Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

231–240 of 433 posts

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

#231

I think the only "happy ending for everyone" if Google is going to ban ad-blockers for YouTube is if they make the ads less annoying. What makes YouTube's ads annoying: - the number of them 2 ads at the start is way too much. 1 max. Middle of video ads should be content creator controlled. - the ads they choose to show Google showing me the same few very annoying (to me) ads and gives me no option to avoid those spec…

The only happy ending for everyone is zero ads.

Then subscribe and pay for the service. One way or another someone has to pay for the content.

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

#232
post #92

Maybe it's just A/B testing, but I got the "3 strikes and no more video playback" thing, which this DOM element blocking doesn't work around it seems :( After years of procrastinating, I'm finally gonna get around to setting up a basic homelab to run pihole. Thanks, youtube execs and bean counters, for kicking my lazy ass into gear on this! In a way, I kinda wish that ads worked as well as youtube suggestions. If one…

Mate if you get so much value from YouTube that you'll jump through these hoops just to use it without ads, why not just subscribe to premium? Personally it's by far my most bang-for-buck service.

What I don’t understand is why YouTube is going to these lengths to penalize ad blockers when they still gate Premium behind a bundle with another service nobody wants. They even trialed an unbundled Premium in Europe two years ago, but never did anything with it: https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/2/22605455/youtube-premium-l...

One can only conclude that some executive at Google is still dead-set on making YouTube Music happen, and YouTube Premium will continue to suffer as a result.

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

#233
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This, in turn, will spawn user scripts which work around the detection. Any client-side solution will be an arms race between Google and user script/adblock devs. The only real way to prevent it is to withhold the video stream from the CDN until the client has streamed the full ad and/or bake it into the video stream. My impression is that Twitch does this for its live streams (although not VODs).

Well if they copy Twitch I suspect it will be circumvented very quickly. My adblock works just fine for Twitch, I do not see any adverts (unless I open using incognito).

I've enabled uBlock Origin in Incognito mode as well. Highly recommended unless you have a compelling reason not to.

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

#234

Maybe it's just A/B testing, but I got the "3 strikes and no more video playback" thing, which this DOM element blocking doesn't work around it seems :( After years of procrastinating, I'm finally gonna get around to setting up a basic homelab to run pihole. Thanks, youtube execs and bean counters, for kicking my lazy ass into gear on this! In a way, I kinda wish that ads worked as well as youtube suggestions. If one…

The "only 3 more videos" thing is easy to get around (at least it was for me): Turn your adblocker off, and watch YouTube until an ad plays. Then, turn your adblocker back on. I don't even get the anti-ad blocker popups anymore.

I just open the adblock settings and clear the cache.

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

#235
post #170
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know about OP, but, personally, the reason I don’t subscribe to premium is because they get aggressive on ads on purpose (waves of unskippable ads followed by a YouTube Premium subscription request the day after), which I believe is a dark pattern. I would have been okay with paying for a subscription if it was to support the website or its creators – but I take manipulation attempts very badly.

+1 I wouldn’t even notice the subscription costs, but at this point Google has only succeeded in alienating me. I have disproportionately negative feelings about this.

If you had willingly jumped from ad block to premium any time in the last 5 years would you still feel alienated? Reacting to google blocking ad-blockers as a reason not to subscribe to premium is just rationalizing not paying creators for content.

I personally don't even remember what ads are like on Youtube and have zero idea how they've changed since the Youtube Red days.

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

#236
post #198

I'm disappointed the term "anti-anti-adblocker" isn't instead "adblocker blocker blocker". If we're going to use repetitive negatives, we might as well lean into it.

I the anti- prefix is against something, but that thing itself could be blocked, so you have an adblocker, and YouTube deploys anti-adblockers, and then you retaliate with anti-adblocker blockers, and they retaliate with anti-anti-adblocker blockers and so on as infinitem.

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

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Premium actually gives more money to creators you watch on YouTube than ads do. It's win-win IMO. Save yourself time, give them more money. Also comes with YouTube Music which is quite good (arguably worse than Google Play Music was but eh)

If someone on the internet says they want money to hand it to individuals in need I believe them. Especially when it is a global, for-profit, money-printing monopoly power like Google, who have repeatedly demonstrated through their actions as an organization that they are nothing but honest, upstanding, and true to their word, fully deserving of our trust (and money).

This but unironically.

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

#238
post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Youtube offers a service to advertisers. The users are both the content providers as well as the content consumers, which cancels out. Youtube sells something which is essentially parasitical on the uploaders, who actually create the value that they get to sell to advertisers, but you can say symbiotic instead of parasitic as long as the uploading and downloading are free.

The mail example is great. The post office has no right to withhold your other mail between someone else and yourself, because you threw away the ad flyer someone paid them to deliver.

Meanwhile, I pay for premium and still have to suffer ads, because every video has ads in-band in the content, and I have to watch youtube on someone else's device probably 30% of the time, and have my content (what I would consume not produce) censored and inhibited by bs ai "community standards" and dmca takedowns I didn't approve of, and even without ever looking at an ad, they are collecting and selling profiling data of me which I also don't approve of. So where's my option to strong-arm youtube to force them to fully meet my "terms" and get what I'm paying for? How come it's not reasonable for me to somehow make it that if they don't please ME, that their own server side somehow breeaks unless they conform to what decide is a reasonable fair transaction?

None of this "terms" argument holds up. All they have is might, not right.

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

#239

Maybe it's just A/B testing, but I got the "3 strikes and no more video playback" thing, which this DOM element blocking doesn't work around it seems :( After years of procrastinating, I'm finally gonna get around to setting up a basic homelab to run pihole. Thanks, youtube execs and bean counters, for kicking my lazy ass into gear on this! In a way, I kinda wish that ads worked as well as youtube suggestions. If one…

I'm pretty sure pihole doesn't block YouTube ads, they seem to be served server side but I could be wrong

You're 100% correct. PiHole is a DNS adblocker so, essentially, it's only able to block whole domains. My understanding is Google puts YouTube ads behind the YouTube domain so if the PiHole blocked YouTube ads, it would block the entire YouTube website which defeats the purpose.
Post reply on HN