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

Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoying YouTube message

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 433 posts

Re: Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoying YouTube message

#151

Post by basilgohar »

acdha wrote: post #71
alwayslikethis wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, I consider blocking ads to be a moral obligation. By giving in, you enable Youtube to abuse users further

Stealing is never a moral obligation. The only moral choices are not using YouTube or paying for it - and if you truly believe YouTube abuses users, you definitely shouldn’t be encouraging more people to use it, which your presence does by telling creators they get more traffic there.

Paying for your own Internet, accessing something publicly accessible, and downloading your preferred subset of bits of what's available on your own hardware is not stealing.

Compelling my own property to behave against my wishes is the moral failing.

Re: Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoying YouTube message

#152

Post by hkt »

paulcole wrote: post #142
unshavedyak wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd buy it, but $14/m is way too much for no ads imo. Especially since this is a "free" service where the justification for me paying X$/m is because i have to offset the ads i would have otherwise watched. You're (Youtube, not OP hah) telling me i provided $14/m in ad revenue? Of course not. I'd insta-buy if i could just pay to skip any ads i actually would have watched. Give me a stat showing me how many ads i miss…

> Instead i'll just drop youtube I’d pay $100 if there was some way to legitimately verify this because it’s nonsense IMO. How is getting you to pay a reasonable subscription or watch ads in exchange for videos you ostensibly enjoy “gaming you”?

The data of rich profiles is enormously valuable to Google. They allow Google unparalleled ability to target ads elsewhere, too. That's the game.

Re: Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoying YouTube message

#153

Post by eastbound »

infecto wrote: post #124
paddim8 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I don't think preventing ad blockers is abusive. Hosting videos for free is simply not sustainable. It does not work. We aren't entitled to getting everything on the internet for free.

I am in the same boat. They are providing a service. Ads suck so I pay for. The evil angle is tiring. If they are so evil why even use YouTube at all.

Because we’re addicted?

I’m serious, but philosophically, the onus is clearly on us to get rid of our addiction. But Youtube is a quasi-monopoly of random micro-conferences. Nebula and Vimeo aren’t on the same market. So basically we specifically like Youtube. But I’d never pay Google after what they did to James Damore.

Re: Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoying YouTube message

#154

Post by acdha »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #140
acdha wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stealing is never a moral obligation. The only moral choices are not using YouTube or paying for it - and if you truly believe YouTube abuses users, you definitely shouldn’t be encouraging more people to use it, which your presence does by telling creators they get more traffic there.

Youtube are the ones stealing. I pay for premium, but people who don't and still block ads are not wrong.

YouTube offers their service under specific terms: watch ads or pay directly. If you don’t like it, your only ethical option is not using it. It’s not a basic need and anyone can live a happy and full life without it, there’s no need to pretend that not keeping your side of the agreement is somehow just if you squint hard enough.

Re: Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoying YouTube message

#155

Post by hkt »

gruez wrote: post #69
alwayslikethis wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, I consider blocking ads to be a moral obligation. By giving in, you enable Youtube to abuse users further

What's the point of blocking ads when they're already not present? Or are you saying that we should block ads and refuse to pay? How is that sustainable in the long term? If you're against ads, shouldn't you support monetization models that don't involve ads?

Maybe we don't want the business models of data hoarding multibillion dollar corporations to be sustainable. Maybe there are good alternatives that don't rely so much on exploitative practices. Just a thought.

Re: Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoying YouTube message

#156

Post by toastercat »

alsodumb wrote: post #123
toastercat wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about you stop using ad block/popup blockers altogether? Getting annoyed by ads is understandable, but server space isn't free on any website. In fact, how about we all rally together and start encouraging addings ads on HackerNews to help pay for the servers?

I mean sure, I am fine with any service I am actively using either charge me money via subscription or monetize is some other form. If I don't want that to happen, I'd not use that service. If the costs of managing HackerNews is so high, sure let them sell ads or offer a subscription service. But if you are comparing HackerNews hosting costs to YouTube, you need a reality check. HackerNews probably costs less than 10…

> I mean sure, I am fine with any service I am actively using either charge me money via subscription or monetize is some other form. If I don't want that to happen, I'd not use that service.

Same. Unfortunately, YouTube is a dopamine slot machine that makes money off ads shown on (often inappropriate) videos that keep kids addicted to their phones. It's also a site that constantly invades their users privacy. It also boosts often irrevelant and trashy channels to the front page. It's also a total CPU/RAM hog, its app is constantly getting slower, and generally a piss poor experience all around. Using Invidious/Newpipe/Youtube-DL makes all of this painfully obvious. If YouTube were a service that cost $5 a month, had no invasive tracking, and wasn't 95% garbage videos by "influencers" trying to hit the algorithm jackpot, I'd pay for it.

> If the costs of managing HackerNews is so high, sure let them sell ads or offer a subscription service. But if you are comparing HackerNews hosting costs to YouTube, you need a reality check. HackerNews probably costs less than 1000$ a month to host, everything included. I am sure YouTube spends more than that every second buying new storage servers.

My point is, none of us really know what it costs to host Hackernews, YouTube, or any website on the internet, and we don't know if any of these sites are struggling financially or need our financial support.

> I don't think most people realize the scale of YouTube - it's offering anyone on this planet to upload as many videos as they want, in resolution as high as 8K, while also offering the ability to monetize their content for creators.

Yes. Unfortunately, they don't do that for creators or users. They do that so they can sell more ads.

> I am totally fine with them making money off my data via ads (when I am not paying for YouTube premium).

I am glad you are fine with it. I just wish you were fine with people being able to choose what data their browsers download.

Re: Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoying YouTube message

#157

Post by Freebytes »

kennyadam wrote: post #143

Please pay for YouTube Premium if you can afford it and watch a lot of videos. It's not cheap to stream and store the insane amounts of data they handle and I think it's a genuinely fair price. If everyone just constantly tries to circumvent YouTube's evolving adblock-detection methods, at some point YouTube is going to do something drastic. There's no way of knowing what they might resort to, but usually efforts to…

Making someone watch 5 to 8 advertisements to see a 2 minute video is already drastic.

Re: Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoying YouTube message

#158

Post by gruez »

wardedVibe wrote: post #83
gruez wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"a place where there are fewer ads" requires some alternate form of monetization. If "paying for it" isn't acceptable to you, what's left?

Just wait ~5 years when they have to show more growth by adding newer tiers of subscription, and making the current one ad-lite.

Unless they totally remove the ad-free tier, I don't see how this is different than any other price hike. Or do you think that companies shouldn't have the right to hike prices?

Re: Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoying YouTube message

#159

Post by NietTim »

Grazester wrote: post #105
NietTim wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it was 10 cents in some other country, I'll never pay a single cent to google, they don't need and most of all don't deserve my money.

Aren't you entitled!

Principled.

Re: Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoying YouTube message

#160

Post by acdha »

basilgohar wrote: post #151
acdha wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stealing is never a moral obligation. The only moral choices are not using YouTube or paying for it - and if you truly believe YouTube abuses users, you definitely shouldn’t be encouraging more people to use it, which your presence does by telling creators they get more traffic there.

Paying for your own Internet, accessing something publicly accessible, and downloading your preferred subset of bits of what's available on your own hardware is not stealing. Compelling my own property to behave against my wishes is the moral failing.

YouTube is not publicly accessible: they offer it under specific terms, namely that you watch ads or pay directly. If you don’t want to accept that deal you don’t have any more right to use their private property than you do to complain that the local movie theater wouldn’t let you sneak in when you didn’t like their ticket prices.
Post reply on HN