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

131–140 of 781 posts

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#131

Post by remus »

darthrupert wrote: post #85
ketzo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

I think this is true, but youtube is also a platform where people can share video content with a big chunk of the internet connected world for zero money. I think that's pretty cool, particularly when I think about all the small accounts I follow whose content just wouldn't be available without youtube (or a similar platform).

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#133

Post by jamielife »

bluish29 wrote: post #92
jamielife wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

Because it costs them money to host the videos on their servers, you're not paying for the protocol to deliver the content, just like you're not paying for the roads when you ride the bus. Additionally it cost the content creators time, money, and energy to make the content. People should get paid for that. So you're also paying the bus driver, the mechanics, etc.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#134

Post by yborg »

tech234a wrote: post #96
ls612 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

And the population that will block ads will include a lot that block telemetry as well on principle, so the percentage is higher than that.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#135

Post by meindnoch »

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.

What about using AR glasses that recognize ads and paint them over? Is that also unfair? Should we ban such AR glasses in the future?

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#136

Post by bluGill »

I.try to search for videos on a peertube instance first. Not much is there, but I want the few who put content there to be rewarded with my eyeballs. More video is uploaded someplace than there is time. Even if we restrict ourself to great content you can't watch it all (most are also looking for a subject they are interested in which keeps things manageable)

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#137

Post by 404mm »

For tech capable people following a few channels and nothing else, here’s another option.

Set up and use podsync. It uses your free API credits to monitor YouTube content and downloads them for you. Then just use any simple web server to share the static files and import the “channel” using your favorite Podcast player.

End result, you have YouTube ad-free in your podcast app, with notifications (per channel) for new episodes and likely some offline caching.

While this is my top favorite way to watch YT, I also support my channels directly through Patreon.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#138

Post by beejiu »

kiernanmcgowan wrote: post #27

This ad block debate makes me think about patio11’s post “The optimal amount of fraud is non zero”. Essentially in trying to make a system as fraud-free as possible you make it too difficult to work with / the cost of fighting fraud is higher than the cost of the fraud. Ads vs Ad Blockers seem to be in that space, but on the cost of customer good will. Can YouTube squeeze more money from ads by doing this? Sure. Is i…

I suspect they also want to push users onto YouTube Premium, since they are offering a free trial when you click through from the banner. (At least, this is the route that I took as a user.)

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#139

Post by taftster »

bo1024 wrote: post #108
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…

These are good points. There is also a separate point to make, which is that YouTube doesn't (in large part) create videos, they "just" host other people's videos. YouTube wants to capture a bigger and bigger slice of the value created by interactions of other people with each other. There is a question of how much monetization YouTube "deserves" versus how much they are able to actually extract from people by being…

Right, that's an interesting point. On the one hand, Youtube itself doesn't add value. The creator uploads are the value.

But if Youtube didn't monetize, presumably with the rise of the Youtube star, content creators wouldn't make enough money and would not publish there. So if you think of it from this angle, Youtube needs to go to war with ad blockers simply because their content creator, the users adding value, require them to do so.

I also wonder if the rise of the "this video is sponsored by xyz" segments in people's videos have cause more harm. That ad money that is circumventing Youtube entirely, paid directly to the content producer. So Youtube might be "jealous" of this revenue and wants to encourage its content producers to let them run ads only? because it's easier that way?

Post reply on HN