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

451–460 of 781 posts

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#451

Post by givemeethekeys »

eqvinox wrote: post #427

This is of course bringing up the discussion on the "morality" of Adblocking. I'd like to point out something that I don't think is getting enough attention. There was a point in the past where video platforms were competing, and by no means was it clear that YouTube would end up dominating this area to the point of being close to a monopoly. When YouTube won that race, they won it with a given set of parameters, inc…

Classic bait and switch. Google's own search page is a good example of how ads have overrun the search results.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#452

Post by belltaco »

garciansmith wrote: post #443
belltaco wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I watch, on average, less than 1 hour of Youtube videos a month, so paying for Youtube makes no sense What's your issue with having to watch ads if you watch less than 1 hour of video content a month? > I wish there was a free and open video platform that had a funding model like Wikipedia, where people could upload things that they had no intention of "monetizing" There's a lot of content on YouTube that peopl…

> What's your issue with having to watch ads if you watch less than 1 hour of video content a month? Moral issues, security issues, etc. These have been discussed in pretty much every thread about adblocking ever, really. I get that you might disagree with them, of course, but no need to rehash the here. I don't even like company logos displayed on my clothing, so you can guess which side of the "how much do you hate…

> Moral issues, security issues, etc.

How is blocking ads not a moral issue? Video creators also get hurt by ad blockers, not just YT, which does have costs associated with serving you video.

> So on those you never see ads?

I think they started showing ads on them, just fewer. They do cost storage and bandwidth, so what's wrong with that?

> Well, I can't speak for anyone else but I'm a middle-aged historian, so starting a video hosting platform is far beyond my expertise. Though in general asking someone "why don't you just go build it yourself" in response to a complaint about a service, software, or hardware item is a bit trite

Popular web sites are typically co-founded by non-tech folks. Anyway, what I meant that if you looked into starting one, you'd understand the immense scale of storage and bandwidth costs.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#453

Post by zarzavat »

eqvinox wrote: post #427

This is of course bringing up the discussion on the "morality" of Adblocking. I'd like to point out something that I don't think is getting enough attention. There was a point in the past where video platforms were competing, and by no means was it clear that YouTube would end up dominating this area to the point of being close to a monopoly. When YouTube won that race, they won it with a given set of parameters, inc…

My perspective: Google is not an agent directed by morality when they interact with me, therefore I don’t allocate any morality when interacting with them. It’s a power relationship not a moral relationship.

I do feel bad for the creators, but I would rather donate to their Patreons than buy YT premium.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#454

Post by selcuka »

boredpeter wrote: post #449
eqvinox wrote: post #427

This is of course bringing up the discussion on the "morality" of Adblocking. I'd like to point out something that I don't think is getting enough attention. There was a point in the past where video platforms were competing, and by no means was it clear that YouTube would end up dominating this area to the point of being close to a monopoly. When YouTube won that race, they won it with a given set of parameters, inc…

This reminds me of the concept of predatory pricing which is when a business lowers their prices to below cost in order to drive out all its competitors and create a monopoly. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... I do wonder if it could be argued (maybe even in the current monopoly case against google) whether youtube engaged in predatory or below-cost pricing in order to drive out all of i…

> Get VC funding, run at a loss and burn through money but gain a monopoly market share, and once you've done that you can raise your prices

Slightly off topic, but the business plan of most startups seems to be "get VC funding, and exit". What you wrote may be the business plan of VCs.

I don't understand the valuation of many startups these days (even in the hypothetical case where they capture 100% of their potential market one day).

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#455

Post by darklycan51 »

eqvinox wrote: post #427

This is of course bringing up the discussion on the "morality" of Adblocking. I'd like to point out something that I don't think is getting enough attention. There was a point in the past where video platforms were competing, and by no means was it clear that YouTube would end up dominating this area to the point of being close to a monopoly. When YouTube won that race, they won it with a given set of parameters, inc…

The real reason why anyone could never compete with Youtube was (lack of) monetization

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#456

Post by hahn-kev »

Zuiii wrote: post #442

Youtube is entitled to the technical shenanigans it uses to force people to watch ads and I am entitled to the technical shenanigans I use to avoid them on my own device. If youtube blocks off access completely, people will stop considering it a reliable video host and another "default" website will take its place.

I think you overestimate how many people use AdBlock.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#457

Post by matheusmoreira »

caconym_ wrote: post #447
matheusmoreira wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Still free, they just managed to circumvent my browser extension. They're not even supposed to know I have it installed. They need to either start charging everyone for access or stop complaining. I pay for access to a lot of things but I'm not paying money to avoid ads. I sure as hell am not gonna pay money to watch videos with hard coded ads.

> Nope. What part of my comment, specifically, is this responding to? > They need to either start charging everyone for access or stop complaining. Why?

> What part of my comment, specifically, is this responding to?

The notion that detecting our adblocker and actually charging for content are equivalent.

> Why?

Because if they send us ads we'll delete them and there is pretty much nothing they can do about it.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#458

Post by userbinator »

satvikpendem wrote: post #219
userbinator wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or in the case of video ads, you could stream the ad as part of the video itself instead of a separate pre roll. Back when people watched an actual "tube", ads were indeed like that. Yet VCRs could easily detect and skip over them when recording. Remember that this was before AI too, so the technology exists to counter it already. I suspect YouTube keeps the ads separate from the content because the sort of "splicing…

> Yet VCRs could easily detect and skip over them when recording How did they do that? Is there any more information on this topic?

Here's a thread from 2 decades ago with some more information:

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/threads/vcrs-and-...

In particular this interesting tidbit:

Also there are tones in the audio and/or material in scan lines 484-525 whose purpose is to tell the sponsors' automatic monitoring and auditing devices that the commercials were aired at the proper times and that VCR's can also use for commercial advance

...and apparently this was available in the mid 90s: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/1995/09/20/with-this-vcr-com...

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#459

Post by vehementi »

belltaco wrote: post #452
garciansmith wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's your issue with having to watch ads if you watch less than 1 hour of video content a month? Moral issues, security issues, etc. These have been discussed in pretty much every thread about adblocking ever, really. I get that you might disagree with them, of course, but no need to rehash the here. I don't even like company logos displayed on my clothing, so you can guess which side of the "how much do you hate…

> Moral issues, security issues, etc. How is blocking ads not a moral issue? Video creators also get hurt by ad blockers, not just YT, which does have costs associated with serving you video. > So on those you never see ads? I think they started showing ads on them, just fewer. They do cost storage and bandwidth, so what's wrong with that? > Well, I can't speak for anyone else but I'm a middle-aged historian, so star…

As they said, you aren't breaking new ground by asking these questions. Maybe bring yourself up to the state of the art of this debate etc. and contribute to that discussion wherever it is

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#460

Post by akshayt »

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?

Directly embedding ads in the video
Post reply on HN