61–70 of 962 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get an ad-free YouTube experience for $0 with software. Why do you pay for it?
Because I want to actually support content creators. I also want it to be more normalized to pay for things vs having ad supported content.
Chrome full on blocked uBlock Origin (and others) this week. There is still four flags [1] you can play with that will allow you to re-enable it again, but this is a losing battle of course. The inevitable is coming. Nothing comes close to Safari battery life on MacOS, followed by chrome, followed by firefox in last place (with all its other issues - those claiming otherwise have stockholm syndrome). I've tried takin…
They own the web.
I can build my business brand, own my own dot com, but then have to pay Google ad extortion money to not have my competitors by ads well above my domain name. And of course the address bar now does search instead of going to the appropriate place.
Google is a scourge.
So OP got Google to patch a harmless "issue" that could've been used by addon devs to bypass MV3 restrictions. Hope it was worth the $0.
Yeah, that was my take as well. OP did some free work for a megacorp and made the web a little bit worse, because "security, I guess" ? Good job.
Why does this keep getting repeated? It's not true.
Anyone can use uBlock Origin Lite with Chrome, and manifest v3. It doesn't just work fine, it works great. I can't tell any difference from the old uBlock Origin in terms of blocking, but it's faster because now all the filtering is being done in C++ rather than JavaScript. Works on YouTube and everything.
I know there are some limits in place now with the max number of rules, but the limits seem to be plenty so far.
https://getfirefox.org Even ignoring the adblock issues, Chrome isn't worth it... Google themselves spy on you with it. Cockblocking adblock just puts extra emphasis on what you should have already known.
> Adblockers basically need webRequestBlocking to function properly. Pretty convenient (cough cough) for a company that makes most of its revenue from ads to be removing that. Why does this keep getting repeated? It's not true. Anyone can use uBlock Origin Lite with Chrome, and manifest v3. It doesn't just work fine, it works great. I can't tell any difference from the old uBlock Origin in terms of blocking, but it's…
> Adblockers basically need webRequestBlocking to function properly. Pretty convenient (cough cough) for a company that makes most of its revenue from ads to be removing that. Why does this keep getting repeated? It's not true. Anyone can use uBlock Origin Lite with Chrome, and manifest v3. It doesn't just work fine, it works great. I can't tell any difference from the old uBlock Origin in terms of blocking, but it's…
It is true though. Like, literally. Why do you think it is called Lite?
Doesn't seem true to me. If it's true, then why is uBlock Origin Lite functioning properly as an adblocker for me?
> Why do you think it is called Lite?
Because it's simpler and uses less resources. And they had to call it something different to distinguish it from uBlock Origin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate a bit? Why would that make my attention more valuable than other's?
Because by paying you are demonstrating you have more than enough disposable income to waste on their extortion. You're paying for the privilege of segmenting yourself into the richer echelons of the market. You're basically doing their marketing job for them and paying for the privilege. At some point some shareholder value maximizing CEO is going to sit down and notice just how much money he's leaving on the table…
If you truly have those beliefs the right moral action is to not use YouTube at all but god forbid you'd have to make any sort of sacrifice.
I'd gladly pay for YouTube without ads if I trusted that it would remain ad free, but the track record from various companies on this is not good.
Youtube premium has been ad-free for 10 years. What kind of track record do you need? 20 years? 100 years?