Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

popsci.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 138 posts

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#41

Post by Gualdrapo »

toastercat wrote: post #16
Vampiero wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That argument MAYBE worked 25 years ago when ads genuinely paid for hosting costs and nothing else. But now it's intellectually dishonest at best. We're not serving static images with hyperlinks anymore, either, but full-blown malware that tracks people against their will. So who's really being unethical here? The amoral ***** who write this malware "because it's their job", or the people who are simply trying to pro…

> But now it's intellectually dishonest at best. We're not serving static images with hyperlinks anymore, either, but full-blown malware that tracks people against their will. > So who's really being unethical here? The amoral *** who write this malware "because it's their job", or the people who are simply trying to protect themselves? No one is forcing you to visit sites with "malware", you are equally as free to v…

> Also, for YouTube there is a simple solution: it's called YouTube Premium. You see no ads

I mean, only a Google search will reveal there's people still getting ads despite using YouTube Premium.

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#42

Post by c22 »

toastercat wrote: post #12
roenxi wrote: post #6

I'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of Google and I don't have a lot of respect for the YouTube selection algorithm. However this culture of expecting Google to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly. There is an unwritten social contract here. Google is willing to host and organise a vast number of videos because that'll attract an audience for ads. If there are too may fr…

Exactly. But I would like to take it a step further -- anytime you visit a page anywhere on the internet, there is an unwritten social contract that you will not block ads or trackers. For this reason, adblock in itself is unethical and basically equivalent to piracy. Additionally, actors like Mozilla who build tracker-blocking tech into their browsers should be held accountable for encouraging this disgusting behavi…

When I started visiting resources on the internet there was an oft-written (and occasionally enforced!) social contract that the internet was not to be used for advertising at all. I personally never agreed for those terms to change so I'll continue to configure my enduser clients as I wish. (I do sometimes consume ads--sometimes they're good content.)

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#43

Post by jeffbee »

stavros wrote: post #30
Vampiero wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, you want a monopoly on information while at the same time operating the largest ad network in the world? Then don't complain if people block your stupid ads and count yourself lucky that the government didn't split your megacorp into several tiny companies The only morally wrong thing here is NOT blocking Google's ads

Why doesn't the government split the megacorp into several tiny companies? All this collusion between these otherwise unrelated companies is only good for Google.

People always say this but what is the practical way this would come into effect? Unless the intention is to simply kill either YouTube or Google, or both, how do you separate out YouTube in a way that is meaningfully "breaking up" with Google but that the separate entity could afford?

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#44

Post by portn0y »

roenxi wrote: post #6

I'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of Google and I don't have a lot of respect for the YouTube selection algorithm. However this culture of expecting Google to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly. There is an unwritten social contract here. Google is willing to host and organise a vast number of videos because that'll attract an audience for ads. If there are too may fr…

Google just hosting the data is exactly what I want. Making them a monolith gives them too much leverage.

All we need is hosted APIs and frontend frameworks to wrap content as the user desires.

Charge API users for their bandwidth.

I don’t want Google also deciding what to boost to help them gobble up more human agency.

Reduce redundancy by making HR its own thing.

At the end of the day Google’s core engineering competency is load balancing date center use. The rest is behavioral economics research influenced gamification of our agency

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#46

Post by cozzyd »

movedx wrote: post #19
roenxi wrote: post #6

I'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of Google and I don't have a lot of respect for the YouTube selection algorithm. However this culture of expecting Google to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly. There is an unwritten social contract here. Google is willing to host and organise a vast number of videos because that'll attract an audience for ads. If there are too may fr…

As a content creator with seven years experience, hundreds of videos and thousands of hours of content: just charge me a fee to host my videos. I'd pay $100/month, possibly more, to run a YouTube channel without. Why is running ads the _only_ choice? Why can't a creator opt to pay to host videos on their channel with limitations? $10/month? That's 30 videos in HD max. $100? 300 videos in 4K... etc. ... or whatever. A…

What do you think of something like nebula?

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#48

Post by elviejo »

movedx wrote: post #19
roenxi wrote: post #6

I'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of Google and I don't have a lot of respect for the YouTube selection algorithm. However this culture of expecting Google to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly. There is an unwritten social contract here. Google is willing to host and organise a vast number of videos because that'll attract an audience for ads. If there are too may fr…

As a content creator with seven years experience, hundreds of videos and thousands of hours of content: just charge me a fee to host my videos. I'd pay $100/month, possibly more, to run a YouTube channel without. Why is running ads the _only_ choice? Why can't a creator opt to pay to host videos on their channel with limitations? $10/month? That's 30 videos in HD max. $100? 300 videos in 4K... etc. ... or whatever. A…

As a youtube premium subscriber... since I'm already paying let me set my home screen only to my subscriptions.

Also let me opt-out of the algoritm.

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#49

Post by aaomidi »

bitwize wrote: post #45

The best way to watch YouTube is via the official YouTube site or app, because everything else is a potential DMCA violation and, if it blocks or skips ads, is tantamount to theft of service.

What’s up with folks in this thread coming up with entirely invalid legal arguments.

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#50

Post by toastercat »

MBCook wrote: post #22

Or if you don’t want to see ads you could pay for it instead. Like an adult. Works great. They present a perfectly valid choice to you, and it works great. It’s a reasonable enough price (not great but reasonable), but it supports the creators you watch with part of your subscription money. Plus it has other benefits if you care, like free TV shows and movies and YouTube music. I don’t use that stuff but it is there.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN