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

191–200 of 781 posts

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#191

Post by gwd »

wredue wrote: post #141
pohuing wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The problem is that for YouTube to get that payment, I have to give them, and other ad networks a major view in to my whole life. Ad networks are currently scum of the earth, easily giving lawyers a good name. If ad networks were riddled with crime, invasion of privacy, and other bullshit, people would be much more willing to entertain them. Today though, they’re obnoxious AND invade your privacy AND may actually jus…

> The problem is that for YouTube to get that payment, I have to give them, and other ad networks a major view in to my whole life.

Wait... does that mean, Google could offer "DoubleClick Premuim", where I pay to not see any DoubleClick ads whatsoever, anywhere on the web, but the websites I visited would still get their funding? I think I'd pay $10/mo for that.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#192

Post by taftster »

lolinder wrote: post #186
taftster wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, re…

> 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? I think this is exactly right, but what's missing from the story is that YouTube created thi…

Yes, thank you for the reply.

> ... addressing creator concerns about reliability of their revenue streams.

Right, exactly. That's the core of the issue. Very insightful.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#193

Post by dantyti »

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.

No, Google still is an ad company. I do not want my identity and payment info tied to my watch history. I do not trust Google to not use my data for monetization outside of youtube (e.g., selling my 'anonymized' user persona to data aggregators). Hence, using a google account to get youtube premium is not an option.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#194

Post by bigthymer »

andirk wrote: post #142

Let's consider other options. What about: - Select "Watch ads later" a few times, until required, so time sensitive situations aren't bothered - Choose "Watch 1 long ad, then no more today" and pay the piper all at once with a couple minutes of ads. - Only relevant ads! When I worked at [video game news co], video game content got video game ads. The now defunct Grooveshark's ads were bands showcasing their music and…

> - Choose "Watch 1 long ad, then no more today" and pay the piper all at once with a couple minutes of ads.

People would walk away and do something else.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#195

Post by goalieca »

plasticeagle wrote: post #190
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…

Ironically, "entitlement towards free services like uBlock origin" is exactly the kind of sentiment that leads to the use of ad-blockers in the first place. So it can scarcely be surprising that the sorts of people blocking youtube abs because they want the content for free, are the same sorts of people that feel entitled to uBlock Origin's services for free. If you want youtube's content without ads, then pay for it…

> Ironically, "entitlement towards free services like uBlock origin" is exactly the kind of sentiment that leads to the use of ad-blockers in the first place

Entitlement towards tracking me across the internet and delivering malware is why I use an adblocker.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#196

Post by globular-toast »

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.

I'll try to explain why I use adblock, use YouTube, but won't be paying for YouTube premium.

First of all, I absolutely will not have ads in my own home. Ads are bad enough in public, but they will not be in my home. This is completely non-negotiable.

So then, what are my choices? Well there are paid-for services like Netflix, for example. This is a straightforward choice for me: I either pay for it or I don't. Simple.

Then there's the web. The web is essentially a public place. It thrives because it's free at the point of access. Unlike netflix, YouTube put itself on the web. It would not have become anywhere near what it is if it were like Netflix and behind a paywall. They used their "free" and "public" image to make themselves the only place on the internet for videos.

What they want is to have their cake and eat it too: they want to be the dominant public platform, but they want guaranteed revenue like Netflix too.

What I want is just to pay for my bandwidth fairly. If I pay for YouTube (which I must because remember ads are non-negotiable) then I'm not going to pay for any other platform. So YouTube grows as a monopoly. This is not the web.

So you might say, well just stop using YouTube then, but why should I? I don't want to use YouTube. I'm not there because of anything they deliver, I don't care about 4K quality or whatever. I'm there because I want to learn how to put up a shelf. A lot of that videos are posted by people thinking they are doing a public service and sharing knowledge. If YouTube were behind a paywall then they'd post them somewhere else.

So they just need to make up their mind. You want money? Then don't be public. Watch other platforms grow overnight. Watch P2P video sharing grow (which is how it should be). You want to be public and be the only video platform? Then I'll be blocking the ads when I try to access video in the only practical way I can.

Also, if this is about the cost then why not get the uploaders to pay for it? After all, it's their content that's being stored. Again, because if they did that then YouTube would not be the Borg of video content that it is.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#197

Post by eh_why_not »

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.

One point I don't see mentioned:

YouTube is not the creator/owner of the content. There are even channels that are actively against the advertising business model and that rely on off-platform subscriptions and donations. I.e. the creator still gets value even if no ads show on their videos.

YouTube still shows ads on those channels though. And the more eyeballs and YT subscriptions these channels get, the more YT makes money off them.

Now what percentage of viewers use ad blockers? 5%? 10%?... YT still makes money off the rest. It's not like those are a worrying cost center to YT. Why then go to those extremes to shave the last penny of the last person who really strongly does not want to see the ads (which potentially undermines the advertiser's purpose of making you like their product)?

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#198

Post by least »

dessant wrote: post #117
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…

It also feels awful to be called a beggar and a panhandler just because you're trying to find a balance and build a sustainable project by having a donation popup (that can be disabled) in your software. This disgusting review was sitting at the top of the review page for Search by Image on the Chrome Web Store: https://i.imgur.com/P1QU176.png This person has edited their review a couple of times in the past year whi…

> It also feels awful to be called a beggar and a panhandler just because you're trying to find a balance and build a sustainable project by having a donation popup (that can be disabled) in your software.

Interrupting someone's browsing experience to ask for donations is both providing a poor user experience and is in poor taste. I think it's fine to solicit donations in the browserAction popup, the settings page or even the initial installation window, but doing so elsewhere would deservedly be criticized.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#199

Post by acdha »

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…

This all comes down to consent: someone who pays for a billboard knows that not everyone will look at it, people who create open source software or open standards know that other people will use their work to make money, etc.

The problem is that YouTube is not providing free video but rather ad-supported video. If you don’t like that, it’s like seeing someone else’s GPL code: your choice is take it on the terms offered, negotiate other terms, or don’t use it.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#200

Post by buggeryorkshire »

adrr wrote: post #22
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.

It’s streaming, YouTube can just embed the ads directly into the stream.

It's not Twitch, video is encoded in advance in various formats for different devices.

Embedding the ads into the stream is pretty difficult.

Post reply on HN