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

751–760 of 781 posts

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#751

Post by intended »

hellojesus wrote: post #735
sweeter wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 platfor…

> Just look at Twitter, it completely spit in everyone's faces and even still people cannot get out of its grips on them. People can get out of them. People refuse to get out of them. Likely this is because YouTube and Twitter are still the most efficient platforms regardless of their regressions. I used to have FB. Now I don't. I used to have Twitter. Now I don't. I used to have Android. Now I have Grapheneos. I use…

“You” a market does not make.

People refuse to get out of them is the market. That is the point of their growth and dominance model.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#752

Post by trimethylpurine »

carlosjobim wrote: post #717
trimethylpurine wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It allows all of those channels to join a competing platform that's better suited for education, rather than piggy backing on a platform built for watching nonstop cat videos. Education and YT are not remotely good for each other. Imagine that college is free, and you're studying to become a doctor. Every seven minutes during your O. Chem lecture, Kanye West jumps in front of the professor to tell you how much he likes Pepsi. It's the wrong platform.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#753

Post by brnt »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #734
brnt wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube isn't forced to serve me anything. If they don't want to, sure, they can go ahead. What _is_ served, I will parse however I see fit.

I mean that's exactly what they're doing here... Refusing to serve the video until the ad is watched.

If I can parse whatever they serve such that I can skip it, they are evidently not refusing to serve.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#754

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

RugnirViking wrote: post #374
shiroiuma wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, after all my observations of humans over the course of decades, I feel like real empathy is actually pretty rare in humans. It might be common in fictitious characters, but not in real people.

Strange that we should come to opposite conclusions; I feel like pretty much everyone I've ever known has real empathy.

You might be attractive.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#755

Post by dartharva »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #730
brnt wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Adblockers run within the browser's space, they don't intrude into any servers by any means whatsoever. Your statement is completely wrong and misguided.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#756

Post by aifooh7Keew6xoo »

lobocinza wrote: post #685
chii wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it didnt work because people don't search for videos via google usually. They get the video directly from youtube, or was linked by friends virally. Plus the early days of google (before youtube acquisition), i dont think their video search was as good as the text search anyway (but i might be misremembering of course...).

Their video search still sucks.

I'd go a lot further than "sucks".

The video results for most of my queries are like 90% SEO garbage without a video even being present on the linked page.

It's abject failure.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#758

Post by carlosjobim »

trimethylpurine wrote: post #752
carlosjobim wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It allows all of those channels to join a competing platform that's better suited for education, rather than piggy backing on a platform built for watching nonstop cat videos. Education and YT are not remotely good for each other. Imagine that college is free, and you're studying to become a doctor. Every seven minutes during your O. Chem lecture, Kanye West jumps in front of the professor to tell you how much he lik…

> a platform built for watching nonstop cat videos.

And who are you to decide that YouTube should be for cat videos and not high quality educational and documentary videos? On our family TV we have YouTube subscribed to a lot of documentary and educational channels. Recommendations are consistently of the highest quality. On my FreeTube I have other subscriptions to more immersive quality scientific and crafts videos. There is no other platform where videos like these are published.

Who are you to come and say that these videos shouldn't be on YouTube and that these creators shouldn't get paid from me watching their videos? How does our use infringe on yours?

You might as well say that serious debate or business should not be conducted online, because everybody knows the internet is for porn and Minecraft.

There has been a silent revolution lately on YouTube as to the offering of high quality content. Things aren't how they used to be.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#759

Post by HDThoreaun »

dartharva wrote: post #755
HDThoreaun wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Adblockers run within the browser's space, they don't intrude into any servers by any means whatsoever. Your statement is completely wrong and misguided.

The current implementation sends YouTube false information about whether the ad was run. That absolutely intrudes on the server. Really it's no different from telling a cashier you already paid online or something like that.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#760

Post by hellojesus »

sweeter wrote: post #744
hellojesus wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just look at Twitter, it completely spit in everyone's faces and even still people cannot get out of its grips on them. People can get out of them. People refuse to get out of them. Likely this is because YouTube and Twitter are still the most efficient platforms regardless of their regressions. I used to have FB. Now I don't. I used to have Twitter. Now I don't. I used to have Android. Now I have Grapheneos. I use…

I didn't even mention regulation. You're circle jerking with yourself with a fantasy idea of the "free market" that doesn't exist in reality. You can't consume your way out of large corporations having market dominance, idk where that insane notion even is born.

You can entirely consume your way out of it, and you can also build your way out of it.

It's not fantasy. This is how markets work; how economies work.

Let's look at something like FB. At one point they were absolutely the social company. But other competitors have entered the market. In some instances, new markets were created, like Tiktok. Those new products took users away from FB. In some instances, the users will never return. This has happened precisely because someone somewhere decided to make something and challenge the existing market.

> I didn't even mention regulation

My bad. I was getting this thread confused with the one about AI regulation.

Post reply on HN