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

91–100 of 781 posts

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#91

Post by tapoxi »

crimsontech wrote: post #77
blindseer wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think YouTube will "win" this war, unfortunately. Even people that "join" individual channels cannot watch content from those channels if they use AdBlock. At some point these people are either going to buy premium or turn off the ad-blocker. It boggles my mind that engineers and managers that have kids and are working on the YouTube team think this is okay and this is what the future of the platform should look li…

> At some point these people are either going to buy premium or turn off the ad-blocker. Or they stop going to YouTube. In the past 12mo my use of these platforms has reduced a huge amount. I no longer visit Twitter or Reddit because they blocked 3rd party apps, forcing me to view adverts, I would rather not be a user on a user hostile platform. Deep down, most of us know these are huge time sinks providing very litt…

What's the viable alternative to YouTube? Tiktok?

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#92

Post by bluish29 »

jamielife wrote: post #55
throw_pm23 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about ads displayed on a busstop? Should I feel guilty for looking the other way? It subsidizes public transportation afterall..

Not really a fair comparison. The equivalent to "looking the other way," on YouTube would be exactly that, looking somewhere other than the ad (opening another browser, going to the bathroom, etc.). Ad Blockers are essential painting over the bus stop ad completely, so you don't even have a chance to see it.

While the comparison is not 1:1 but the result is the same in the two cases. I don't see the ads, one of them I have more control on how effective I can prevent ads. Also in both cases I pay for the bus from my money so that I pay for the internet connection from my own money. The internet is built on free protocols and I can use it whatever I want.

Google does not pay TCP/IP..etc designers/operators a portion of theid ad revenue. Why would they feel entitled to the the internet infrastructure they don't pay for?

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#93

Post by microtonal »

alin23 wrote: post #62

As the dev of a macOS app that breaks all the time because of external hardware, the tone of the article hits close to home. (I’m talking about https://lunar.fyi/ whose brightness control commands can be blocked by USB-C hubs, “smart” monitors, too long cables etc.) I had to disable public GitHub issues on the app repo [1] because people seemed to fuel each other with spiteful comments and “why can’t you just!!” sent…

:( So sorry to hear this. I don't use Lunar, but know many people who love it. They all appreciate the work that you are doing!

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#94

Post by AshamedCaptain »

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…

But I don't understand why this would be annoying at all to the developers. I have absolutely zero conundrum with just ignoring a request if I'm not in the mood to do it.

Most of them I even delete outright, but I still have requests that were sent to me in 00s that I'm keeping just in case one day "I'm in the mood".

And yes, people request (demand!) crazy things, and have done so for decades. There are even "If you don't do it, then $threat" guys. And my area of software is generally industrial/professional....

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#95

Post by ysavir »

ozarker wrote: post #70
deadmutex wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have seen this becoming more and more common on open source projects and totally free services, where people act as if they are entitled to something as if it is their god given right. Do you count YouTube as a "free service" (with ads) in this case? I wonder if there is an overlap with people that expect free stuff and people that use uBO on YouTube. YT does offer most users YT premium, which gives users an ad f…

I think he’s referring to the Adblock as the free service here.

I think deadmutex is pointing at a bit of irony and hypocrisy at how we're saying it's bad for people to feel entitled to free adblock support (and ask for more) but champion people feeling entitled to free videos by blocking the ads or refusing to pay for no ads.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#96

Post by tech234a »

ls612 wrote: post #57
tomComb wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt YouTube is going for zero. I suspect they only took action recently because ad blockers have become very common.

I thought it was still something stupid low like 10% of people using adblockers?

More than 10% of telemetry-enabled Firefox users worldwide use adblockers. In Poland it's 15%. In the United States, Germany, and Russia it is closer to 20%, and in France it is closer to 30% [1].

[1]: https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/usage-behavior (see near the bottom of the page)

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#97

Post by a257 »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #4

YouTube will "lose" the war, but they'll make adblocking difficult enough for a while that it might get some premium subscribers in the short term in exchange for the loss of goodwill.

What makes you think that Youtube will "lose"? From a technical perspective, they have been rather conservative in their efforts so far. It can get so much worse, they could bake ads directly into the video stream or automatically randomize their API.

Don't forget that Google also owns Chrome, which by its dominance over the market can be used to effectuate DRM (such as widevine, or web integrity). They also own the Chrome Web Store, and they can ban any extensions that bypass Youtube ads (they already ban extensions with the ability to download Youtube videos, strangely they allow downloaders for any other site).

Google has a lot of money, and a lot of fingers in critically important pies, to make their wishes a reality should they deem to do so.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#98

Post by atum47 »

My main issue with YouTube, being a paying customer, it's that they still try to shove trash down your throat like cringe shorts or stupid bullshit news.

I still think there's some shady monetization going regarding their recomedation system as well, where the "algorithm" will recommend shit that has nothing to do with the content you watch

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#99

Post by seydor »

I wonder why Youtube does not try other kinds of ads.why not ads in the sidebar, under the videos etc. They know which products and keywords are mentioned, and sometimes i google them anyway. Why do they insist on silly clickbait ads that are much worse than old-time TV ads. I don't want that because i don't like people wasting my time beyond a few hundred milliseconds. They d probably have made more money if they showed me banner ads instead of trying to make me stop using blockers

I guess it's because they want to sell "video inventory" to their advertisers. But why really? They own both the demand and the supply of advertising and they can 'convince' advertisers to use banners instead of videos. Why not be a good monopoly ?

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#100

Post by microtonal »

tapoxi wrote: post #82
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…

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

I have YouTube Premium. But I worry that once a substantial portion of the user base goes Premium, they'll also start to slip in ads. I think the ad business has made everyone who cares paranoid.
Post reply on HN