YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#691

Post by temporallobe » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 4:24 PM UTC

rchaud wrote: post #682

temporallobe wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What still gets me is that even with YT Premium, there are still ads if the content creators decide to embed them as part of the content. Yes, they are skippable, but there are still ads…that I paying, to NOT see. This is also a moral issue. What does the exact definition of “no ads” actually mean to YT and is their definition misleading or purposefully vague? Unless they qualify their definition with something like…

Like a TV show with ads, but where the TV actors put in their own ads right into the shows dialogue, in addition to the network's commercial breaks. This happens because Youtube doesn't pay content makers a flat rate, unless they're a whale.

Yeah there are various ways to sneak advertising into content, but that why this is so insidious. Is product placement an “ad”? Is a quick mention of a sponsor an “ad”? Is a “passive” ad such as background graphic or wearing a sponsor’s t-shirt an “ad?”. Where do we draw that line? I think we’ve simply been conditioned to accept that ads are a normal and acceptable part of life, even if you pay not to have them. Remember when cable TV first became available to the public? It was supposed to be, and was at first, ad-free because you paid for it unlike broadcast TV. Now, cable TV is more ads than content in many cases, and those who have it pay dearly because in most markets, the cable companies have an effective monopoly. We have become the dystopian future we predicted and abhorred, but don’t even know it.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#692

Post by Night_Thastus » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 4:26 PM UTC

noqc wrote: post #658

The argument for the morality of adblockers, in my opinion, begins and ends with the idea that, were the adblocker something you could insert in your brain directly, you would clearly have the right to do so, and also clearly have the right not to disclose this to google. Google gets paid by advertisers to go fishing. They bait the hooks. I don't think it is reasonable to complain that the fish eat the bait and not t…

That's a good argument. Mine is a bit different:

* Who paid for the computer displaying the content?

* Who paid for the electricity powering that computer?

* Who paid for the internet service the computer is connected to?

* Who paid for the housing the computer is in?

The answer to all of those is ME. That seals it personally, I am not seeing ads in my own home when I'm paying for all that.

I'm not denying Google has costs to keep YT running. I'm just stating that from my perspective, I've already paid plenty - both upfront and monthly.

It would be different if it was a computer in a public library where I paid for nothing, and the ad revenue went to support that library. But that isn't the situation.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#693

Post by ce4 » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 4:54 PM UTC

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…

Guess why gorhill ended uMatrix....

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#694

Post by freeAgent » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 5:06 PM UTC

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…

You have essentially laid out the tech company playbook. In so many cases, hyper-growth is subsidized by investors (or another part of a giant business). The product is offered to the public at FAR below cost in order to gain a monopoly-like market share. After they have successfully killed all viable competitors, they ratchet up prices (and/or ad-delivery), decrease spend on customer service, etc. and rake in profits. This is why the “growth mindset” is so ingrained in SV tech culture.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#695

Post by least » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 5:35 PM UTC

caconym_ wrote: post #684

least wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's even greater utility in telling people about minor things that might annoy them, because those minor things aren't going to get a developer's application pulled from the app store, but have a meaningful impact on the user's experience. That is, in fact, exactly what reviews are for.

> I think there's even greater utility in [...] You really think it's more important for me to air my grievances about a free software's occasional donation nag messages than to tell other potential users it's a front for malware? That's honestly really strange, and I categorically disagree.

It's greater utility in the sense that there's other mechanisms in place to report malware that are more effective at getting that changed than just the review section.

Reviews are much more useful for applications that stick around on the app store, or chrome web store, or whatever else, because well, they're still there.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#696

Post by least » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 5:39 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #552

kerkeslager wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 perfe…

> Admitting things aren't perfect is the first step to making things better. the implied assumption being made here with this train of thought is that it is the author's imperative duty to make things better. It is not. The author has zero obligation to make it better for anyone; they do it at their leisure and at their convenience.

> It is not. The author has zero obligation to make it better for anyone; they do it at their leisure and at their convenience.

Yes, and it's people's prerogative to write reviews criticizing the software that is published, regardless of whether it's paid or not.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#697

Post by caconym_ » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 5:41 PM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #512

caconym_ wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 perfe…

I flagged this comment because it contains a personal attack:

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

Normally I would respond to this kind of thing in a different way, but the (apparently) lone HN moderator has previously informed me that stooping to the level of such attacks is just as bad in HN's eyes as being the one to make them in the first place. Accordingly, I place my rhetorical fate in the hands of the mod[s], and I look forward to seeing your rule-breaking comment removed.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#698

Post by caconym_ » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 5:42 PM UTC

least wrote: post #696

chii wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Admitting things aren't perfect is the first step to making things better. the implied assumption being made here with this train of thought is that it is the author's imperative duty to make things better. It is not. The author has zero obligation to make it better for anyone; they do it at their leisure and at their convenience.

> It is not. The author has zero obligation to make it better for anyone; they do it at their leisure and at their convenience. Yes, and it's people's prerogative to write reviews criticizing the software that is published, regardless of whether it's paid or not.

I don't think anybody here is saying it's illegal to be an asshole.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#699

Post by kerkeslager » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 5:43 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #552

kerkeslager wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 perfe…

> Admitting things aren't perfect is the first step to making things better. the implied assumption being made here with this train of thought is that it is the author's imperative duty to make things better. It is not. The author has zero obligation to make it better for anyone; they do it at their leisure and at their convenience.

No, I'm not implying that at all. The author of the software isn't the only one who might improve the software based on the criticism. A completely different person might decide to clone the software with suggested improvements, for example.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#700

Post by kerkeslager » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 5:54 PM UTC

dessant wrote: post #578

kerkeslager wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 which pushed it to the top, and also emailed me with a similar demeaning message. I've reported it to Google staff, and they thought that the review did not break their content policy, so they did not re…

You've lost the plot if you think that it is normal or acceptable to call the maintainers of an app or extension beggars and panhandlers if there is a donation prompt shown once a year when you open the app. Most people would in fact find it appalling and demeaning to treat people with such little respect. I think you should also take a second look at your own performance in this thread, and maybe ask a friend for an…

> Most people would in fact find it appalling and demeaning to treat people with such little respect.

You don't speak for most people, nor do I believe you know much about most people. If you've got access to any evidence I am not aware of, feel free to share, but until that point, I can only assume this is just your opinion, which you are trying to present as most people's opinion.

> I think you should also take a second look at your own performance in this thread, and maybe ask a friend for an opinion about your comments, because that behavior is not normal either.

Asked my girlfriend. Her statements: 1. "Why are you arguing with people on the internet?" (Answer: I was bored.) 2. "That guy [you] is overreacting."

You've already checked your opinions with the Google staff, and been told they don't agree with you. Why would you think one of my friends is going to agree with you more? How many outside opinions are you willing to ignore to maintain your delusion that your opinion is universally agreed upon? I'm pretty sure none of the people who are agreeing with you in this thread have actually read the mild, polite 4/5 star review you're describing as "disgusting".

In a larger sense, you've not engaged with anything that the review said or that I said. You're just calling opinions disgusting, appalling, demeaning, etc., without actually bothering to disprove the concrete claims being made.

I asked questions in my previous post, and they aren't just rhetorical. You might consider answering them:

"What's the point you're making? Users aren't allowed to have preferences about software they get for free? User experience doesn't matter for free software? Who did you release this software for if not for users?"