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

511–520 of 781 posts

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#511

Post by undersuit »

saltminer wrote: post #398
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…

That's a really good point about Twitch ads. I leave Twitch ads enabled for channels I regularly watch and I cannot recall seeing any malware or scam ads. Some can be annoying (especially if it queues the same ad 3 times in a row), but they're all from legitimate companies offering legitimate products and services.

Twitch ads have no chill, not that others do either but...

They run at different volumes than streamers. They run over streamer's content. They run pre-roll ads so you can't "flip channels". If I accidentally reload the page or the Twitch video player crashes, pre-roll ad. The ads aren't related to the steamers and streamers don't get to tell Twitch to not play a certain ad during their stream. I can pay $10 a month for Twitch Turbo but that just promotes ad revenue over subbing.

I bought 4 six month subscriptions to some of my favorite streamers in September for about $80. My internet costs $69.99 so that's kind of a bargain.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#512

Post by kerkeslager »

caconym_ wrote: post #349
least wrote: post #198

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. 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.

> I suggest that these people express their criticism by not using the software in question.

As with most "love it or leave it" arguments, this is a transparent attempt to silence critics without actually bothering to engage with criticism, even if it's constructive.

Anything you put in front of a significant number of people will be criticized, and rightly so, because it's not perfect. Admitting things aren't perfect is the first step to making things better.

This argument is particularly disigenuous in the context of a discussion about YouTube, because YouTube is effectively a monopoly in a number of ways--it's effectively an argument that once a product reaches monopoly status, it can do whatever it wants and nobody can criticize.

Adults learn to accept, integrate, and throttle their intake of criticism. If you haven't, you have some growing up to do.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#513

Post by gigel82 »

Just embed the ads in the video stream at upload time. I might be inclined to not fast forward if they're short enough and entertaining.

I will always use an ad blocker otherwise, because the main thing I'm protecting against is tracking. Similarly, I don't mind the old school static ads some blogs and websites still use but I will go out of my way to block all dynamic ads for the same reason (tracking).

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#514

Post by kerkeslager »

dessant wrote: post #327
PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

imagine having the ability to dislike something without characterizing it as disgusting. One could almost call it a super power.

I think empathy is a much more relevant superpower, and the lack of it can be disgusting.

Where's your empathy for your users? Do you really not see the point of view of that review?

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#515

Post by mrtksn »

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…

Isn't that the whole premise of the SV tech?

Give a dollar(unprofitable and unsustainable service) for a pennies by burning the money of the investors to capture a market then switch to high profit margin business practices and milk out the captured market thereafter.

Sure, it can be framed as spend money when developing a product then make profit of it when released but the winners are determined by keeping alive the developed product longer than everyone else ane when everyone else is gone, then monetise.

People who spent billions of dollars to run YouTube at loss for years were not philanthropists, they rightfully expect to make that money back and make much more on top of it.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#517

Post by kerkeslager »

fennecbutt wrote: post #345
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…

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

People have free will, and they should use it the way you want them to?

No thanks, I don't agree to the rules set forth by the ad-supported companies. I think I'll use my free will to install an adblocker.

I don't use Gmail any more, but that's because there are viable alternatives for people with my technical abilities. Not everyone is a software dev. The tradeoffs for most people switching off Gmail aren't acceptable.

When the choices are "conform to what this company wants" or "don't have working email", that's not freedom of choice. Freedom requires real viable alternatives. Only in late-stage-capitalist hellholes like Hacker News is this sort of choice considered freedom.

I literally read someone on HN recently saying that if people didn't want to pay tens of thousands yearly for insulin they were welcome to not, i.e. the choices are pay a pharma company or die. That's a much more extreme example, but it's pretty typical of HN these days.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#518

Post by Yujf »

yborg wrote: post #134
tech234a wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More than 10% of telemetry-enabled Firefox users worldwide use adblockers. In Poland it's 15%. In the United States, Germany, and Russia it is closer to 20%, and in France it is closer to 30% [1]. [1]: https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/usage-behavior (see near the bottom of the page)

And the population that will block ads will include a lot that block telemetry as well on principle, so the percentage is higher than that.

But the population that blocks (opt-out) telemetry is likely low, at least that is what I would assume. So I don't think it makes a big impact

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#519

Post by cglong »

garciansmith wrote: post #428
ohhnoodont wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially when youtube's early success was built on piracy. That continued for a long time even after Google's acquisition. Arguably still is a major contributor regardless of Content ID.

Yes, true. Gain traction through piracy to get to an immense size, let everyone use the service for free to grow even larger, introduce ads but only easily blockable ones, then slowly tighten the vise.

From my understanding, this is the exact model Crunchyroll used too to gain a virtual monopoly on anime streaming.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#520

Post by brnt »

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…

What is the morality of thinking anyone is allowed to fully control my machine? I guess I'm showing my age, but browsers were _user_ agents, once.
Post reply on HN