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

711–720 of 781 posts

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#711

Post by caconym_ »

xorcist wrote: post #636
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 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…

Sure, and why stop there? You might also e.g. bill/sue the author of a free software you invested time into learning because they are no longer providing free updates, rendering the software obsolete and your time investment wasted.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#712

Post by kerkeslager »

caconym_ wrote: post #709
kerkeslager wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree that constructive criticism is against the rules.

If you want to say something, say it, if you don't, don't--why would I care? I've said my opinion and posturing that you're better than the discussion doesn't persuade anyone that you're right. It hasn't been my experience that when people self-censor, they later reveal they had some brilliant counterargument that we were all missing out on.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#713

Post by caconym_ »

kerkeslager wrote: post #712
caconym_ wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree that constructive criticism is against the rules. If you want to say something, say it, if you don't, don't--why would I care? I've said my opinion and posturing that you're better than the discussion doesn't persuade anyone that you're right. It hasn't been my experience that when people self-censor, they later reveal they had some brilliant counterargument that we were all missing out on.

Okay.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#714

Post by agos »

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.

In which case the author can happily ignore all the reviews!

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#715

Post by agos »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #241
deadmutex wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have seen this becoming more and more common on open source projects and totally free services, where people act as if they are entitled to something as if it is their god given right. Do you count YouTube as a "free service" (with ads) in this case? I wonder if there is an overlap with people that expect free stuff and people that use uBO on YouTube. YT does offer most users YT premium, which gives users an ad f…

You still have ads despite paying YouTube not to show you ads. They're hardcoded into the videos themselves now. You're also tracked and profiled by Google which is an indignity unto itself.

I wonder if paying for YT premium would disable tracking as well as the ads, and I feel like the answer is obvious

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#716

Post by kerkeslager »

dessant wrote: post #703
least wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I don't think that your opinion that the prompt was not obtrusive is objective truth. Whether a prompt is obtrusive or not is very much a matter of subjective opinion, and I tend to value user opinions on user experience over creator opinions on user experience.

The fact that the donation prompt was shown on startup doesn't undermine the reviewer's preference for not seeing a donation prompt at all. They're factually incorrect on a minor detail, but that doesn't change the larger point.

The rudest part of the review was them referring to the prompt as "panhandling", which is actually inaccurate, and if I were writing the review I would have used a milder, more accurate word there (maybe "soliciting"?). But in receiving any communication from anyone, it's unreasonable to expect people to communicate perfectly, and I try to understand people rather than criticize how they communicate their ideas. I certainly would not describe that as "disgusting" or "appalling".

And again, I'm not saying you should remove the donation prompt. In fact, if you made it show up every time until a user donated, I'd have no objections. Users wouldn't like this, but you're not obligated to fulfill users' every wish. Just as users aren't obligated to fawn over everything you do when it doesn't do what they want it to do.

Believe it or not, users can want things, and you can ignore what they want, and those are both okay!

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#717

Post by carlosjobim »

trimethylpurine wrote: post #506
carlosjobim wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean funded by donations? People making educational YouTube videos have their income from YouTube advertising and Premium subscribers. People having utility from their videos should pay for them. I find it incredible that people accept and support enormous amounts of tax money from workers go to pay for worthless schools, while at the same time they are grinding their teeth at the suggestion that they pay…

See the post I was replying to. Khan Academy, MIT free courses, etc. Those are in fact funded by donations. If you check the viewership numbers on individual course videos, it is unlikely they are generating a positive revenue from YouTube payouts. As for being upset that people don't want to pay, I think I can help with that. People don't want to pay TWICE. We already donated to Khan or MIT. Why are we also paying Y…

Those are but two of thousands of channels publishing educational videos. The vast majority of them are dependent on money from YouTube for their income. Would Khan or MIT be able to host and deliver their videos at a price that would make it worthwhile to ditch YouTube, or would that take away donator money from other functions?

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#718

Post by jampekka »

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…

Private VCs using their money to control the economy doesn't really sound much like a "system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs".

Private capitalists controlling the economy is practically the definition of capitalism. And it's bad for society indeed.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#719

Post by 3seashells »

konschubert wrote: post #265
3seashells wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All those companies are free riding open source specific and humanity in general. Nothing of value is lost. Google will dissappear. People will install some p2p thing on old laptop stacks, and peer tube will take over. Life finds a way.

who needs Dropbox, am I right?

Mostly the same company's which would abuses p2p for data storage?

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#720

Post by kurtoid »

diarrhea wrote: post #668
oaththrowaway wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just use this addon: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-conta... And then never login. If you have uBlock Origin you won't see ads

Firefox supports containers natively nowadays.

At a glance, the linked extension uses Firefox native containers, like the Facebook container it forks. All it does is assign the site to a container, so the user doesn't have to do it manually.
Post reply on HN