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

Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

0x44.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#81

Post by layer8 »

tyre wrote: post #29
luoc wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate a bit? Why would that make my attention more valuable than other's?

If you are a paying subscriber, you are self-identifying as (likely) a higher net-worth. The problem for ad platforms allowing paid opt-out is that the most valuable users leave the network. Then they have to go to advertisers and say, “advertise on our network where all the wealthier people are not.” A brand like Tiffany’s or Rolex (both huge advertisers) aren’t going to opt into that.

A YouTube subscription doesn’t exactly break the bank. Being able to afford it doesn’t make you wealthy.

Apart from that, you can bet that YouTube is pricing it in a way that they aren’t losing out compared to ad revenue.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#82

Post by fsflover »

crazygringo wrote: post #68
zwaps wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is true though. Like, literally. Why do you think it is called Lite?

> It is true though. Like, literally. 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.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41871873

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#83

Post by hengheng »

crinkly wrote: post #80

Signed up to complain about this. YT is no longer worth watching ads for. Anything that is worth paying for, the money needs to go via Patreon so the publisher isn't demonetized at a whim. The rest is brain-rot, utter shit and a lot of damaging misinformation. I hope it dies. While it remains easy to do so, I will "steal" with yt-dlp and proudly watch it ad-free on VLC on my computer. If they break that then I'm no l…

You didn't really mention what aggravated you.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#84

Post by rstat1 »

crazygringo wrote: post #68
zwaps wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is true though. Like, literally. Why do you think it is called Lite?

> It is true though. Like, literally. 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.

Its called Lite because it has tons of missing functionality from the not-Lite version that make the not-Lite version more effective as a content blocker.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#85

Post by [deleted] »

deanc wrote: post #60

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…

[deleted]

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#86

Post by kenmacd »

j45 wrote: post #18
naikrovek wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pay for YouTube premium for my family and there haven’t been any injected ads at all. Only the ones that the video themselves have in, which are also very annoying. I can’t speak for the future, but I’ve had this for probably 5 years and I haven’t seen a single ad, only the videos that I’ve asked to see.

Same experience. The family plan is nice to share with family to reduce how much everyone's exposed to ads. In-Video sponsorships are a pain, sometimes they are chaptered out enough and can be skipped. If I could pay for an ad-free google search I probably would. Off the shelf, not doing API calls.

SponsorBlock (https://sponsor.ajay.app/)

It works amazingly well provided a video's been out for at least a half hour or so. It also has the option to skip the "like and subscribe" parts too.

I also tried the https://dearrow.ajay.app/ extension to replace clickbait titles, but decided I'd rather know when a channel/video is too clickbait-y so I can block/unsubscribe.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#87

Post by crinkly »

hengheng wrote: post #83
crinkly wrote: post #80

Signed up to complain about this. YT is no longer worth watching ads for. Anything that is worth paying for, the money needs to go via Patreon so the publisher isn't demonetized at a whim. The rest is brain-rot, utter shit and a lot of damaging misinformation. I hope it dies. While it remains easy to do so, I will "steal" with yt-dlp and proudly watch it ad-free on VLC on my computer. If they break that then I'm no l…

You didn't really mention what aggravated you.

Initially the increase in frequency of the advertising on Android youtube app. Followed by uBlock being broken in Chrome. Followed by uBlock being tarpitted in Firefox. Followed by FreeTube client getting 403 IP forbidden requests and DRM content shovelled down which could not be rendered.

They just did everything to make sure I watched the ads and burn all my bandwidth, which can be somewhat limited and expensive as I travel a lot.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#88

Post by Brian_K_White »

deanc wrote: post #60

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…

And I value FF way more than an hour of battery.

All day every day my computer works fine.

That difference in battery, if it exists, doesn't actually materially manifest anywhere. But the difference between FF and anything else matters basically every minute all day.

On top of that, even if I ever did actually run into the difference, needing to plug in before I would have anyway, it's an annoyance vs a necessity. The ability to control my own browser is frankly just not negotiable. It doesn't actually matter if it were less convenient in some other way, it's simply a base level requirement and anything that doesn't provide that doesn't matter what other qualities it might have.

You might say "a computer that's dead doesn't work at all" but that never actually happens. I'd need an 8 hour bus ride with no seat power to get to the point where that last missing hour would actually leave me with no computer for an hour, and that would need to be a commute that happens twice every day for it to even matter.

For me that's just not the reasonable priority.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#89

Post by jowea »

Barbing wrote: post #31
Neywiny wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be shocked if anyone actually believes them. This article starts with the obvious conflict of interest. Of course letting an extension know what websites you visit and what requests are made is an insecure lifestyle. But I still do it because I trust uBO more than I trust the ad companies and their data harvesters.

I wish I could browse the web kinda like this but minus the human: Make Signal video call to someone in front of a laptop, provide verbal instructions on what to click on, read to my liking, and hang up to be connected with someone else next time. (EFF’s Cover Your Tracks seems to suggest fresh private tabs w/iCloud Private Relay & AdGuard is ineffective. VMs/Cloud Desktops exist but there are apparently telltale sig…

https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html section "How I use the internet" ?

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#90

Post by kentm »

hk__2 wrote: post #15
bowsamic wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you use a free operating system https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html then you have less chance of being spied on. At least you can check

Yes you can, but do you?

I don’t think they need to for there to be value. Sure, maybe there’s spyware in free software that they haven’t found. But we know that these advertising companies are putting e-stalking code into all their products right now. Trading that certainty for an unknown is a net benefit.
Post reply on HN