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

301–310 of 781 posts

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#301

Post by forrestthewoods »

jackjeff wrote: post #264
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…

I’ve never given YouTube or any ad sponsored website anything in return. Whether I use software or not, the last thing on earth I’ll do is watch your ad. Not done seen one for over 20 years and I intend to keep that streak.

You’re talking like you’re making a strong, principled stand. But, imho, the actual principled stand would be to not consume content from ad-supported platforms. It’s especially unprincipled when a platform offers a paid tier that disables ads.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#302

Post by ThatPlayer »

ozyschmozy wrote: post #280
ThatPlayer wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better options don't magically appear. Especially in an unsustainable market: nobody wants an audience of users who don't watch ads and don't pay. Where's the money to make the better option coming from?

I don't think not wanting to pay for YouTube is the same as not wanting to pay, period. I happily pay for Nebula but block ads on YouTube. I know plenty of people who do the same, or subscribe to patreons and such of people they follow.

Patreon is still heavily reliant on YouTube for the actual video hosting. Vimeo didn't go well [0]. Patreon has started their own video hosting service in beta, but haven't finalized prices yet. Even then plenty of creators would probably rather upload on YouTube for free than pay for Patreon.

Other services like Nebula are not a replacement for YouTube in this use case and many use cases. The comment I was replying to wouldn't be asking for better options instead of just using Nebula if it was.

[0] https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/15/22979126/vimeo-patreon-cr...

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#303

Post by paulryanrogers »

jasonboyd wrote: post #84
philipwhiuk wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you allow ads on sites with more responsible ads?

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#304

Post by serf »

meindnoch wrote: post #166
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.

>Why shouldn’t they go thermonuclear? What does "going thermonuclear" look like in this context?

my imagination of it : YT search as well as playback is behind a login.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#305

Post by ilkke »

carlosjobim wrote: post #285
globular-toast wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't. I don't want paid for content. If you will only make a video because you want to get paid for it then please, don't make the video. Many people will make videos without expecting payment. See YouTube, for example.

> I don't want paid for content. Then the solution for you is extremely simple: Do not go to youtube.com Then you won't have to be bothered by any videos that people made with the expectation of being paid. But what are you doing in a discussion about YouTube? You're free to make as many videos as you please and share them by P2P. YouTube is a partner for video creators for distributing their videos. You are not in t…

You are offering a "solution" to a sentence taken out of the larger context. Poster is arguing for a platform for videos that are not made for payment.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#306

Post by matheusmoreira »

gwd wrote: post #300
matheusmoreira wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they realize you're paying about $150 a year to avoid ads. That fact alone increases the value of your attention. Thus you gotta pay them even more money to avoid ads. Which increases the value of your attention further. At some point the value exceeds what you're willing to pay and it's back to ads. Then they start selling your personal information to the highest bidder which includes the fact you have enough d…

> That fact alone increases the value of your attention. OK, but does it increase my value to more than $150/year? I mean, just how much are people willing to pay for me to see ads? I mean ultimately, if someone is paying $5 to show me an ad, either they're going to go bankrupt, or it's going to be pretty darn good. If paying $12 once means I'm on the "costs $5 to show this person ads" list, then that's probably stil…

Who knows? Maybe if the value of your attention increases too much they'll socialize it among themselves or something. Instead of 1 company paying for an ad slot, 10 of them will band together and pay 1/10th of the cost to share the same slot instead. I'm sure they'll find a way.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#307

Post by Ferret7446 »

taftster wrote: post #205
AshamedCaptain wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe someone with excellent writing skills and having demonstrated reading all the documentation and FAQs is still asking for help in a respectful and intelligent way, and so maybe you engage. You mean it gets tiring to find the entertaining messages instead of the random trash? Because it doesn't matter how much effort the sender has put, or how intelligent his request/question/contribution/comment is. If I'm not…

Maybe you can ignore it? And that's great, if so. But I know I can't. I'm perfectly fine ignoring the buffoons. But I feel much anxiety over ignoring an insightful request or comment that would benefit both myself and the user if I were to engage. If I'm passionate about a project (in whatever form of contribution), I definitely want to help people who are genuinely looking for help. The problem is the signal to nois…

Some people just aren't suited for certain jobs. There's nothing wrong with the person, and there's nothing wrong with the job (in this case, the job "just is").

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#308

Post by globular-toast »

carlosjobim wrote: post #285
globular-toast wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't. I don't want paid for content. If you will only make a video because you want to get paid for it then please, don't make the video. Many people will make videos without expecting payment. See YouTube, for example.

> I don't want paid for content. Then the solution for you is extremely simple: Do not go to youtube.com Then you won't have to be bothered by any videos that people made with the expectation of being paid. But what are you doing in a discussion about YouTube? You're free to make as many videos as you please and share them by P2P. YouTube is a partner for video creators for distributing their videos. You are not in t…

As I explained in another comment, YouTube is not that. Netflix is that. Patreon is that.

YouTube is something different. It's more like Wikipedia to many people.

Believe me when I say if I could avoid YouTube I would. They've made it abundantly clear they don't want people like me. But what choice do I have when the vast majority of stuff is uploaded there? It's like saying "just stop breathing if you don't like air pollution".

I don't care about technicalities. I care about practicalities. YouTube can either be the free public repository of videos or it can be private like Netflix and facilitate payments between consumers and creators. Not both.

If this were about YouTube's costs then they could charge creators for hosting and bandwidth costs. If I set up a website, I pay for it, not you. Why should video be the other way around?

YouTube knows it needs to attract creators by being the free, public platform with one hand, but as soon as it gets that content it uses it to extract money from users with the other.

Any of these things would be good:

* YouTube goes private like Netflix,

* YouTube acts like a video host and charges uploaders for the service like any other web host,

* YouTube accepts they are like Wikipedia and cuts their costs by using technology like P2P and/or make the market absorb the costs by negotiating better peering deals (ie. push the bandwidth costs on to internet subscribers).

But masquerading as the free, public internet video platform then expecting to get paid for it by users who now have no other choice? Forget it.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#309

Post by serf »

Analemma_ wrote: post #7
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.

If you're neither paying YouTube any money nor watching their ads, meaning you're a pure money sink, why should they care about your goodwill?

a) there is no such user that is a pure money sink. Even without a subscription and all the ad blockers in the world they're still leaving a valuable data trail.

b) YT is a propaganda engine, too. It serves that end to allow nearly-unlimited membership.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#310

Post by 8note »

Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: post #289
matheusmoreira wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not hypocritical at all. There is no "entitlement" to videos. They are free. YouTube sends them to us for free. They do so hoping we're gonna look at the ads. We're under exactly zero obligation to actually do that though. It is not at all our responsibility to make their business model work. Abusing open source developers is the true entitlement.

Expecting that the videos will be free with no qualifiers (such as an ad playing) is also entitlement. Not that you have said that explicitly but that seems to be a common assumption among many adblock users.

YouTube is free to make windows and Mac apps, and turn off their web views.

They're relying on me doing work to run a browser that renders their ads, rather than providing a binary. They're not sending me a page of ads, they're sending me a couple files that I can choose how to show and what to put through a JavaScript interpreter

Post reply on HN