231–240 of 486 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK but now isn't the ask for a competitor who is okay with having like no ad revenue?
This is really a lazy take, but I’ll engage. There’s a huge difference between no ads, and unskipable ads shat out every seven minutes, with another two at the start of every video. Television isn’t even this bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's permanently dispense with this weird notion that blocking ads is theft. When you're listening to the radio, it's not theft to change the station when ads come up. When you're watching TV, it's not theft to mute the TV and get a drink when ads come up. Youtube has zero moral expectation that people will actually watch the ads it serves. They're giving a product away for free, and people are consuming it for free…
> Let's permanently dispense with this weird notion that blocking ads is theft. So what is a better term for unauthorized use of compute and bandwidth? The terms of service for YT are: watch ads or pay for premium. This is so that YT can pay their bills (hosting, salaries, cheques to creators). > They're giving a product away for free, and people are consuming it for free; end of story. No they are not. They are prov…
If it's unauthorized, why is the server responding with that data? Youtube has a very simple solution if they don't want the data they send to you to be modified at your discretion -- don't send the data. Their servers are perfectly free to respond with some kind of HTTP error code and not serve up the video data. Once they've sent me the bytes, their control over which of said bytes I consume, modify or discard is over.
I never agreed to any terms of service. My browser made a request and their servers responded with some data. If my request alone constitutes accepting a terms of service, I too should be free to include some sort of X-ToS header with my requests that impose similarly onerous terms on the operator of the server I am making the request to, provided they respond with a non-error HTTP code. Like, lets say, for every Youtube video I load, Youtube must provide a full-ride college scholarship to 1000 kids.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, ad revenue is an important method of funding media, but that is a very different claim from saying that YouTube's implementation of ad delivery is anything close to good. The simple fact is that the ad ecosystem YouTube directs has produced lots of low effort "content" farming, enterprises focused on raw output at the expense of quality, truth, and frequently the intellectual property of others.
That may be true, but if you don't like YouTube, go somewhere else. The argument that it's your machine and you choose what to run on it no longer holds when YouTube clearly no longer wants people with ad blockers as visitors. So watch ads, pay up, or go somewhere else. I always get downvoted for stating the obvious, but YouTube's monopoly was helped by adblockers, because alternatives, like Vimeo, couldn't different…
I can also heartily recommend the 'unhook' browser extension, it takes care of all of those upsells and feeds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>As humans, we... "We" as in those other guys have to create all the videos without compensation and I watch them without giving any compensation. What a nice "we" we have, I wonder how long the other guys will stick around?
There's a lot of double think around here that resolves around the call to do your bit and support Google's model. I should know better but I still find it breathtaking. Capitalism's benefits are brought to fruition through competition, and hard nosed decisions on all sides. I was raised by a capitalist believer. That is what he instilled in me. The willingness of the consumer to exercise choice is paramount. As such…
A reliable way I found to confirm whether there is new anti-content blocker code released by Youtube is to visit uBlockOrigin's reddit sub[1]: If there are well over 1,000 "here now" (near top right), this confirms the anti-content blocker code has been updated. If well below 1,000 "here now", all is fine. At time of writing, it's fine. * * * [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/
Youtube seems to me to be a bullshit test platform. They will work around ad blockers and continue to pile on repetitive and banal adverts that have nothing to do with the user until they reach breaking point (where people flee and seek alternatives), and then they will relax their system to show marginally less bullshit. The confusing part of this battle is the app users, who do not agree with the avalanche of adver…
> scroll shorts until their brains leak from their ears I use a little user script that redirects me from YT shorts URLs to a normal video player URL. I found that it adds just enough friction to getting the next video that just scrolling shorts for an hour doesn't happen anymore. Added bonus is that you can rewind a bit of video if you want to, instead of having to watch the entire video again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paid services that still show ads? Cable, Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, Amazon Prime Video, etc.
i never got any ads on netflix, disney+, prime video or youtube premium.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there some place with a technical writeup of what YT are doing to frustrate circumvention so effectively?
I think they are just updating their measures frequently, so not really anything technical. In other words: Youtube is continuously spending a lot of money to put out new patches block the latest circumventions.
I've never had an issue with Firefox
That being said I do get quite some ads on Twitch(and I know there's solutions to this, but they're separate from uBlock origin and I have to keep updating them cause they keep breaking so I stop caring sometimes). The way I solve it there is to just have 2 different streams open in 2 different tabs, one of them muted, as soon as ads start I switch to the different stream.