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

171–180 of 781 posts

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#171

Post by twirls »

Just to summarize: I have nothing against marketing/ads as long as it is responsible, treats me with respect, as a human being, and does not break local laws.

I have multiple problems with YouTube ads and online ads in general. It seems, to me, that there are severe flaws in online advertisement regulations or it's just extremely hard to enforce.

One can compare the regulations and what responsibilities advertisers have for ads in other media vs. online ads.

Here are some of the reasons why I have problems with YouTube ads:

1. Online ads are often scummy, marketing some pyramid scheme, plainly lying with fake videos/screenshots, breaking my country's laws (probably, hard to verify) or, in the case of some web ads, contain malware.

2. YouTube takes no responsibility for what is shown to me or on which videos (for example, showing political propaganda from "ultra right" as ads).

3. The amount of online ads per minute of video is often obscene, even if you can skip some of them.

4. Ads volume is through the roof - this is intentional.

5. (off-topic) Zero protection from YouTube against abuse of copyright strikes.

6. (off-topic) YouTube takes no responsibility for their recommendation algorithms and yet wants to make money on all videos, regardless of the topic. I think such behaviour is irresponsible for such a big corporation as Alphabet.

Edit: To summarize: please treat me with respect and I'll watch your ads.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#172

Post by gchamonlive »

djbusby wrote: post #86
gchamonlive wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You don't need llm for that I think. But sure, if you want people to just leave you. It is a pain but a part of scaling is dealing with a crowd.

And I would prefer LLMs to hallucinate a nice constructive criticism than to delete comments by mistake.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#173

Post by w4yai »

lalaland1125 wrote: post #31

YouTube's anti adblock efforts are a good thing. For too long have a huge number of users been freeloading off free content

This is desillusional... How can it be a good thing ? Blaming users not willing to be forced to watch brain-washing videos is the right thing ? Really ?

I'm pretty sure there's a middle ground agreement. Such as serving 480/720p videos for free users, 1080p+ for ad watchers and 4k+ for subscribers. YouTube already makes a good amount of money only from monetizing watching habits and selling that data. We're giving away our tastes and deepest interests to a company at a daily basis for multiple decades. Why should we show them pity ? They don't have any for us.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#174

Post by meindnoch »

crop_rotation wrote: post #161
trimethylpurine wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could be hosted elsewhere. Why should free education material that is already funded by donations be locked behind ad based hosting? Hosting is not that expensive if you're using only those services. Especially in the countries where it's mostly being used.

Hosting is very expensive, e.g https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/15/22979126/vimeo-patreon-cr... That is why almost nobody bothers to do it themselves outside of big tech.

No it's not. Just use PeerTube.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#175

Post by aorth »

crop_rotation wrote: post #110
aorth wrote: post #102

Sad to see this because Google won't let me pay for Premium—it is not available in most of the countries I've lived in for the last few years. I wish I could pay for the right for my kids to not see ads, but Google won't let me. It's terrible when a relaxing piano video gets interrupted by some loud, materialistic ad and my kids can't take their eyes off it.

Just out of curiosity what countries are those?

Jordan and Kenya. I'm American, for what it's worth. Frustrating that I can't just pay and use Premium while they sort out their content jurisdiction issues. They know what I'm watching, and from where—can't they figure out how to do their licensing stuff?!

If I subscribe while in the US/EU (or on a VPN) it works, but the second you connect from an IP in a country that isn't supported, you get a notice that you will see ads. And it's not realistic or efficient to be on a VPN on all my (and my family's) devices 24/7.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#176

Post by lamontcg »

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.

I'd pay for YT if it wasn't run by Google.

Google wants to track me and sell the data and wants me to pay for it, and I'm not willing to be abused that badly.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#177

Post by a257 »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #113
a257 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Pirates and crackers have won every single time in the history of BigCo vs BlackHat. The more draconian and clever google gets, the more talented hackers are drawn to the cause of defeating them, and the more motivated people become to spite them. The only winning move is not to play.

Depends on what you consider winning. Consider that out of the 20% of internet users that have adblock today, only a fraction will be willing to turn to illicit means should Google get serious, especially if it requires anything more complicated than installing an extension.

Also keep in mind that pirate groups are able to crack L1 Widevine only because some companies let the keys slip in a breach. The keys are burned as soon as they are discovered, making it impractical to disseminate them for public use.

It's only because individual movies/tv shows have a high enough value (versus the cost of cracking it, the risk of your keys being burned) that pirate groups are able to thrive. This wouldn't work well with Youtube as it's value is primarily derived from having a large quantity of content.

I don't think many people would be willing to pay per Youtube video as they do for a movie.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#178

Post by dantyti »

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.

It's not a given that YouTube would be lost. For example, I could see a world where it was collectively 'nationalized' by the UN, made ad-free and accessible to all.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#179

Post by ndriscoll »

pohuing wrote: post #72
hotnfresh wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I sent you data so you have to use all of it exactly the way I want" is the entitled perspective.

Nonsense. I provide a service in exchange for payment, then not paying is entitlement.

If your form of payment is running malware, don't be surprised that security software (recommended by the FBI mind you[0]) blocks it. Same as if your form of payment were running a crypto miner or exploiting local IoT devices to set up a botnet.

Don't be surprised also that if your business is distributing malware that people won't be very sympathetic toward you when they take the bait you offer without running the payload.

[0] https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#180

Post by w4yai »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #90

> 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…

Because you can monetize from free videos. How do you think TikTok makes so much money?.
Post reply on HN