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

721–730 of 781 posts

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#721

Post by SergeAx »

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…

I don't see any question on morality of blocking ads. Under no circumstances any living soul may be forced to view any kind of displeasing content. Web is an open protocol, anything accessible on the web with http code 200 is free to download. After downloading, I can alter that content in any way. Simple like that.

If Youtube wants to control their content and users - they should create their own protocols or at least closed network using web protocols, write their own client software and distribute it.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#722

Post by carlosjobim »

zeraholladay wrote: post #657
carlosjobim wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why aren't you hostile against your Internet service provider for charging you for access? Why do you accept paying the ISP to access YouTube, but not paying YouTube or video creators?

I think with ISPs there's an obvious upfront material cost for building infrastructure. In that sense I'm very much the consumer. Obviously, there's substantial infra cost too with social media platforms like YouTube. However, the consumer-producer dichotomy isn't as clear with social media platforms since the user base is the product. That is, the value of a social media platform comes first from the masses of peopl…

You are mixing two completely different groups when talking about users. Some users make and publish content. YouTube and others are dependent on them. Some users consume content, and as the end consumer they are the people who have to pay if producers want to have an income. Either paying directly in money, or by suffering advertising.

It's not about the infrastructure cost of YouTube's servers, but the time and effort cost of the people producing the videos. Hackers seem to conveniently always forget about these people.

A pure consumer is not worth anything to YouTube or any other platform if they're not paying or can't be advertised to. They're just a cost with no benefit.

I think the argument for paying content makers (through YouTube) is higher than the argument for paying ISPs. When the cables are laid, they don't cost any time or money except for a little of maintenance. Video creators work constantly to publish their stuff.

I agree that YouTube should distribute revenue more equally among their creators, so that it stops being a casino of people working for scraps trying to make it big (Hollywood anybody?). I think it's OK to support creators through Patreon and such instead of paying for Premium, but it might not be very fair in the end, because people unwittingly will donate to creators making the type of videos they want to be associated with and not the creators making the type of videos they are spending the most time watching.

I think it is fair that a video creator who doesn't ask for donations and didn't make her videos with the aim of making money, also gets paid her fair share if a lot of people are watching and enjoying her videos. That's why premium makes more sense to me than the hassle of donating.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#723

Post by least »

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…

> Do you think that review was respectful

Not particularly, but I also wouldn't really describe it as particularly disgusting or demeaning, either. It could have been worded better, but I'm not going to read too deeply into what random people on the internet say about me personally.

I find anything that's trying to interrupt what I'm doing like popup advertisements, cookie modals, and other things of the sort irritating because it forces me out of my workflow and requires action to continue what I was doing. It doesn't really matter how frequent it is. When i'm actively installing extensions I expect there to be a popup that is giving me information about the application. Dark Reader has a donation button featured on their popup from their action. I don't find this to be invasive even though it's there literally any time I interact with the extension. I ended up paying for the extension on safari because I liked it so much.

That's just my opinion, though. There's a lot of things that I find distasteful that would make me uninstall an application that seemingly don't bother the majority of people, and ultimately, you have a right to make your application how you see fit, but I don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing it for what that user clearly views as distasteful.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#724

Post by the_omegist »

akashmeshram wrote: post #665
the_omegist wrote: post #620

Not sure this is the best topic to ask this. This is not a domain I am knowledgeable about but : if Youtube detects (somehow) when an ad is blocked , why don't adblockers become "adfastworwarders" ? I am using a bookmarklet to play Youtube videos faster & I noticed the videos are also played at the same speed. Couldn't "adfastworwarders" detect the start of an ad & like play it at x10 or x20? It would still create a…

This plugin does exactly that, works for me so far. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fadblock-friendly-...

Thanks for the link. I will check that.

From the comments, it seems quite effective...until perhaps youtube decides to check the ads speed & blocks them at x1.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#725

Post by zeraholladay »

carlosjobim wrote: post #722
zeraholladay wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think with ISPs there's an obvious upfront material cost for building infrastructure. In that sense I'm very much the consumer. Obviously, there's substantial infra cost too with social media platforms like YouTube. However, the consumer-producer dichotomy isn't as clear with social media platforms since the user base is the product. That is, the value of a social media platform comes first from the masses of peopl…

You are mixing two completely different groups when talking about users. Some users make and publish content. YouTube and others are dependent on them. Some users consume content, and as the end consumer they are the people who have to pay if producers want to have an income. Either paying directly in money, or by suffering advertising. It's not about the infrastructure cost of YouTube's servers, but the time and eff…

but the time and effort cost of the people producing the videos. Hackers seem to conveniently always forget about these people.

FWIW, I tend to find the opposite. Maybe the people I know are just more vocal about things that make them look good to others.

A pure consumer is not worth anything to YouTube or any other platform if they're not paying or can't be advertised to. They're just a cost with no benefit.

I disagree but I understand what you're getting at. In the case of YouTube, you may be correct (or more correct than me). I'm thinking of platforms like Strava or dating apps where an active user population is part of the attraction to upsell features to paying customers.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#726

Post by blooalien »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #675
blooalien wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. :~)

Yes! Their generosity is an inspiration to me. Open source technology is empowering and world changing. I really admire these people.

You and me both. They're the people keeping alive the original "hacker spirit" from "ye olden days" of computers, back when it was all new and exciting to have an actual "home computer" on your desk at home. Almost all software back then was "open source" (though we didn't call it that yet). :P

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#727

Post by arendtio »

I use uBO for many years now and from time to time I wondered why YouTube worked so well even without the ads. Knowing how much effort is being put into this, explains a lot.

I absolutely love this extension and every time I come across a browser without it, I am horrified what the normal web is like today. Thanks a lot for providing everyone with a very good chance to experience a much better web.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#728

Post by sweeter »

hellojesus wrote: post #710
snapplebobapple wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dua…

I'm sorry to tell you this, but this is a complete fantasy that completely ignores the point that was made a couple of comments above. No one is undercutting Google. Period.and that is the point. They have a death grip on the user base.

Just look at Twitter, it completely spit in everyone's faces and even still people cannot get out of its grips on them.

The only platforms that have even remotely survived are platforms that also own an ad network, or some other secondary source of income (like Kick and their Crypto gambling site or Twitch with their ad stock) as a way to shovel users into that fire. The market cannot solve this and has no incentive to do so. Again, it's a complete fantasy that has not once proven true.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#729

Post by HDThoreaun »

kikokikokiko wrote: post #659
HeavyStorm wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

_Dumping_, how it was called when I was young, is the main strategy of most startups out there: operate at a loss until they establish themselves (usually as the sole provider of certain services or goods) then start to climb the prices. It _should_ be illegal, but since it's the current status quo, it won't change anytime soon.

I think that the amount of free services we got in the last decade is the strongest argument IN FAVOR of dumping. They got there through subsidized services, now they want to fleece everyone, let's see how it goes. My guess is that competitors will arise and gain market share. It's happening to Uber down here in Brazil. The prices are getting too high, Brazilians are migrating to other apps, especially InDrive, a rus…

I strongly believe that, at least for youtube, there are no forthcoming competitors to gain market share. Network effect is too strong, and if even an inkling of that happens the policies that lead to people leaving will be rolled back just enough.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#730

Post by HDThoreaun »

brnt wrote: post #520
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.

No one is forcing you to use youtube. I think the situation is more like the opposite, adblockers are trying to gain control of youtube servers in order to obtain the product without paying.
Post reply on HN