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

701–710 of 781 posts

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#701

Post by caconym_ »

least wrote: post #695
caconym_ wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I disagree. In my experience, user/customer reviews have been vastly more useful to me for learning about serious safety or quality issues with a product or service than they have been for any purpose (unspecified because I really can't think of any) predicated on learning about specific users' weird gripes. I can practically smell the unreasonableness dripping off that review somebody linked above, and I would ignore it if I spotted it in a list of reviews—but unfortunately I can't ignore it out of the aggregate rating.

Anyway, this isn't going anywhere productive, so I'm out.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#702

Post by redwall_hp »

lxgr wrote: post #477
philistine wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And no, I won't pay for YouTube Premium — because that wasn't part of the deal either. There's also the ridiculous fact it is literally impossible to pay to remove the ads without also getting the horrible Youtube Music service.

What makes me really sad is that Google doesn't just not offer a "Music-less Youtube Premium" (due to a lack of attention or whatever) – no: They used to offer that product in some markets and have actively discontinued it.

The EU should look long and hard at that: the market-dominating video platform, owned by the market-dominating search and advertising company, forcing bundled pricing for YouTube in order to leverage the YT monopoly for an edge in the music streaming market.

Sounds anticompetitive as hell, and a government that actually cares about functioning markets should eviscerate them for it.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#703

Post by dessant »

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.

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

Do you think that review was respectful, now that you know that the donation prompt was not obtrusive nor randomly shown (see my other comments, it has been explained in detail)? Don't you feel that the way this person expressed themselves was rather demeaning, and perhaps somewhat unjust?

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#704

Post by kerkeslager »

caconym_ wrote: post #697
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…

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…

Nothing says "my opinions are correct" like refusing to respond to the content of criticism and instead trying to get it censored.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#705

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

seydor wrote: post #571
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…

And the platforms that were free and distributed, i.e. torrents became illegal. Youtube started with a ton of illegal stuff (and still contains tons of illegal stuff, but mostly in languages/regions that "don't matter"). Internet speeds are maturing, and maybe it is time to try again a self-hosted or distributed model. The hard part is to put ads in it, because ad-supported is traditionally the best medium for videos…

> Internet speeds are maturing, and maybe it is time to try again a self-hosted or distributed model.

Distributed, maybe.

Self-hosted? Not a chance. Sure, if you just want to share a video with some friends and family, that's fine. But if I reached the popularity of even a moderately successful YouTube channel (Say, 100K subscribers?), even the lucky few with gigabit internet at home could not handle the load.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#706

Post by kevincox »

kzrdude wrote: post #640
eqvinox wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do feel bad for the creators, but I would rather donate to their Patreons than buy YT premium. I ended up subscribing to both Nebula and Dropout.tv, especially after noticing that a good portion of my favourite YT channels are in fact on Nebula. Sadly, this is primarly larger ones, and I do feel bad about smaller creators being kinda stuck on YT… especially when it's the odd one-time well-made video that really d…

I signed up for nebula too, but it's clear that nebula is not a competitive platform. Nebula does the basics, it has channels and it shows videos, that part is great. Youtube is great because of the wide availability of videos, recommendations and (maybe not great because of this) the comments. I know the comments are not that well liked, but it means the videos are not in a vacuum. They are in a social context. And…

This doesn't actually bother me. I find video recommendations on social media and via other channels I follow. I think the big downside here is that without any sort of free tier less people recommend Nebula channels because most people can't watch the content. Most often it is a YouTube recommendation that I then see is on Nebula.

I think in an ideal world the recommendation engine and video host would be separated. You could be recommended videos on all platforms (including single-creator websites).

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#707

Post by redwall_hp »

adhesive_wombat wrote: post #631
dageshi wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The TV show was first aired in 2009, and they're still on streaming services so it's hardly an orphan work. Not that I'm agitating for more or stricter enforcement, far from it, but it seems strangely lackadaisical compared to the "walk past a shop playing music and cop a copyright strike" that also happens on the very same platform. Then again I guess YouTube makes money from ads on these videos being up, so that do…

My favorite is that cover songs are basically outlawed by default on YouTube, even though they're entirely legal. ContentID can come and slap your channel for melodic similarities...and it's entirely down to the rightsholder whether they "allow" the video and simply take all monetization or if it is taken down and counts as a copyright strike against your channel (eventually leading to termination). And there's no way to know which will happen until you upload.

But the thing is: copyright law specifies that mechanical royalties are compulsory. Artists don't get to stop you from covering songs, as long as your distributor pays the legal n% to their distributor. But even if you pay LANDR or whoever to administer those royalties, so you can release your cover to Spotify and whatever, YouTube will still smack your channel for uploading the cover. At worst, content strike, at best you still lose all monetization.

As it turns out, "sync licenses" (the right to pair music with visual media) are not compulsory and that's what YouTube primarily cares about. Even if it's just a "video" of your album art with the music playing, you can still be arbitrarily penalized on the most popular platform for music discovery, because it's technically video and record labels can do whatever they want within the opaque framework YouTube has created.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#708

Post by xorcist »

dessant wrote: post #666
xorcist wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree with this sentiment. Could I also bill the creator for my time invested in learning the software and adjusting my workflows for it, all the hours invested before the hidden anti-features showed the true intention of the software? Otherwise this whole argument could legitimize spyware. I could not reasonably decide to stop using the software before I was informed of the anti-features, regardless of how…

It's definitely a strange proposition, but you could try it yourself. Install Signal on your phone and start using it, in a couple of months you will be shown a donation popup a single time when you open the app. At this point uninstall the app and contact Signal's development team to send them an invoice for your invested time that has now been ruined when that donation prompt has interrupted your messaging experien…

Well, which is it?

Either we should accept software with hidden misfeatures without complaining, in which case the user must receive compensation for their time, or we should complain and inform others of the misfeature.

Uninstalling the software in silence is an invitation for more spyware and trojaned software.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#709

Post by caconym_ »

kerkeslager wrote: post #704
caconym_ wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Nothing says "my opinions are correct" like refusing to respond to the content of criticism and instead trying to get it censored.

If you want to know what I have to say, feel free to start a new subthread replying to me with the rulebreaking content removed. I would be all too happy to respond to any substantive arguments you are able to present without resorting to personal attacks as a rhetorical crutch.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#710

Post by hellojesus »

snapplebobapple wrote: post #671
jampekka wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's more or less the opposite of communism.

It's not really. Communism is just the super monopoly on everything by one firm (plus a bunch of kooky religious like beliefs). This subset of VC funding uses is basically abusing external funding to gain market dominance so that one can abuse your customers with product changes that make the product more profitable for you. It's very equivalent to how an oligopolist/monopolist enters new markets using money from the…

In every single example up to the parent comment, the end result is a market inequlabrium.

Left unchanged, the market can have new entrants that undercut the major player. In this case, any new video playform that has fewer ads could steal market share from youtube. Rumble has entered the market to do just that.

Network effects do make this challenging, but that is for the market to decide. The more creators that dual upload and then see number shifts over to a YouTube competitor, the better,as it will force YouTube back into competition.

The market will solve this.

Post reply on HN