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

621–630 of 781 posts

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#621

Post by jampekka »

greatNespresso wrote: post #576
wodenokoto wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did. They ran at a huge deficit for a very long time while expanding. But this seems to be the play book for all VC funded web apps. Facebook and MySpace did the same. In fact, you can argue that moving towards profitability too soon and too fast is what killed MySpace. But that argument only works if you are willing to see the growth phase as something other than predatory pricing. I think your comment is a sob…

Agreed. Bruce Schneier allocated a chapter in his last book, .A hacker's mind': "Venture capital itself is not a hack. The hack is when unprofitable companies use VC funding to ignore the dynamics of the market economy. We don’t want some central planner to decide which businesses should remain operational and which should close down. But this is exactly what happens when venture capital firms become involved. The in…

That's more or less the opposite of communism.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#622

Post by aezart »

okdood64 wrote: post #488
perryizgr8 wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You either watch the content and pay by watching ads, or you pay by purchasing YouTube premium and still get shown ads. Fixed that for you.

I've had Premium for years. Never have seen a single ad.

You've never seen a "this video is sponsored by..." segment?

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#623

Post by nvm0n2 »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #113
a257 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think that Youtube will "lose"? From a technical perspective, they have been rather conservative in their efforts so far. It can get so much worse, they could bake ads directly into the video stream or automatically randomize their API. Don't forget that Google also owns Chrome, which by its dominance over the market can be used to effectuate DRM (such as widevine, or web integrity). They also own the…

Pirates and crackers have won every single time in the history of BigCo vs BlackHat. The more draconian and clever google gets, the more talented hackers are drawn to the cause of defeating them, and the more motivated people become to spite them. The only winning move is not to play.

No they haven't. Consoles are the clearest example of where they lost, but also how frequently do new jailbreaks for modern iPhones appear?

Big tech can afford well paid security teams and uBlock Origin is a bunch of frustrated volunteers who are quitting now they're facing serious resistance for the first time. And Google haven't even exhausted 5% of their options.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#624

Post by seydor »

dageshi wrote: post #605
adhesive_wombat wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> still contains tons of illegal stuff I came across whole episodes of British TV on there this very week that were uploaded 12 years ago. I know they have a strict "no humans involved, ever" system going, but the programme name was in the title and the video was one of those ones inset into a fake background and the audio was original. I find it amazing that no one (or rather nothing) with a ban button has noticed t…

Is it illegal though? Who owns it? General principle of the internet seems to be people can host what they like till someone who has legal ownership of it tells them to take it down at that point they're expected to take it down and keep it off their service unless added by the owner. That's what google is sticking to because frankly any other method would be a nightmare. The old tv episodes might have muddy/unclear…

yes it s entirely illegal hosting it , as it is copyrighted content, it even says so in the credits. there are tons of tv series from around the world being hosted, and it's not fair use even under the relaxed US laws. The fact that someone has not issued a takedown request doesn't make it legal either.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#625

Post by blooalien »

chii wrote: post #554
blooalien wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single time I meet one of the developers of an open source project that has benefited me in some way, I always make it a point to tell them "Thank you" and let them know how (and how much) their generosity benefited me, and how much I really appreciate it. I also make efforts to help out in any ways I'm able. Sometimes that's cash (when I've got some available to spare), and sometimes it's just helping out in s…

Thank you for making the world a better place!

Not I, thank you. The folks who create and release open source software (which I myself have not done in many years now). I'm just reacting appropriately to their generosity which is actively contributing to the world being just that little bit better because of their actions / decision. :~)

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#626

Post by jonathanstrange »

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…

There is a moral issue, you're right. Blocking ads is clearly morally permissible. Blocking ads is equivalent to not locking at billboards and skipping ad pages in a magazine (or tearing the pages out). There is no moral issue with any of that. You've bought a PC, you run whatever software you like on it. You have a right to chose how your machine displays content you download from the net. In turn, the maker of a web page can chose to offer whatever they want. If they need more money, then they can transmit the content only if you pay. That's perfectly feasible and reasonable. What they cannot and should be able to decide is how your machine displays their content and what kind of other software you use on your machine.

I believe that - if at all - only tightly controlled government authorities should be allowed to force display messages on end user machines, and if so, only in severe emergencies and for the protection of civilian lives.

People in this debate sometimes argue based on costs and money lost from ad revenue. These are business discussions that have no place in the moral evaluation at all. Not every business model works. So what, find another business model, is the answer.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#627

Post by figmert »

willdr wrote: post #595
figmert wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does this matter? Can't you just not use it?

Because they're sold together, so if you wanted forgo YouTube Music, you'd assume it'd be cheaper.

I'd be very surprised if it would be considering YouTube already has music where they already pays the copyright holder for. My guess is YouTube music is focused UI on an already offered service and separating it out will likely not make it cheaper, or if it does, it won't be a big difference.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#628

Post by jampekka »

zarzavat wrote: post #453
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.

This is the right response that's all too often missing from these threads.

If you want "free-market" you should deal with its basic premise that consumer pays as little as they can and seller tries to milk the consumer as much as they can. That's quite literally how it's supposed to work.

I'm very much in favor of bringing some morality to the economic system, but it shouldn't be one sided.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#630

Post by shiroiuma »

leventonportera wrote: post #419
gretch wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Youtube is free to not show anyone anything - once they send me data and it leaves their system, they have no claim to it. Okay well they're about to not show you the videos. You support their latest announcement right? It is completely in line with the the philosophy you just put forward.

If you read the entire comment before replying to the comment, you would have your answer before you asked the question. "They are free to ignore any request I shout at them" I don't have any opinion on, nor care about their latest announcement to do with their hardware as they please. Their announcements are theirs and of no concern of mine. It's just a random website the has content duplicates available at a hundre…

>because about a day after whatever change they make, software (that runs on my computer against my data) will catch up.

Exactly: it just takes one bored or determined hacker to investigate their changes and update the ad-blocking software, and suddenly everyone is able to see the videos and block the ads again. The ad-blockers don't seem to have trouble keeping people around to do this work.

Post reply on HN