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

341–350 of 781 posts

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#341

Post by mixmastamyk »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #337
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's unfortunately been this way for a long, long time. Though it does seem to have gotten more frequent in recent years. I've been running PortableApps.com for nearly 2 decades and, in that time, I've been sworn at, harassed, doxxed, received death and rape threats, etc. My personal favorite was a user who accused me of donating a kidney to my father because I thought I was better than everyone else and to try to ga…

The common advice to delete toxic people from your life applies to those online as well. I don't think of this as a FLOSS-centric problem. Instead of taking it personally I try to think of a suffering person lashing out at the world attempting to spread misery. Then I hit the delete/block button and move on.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#342

Post by lofaszvanitt »

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…

Create a wall of shame and let people laugh about the idiots. So simple.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#343

Post by fennecbutt »

Fucking hell, if you don't like ads then just don't use YouTube.

Everyone bitches about this sort of stuff and then refuses to boycott.

Look at the fucking shitshow Twitter has become under ol Musky...and have people left? Yeah, some for sure, but not very many at all.

The problem isn't just these companies, we can't act like the problem isn't us as well.

Pay for their services, or stop using them. If enough people did this simple thing, they'd have to react to it. Twitter would already be dead if everyone had _actually_ left.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#344

Post by caconym_ »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #244
ysavir wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Another true entitlement is adblock users complaining that YouTube is greedy, etcetera, now that they're actually kicking said users off their site. You (in the general sense) are certainly not responsible for making YouTube's business work, but by a similar token they are certainly not under any obligation to continue serving data to users who don't generate any revenue.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#345

Post by fennecbutt »

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…

Doesn't the same apply to YouTube then? People who want to block ads are entitled imo. Those people outright refuse to pay or to simply not use the service if they don't like ads. And it enrages so many people when this is pointed out.

Google made a mistake in offering free drive, gmail, Google docs, etc etc. Imagine telling someone in the 90s all the shit we get for free with a couple ads/our data being sold.

People have free will, they should use it, and stop using these services if they don't like ads or want their data sold.

Pay for email instead of your Gmail. Everyone refuses to do this, they'd rather shake hands with a devil and then cry when their soul is taken.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#346

Post by caconym_ »

8note wrote: post #310
Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They're also free to build more serious adblock countermeasures into their website, which is exactly what they're doing now, and people are complaining about it.

As GP said, maybe this is not your position, but it's a common enough one that their comment is not out of line (given that you are the one who replied to them).

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#347

Post by fennecbutt »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #244
ysavir wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Psssh, you and I both know the model only works because people _do_ sometimes look at ads.

If people don't, then YouTube will stop delivering videos for free. Your argument is pretty disingenuous.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#348

Post by andersrs »

praisewhitey wrote: post #293
yukkuri wrote: post #78

A lot of absurd moralizing here about "you're stealing by not watching ads". I keep adblock on for most sites because ads are so intrusive and often malware vectors. If advertisers want my eyes they need to not be obnoxious. I started blocking YouTube ads in particular because it kept serving me ads that were brazenly homophobic ("how gross and smelly is gay sex? Find out!") I feel no moral problem with this, if you…

This is the kind of content adblock users are missing out on. https://twitter.com/baroquespiral/status/1716488758030118931

I was going to invest in it until Cathie Woods showed up.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#349

Post by caconym_ »

least wrote: post #198
dessant wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> doing so elsewhere would deservedly be criticized.

I suggest that these people express their criticism by not using the software in question. I doubt the typical purveyor of free-as-in-* software who's stuck between a rock and a hard place re: monetization particularly cares what somebody who doesn't understand the personal specifics of their dilemma thinks about their chosen solution to it.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#350

Post by pohuing »

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…

Yep I agree, the ad supported Internet was a mistake and we should never have stopped paying for the services we use. I just hope that these changes will increase people's willingness to pay, then other platforms who aren't owned by the largest ad broker might have a chance.
Post reply on HN