too many ads I stop visiting a site. For the rest, including YT, I understand what I get and I understand what I give. I get this is not the popular HN position. Each sees this his own way.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#89

Post by crop_rotation »

SlackingOff123 wrote: post #74

I've been wondering, how much does the average YouTube viewer generate in revenue by watching ads? $0.1 a month? $0.25? $0.5 if avid viewer? Given that I'm not an avid viewer and I do not care at all for YouTube Music, I just find the monthly cost of YouTube Premium too high. I don't know what the right price should be, but by comparing with other digital subscriptions I have, I think I would be OK with paying someth…

I did some napkin math on this and I think 5 USD will not replace the ad revenue or even half of it. Keep in mind that this is the price only in the developed world and in the developing world both the YouTube premium price and ad price are very low and generate little revenue.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#90

Post by forrestthewoods »

> entitlement towards free services like uBlock origin.

To be fair uBlock origin users feel entitled to use YouTube, an extremely expensive operation to run, without giving anything in return.

I say this as someone who uses Privacy Badger and uBlock Origin. Websites are nigh unusable without ad block. But as far as ads go YouTube is far and away one of the least offensive imho.

If you don’t like ads you could choose to pay for YouTube Premium or simply not use the service. Demanding to use the service for free is rather entitled.

Post reply on HN