Live data from Hacker News

YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

iter.ca

191–200 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the difficulty is due to a fear of it turning away too many users, not necessarily a technical one.

Turning them to where? Doubt it. Those are low value users anyway.

If the value was low they wouldn't be squeezing it.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#192

I don't care when YouTube does a buffer thing because blocking ads for me is about distractions and context switching. My cognitive load is already very high and it's extremely frustrating to have to filter out more garbage.

You could just pay the $13/month? Would save the worries about context switching further taxing your already high cognitive load? And I would expect your high cognitive load helps you earn well above $13/month?

[deleted]

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could just pay the $13/month? Would save the worries about context switching further taxing your already high cognitive load? And I would expect your high cognitive load helps you earn well above $13/month?

Paying for YT doesn't remove the ads. On the other hand, the golden era of YouTube has passed. You aren't losing out on much if you simply stop using it.

Youtube premium does remove all Google's ads.

Obviously not the ads the content creator has put into the video itself.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity I clicked the link and it is funny how they try to blame the extension when is them actually causing the problem.

The extension is stealing from them. I get stealing a zero marginal cost good is minor but the agreement you make with YouTube is that you watch an ad in exchange for the video. Why should they serve you the video if you refuse your part of the agreement?

> Why should they serve you the video if you refuse your part of the agreement?

I've held the position that, if YT wants to, they can block me from their platform for using an adblocker, and I would have no moral ground to stand on.

However, that isn't what they do. They try to circumvent it. They try to make it technically impossible. They try to mislead users into thinking their extensions are malicious.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could just pay the $13/month? Would save the worries about context switching further taxing your already high cognitive load? And I would expect your high cognitive load helps you earn well above $13/month?

Giving them money rewards them for pulling a bait and switch where they set the price of hosting plus watching video at free, but are now trying to extort the ecosystem after so many people spent effort uploading. Don't encourage hostile behavior.

What did you want them to do instead, put ads or charge money per view starting in 2005?

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#196

I'm surprised they don't just inject the ads directly into the video stream, I think that would solve their issue overnight (not that I want any ads personally). You could also rate-limit it to the playback speed to prevent pre-downloading the stream easily. But now that everything uses HLS/DASH, it's easy to inject different content right in the middle of the stream without re-encoding anything.

How does Twitch do it? They're super aggressive and even using third party clients that do a good job and not displaying ads, you still get an occasional "commercial break" screen where they're not serving you the content, or the ad, just a "let's all go to the lobby" screen.

Twitch puts the ads directly in the HLS stream, but as seperate segments from the content (a HLS stream is made of many small video files, on twitch they're about 2s long). They're trivial to recognize and filter out (they're actually explicitly tagged as ad segments) but it still won't serve you the actual stream you were trying to watch - the ad segments override it. The best you can do is just block until the first non-ad segment arrives.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#198
post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could just pay the $13/month? Would save the worries about context switching further taxing your already high cognitive load? And I would expect your high cognitive load helps you earn well above $13/month?

Except they want it both ways. I tried Youtube Premium for a few months. Slowly but surely the ads came back, so back to blocking and not paying I went.

I don't know if this is serious or not but I get zero ads with Youtube Premium even on my phone.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#199
post #10
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Account Switcher > Turn on Incognito. (Not the chrome incognito, but YouTube incognito)

IIRC i stopped using this because it takes way too long to toggle on/off and another crucial mistake they make is that YouTube acts like its chrome incognito where you want full privacy and an anonymous browsing experience, I do not want that, I still want to be able to see my own history like my last few search bar queries, I just dont want NEW entries added when in incognito mode. essentially i want read only mode

You can easily and quickly turn off watch on mobile. Don't remember if it's a hassle in the browser.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#200
post #185
post #4

I was wondering when buffering was going to be a thing. I’ve been seeing it on YT and figured it’s the Adblock wars getting heated up. The next step is to scrape the videos, strip the ads, store them on a torrent magnet and serve that instead. Yes it would have to be from a shady RU or CN or NK or IN site. I’m fine with that.

[flagged]

If copyright laws were reasonable and limited to what was necessary to serve their stated purpose, I would agree with the critique - that it seems like entitled behaviour. But in a world where copyright terms are 150 years, in my opinion any premise that it serves the public is gone.
Post reply on HN