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

241–250 of 433 posts

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

#241

Post by LtWorf »

mvdtnz wrote: post #183
Diti wrote: 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.

Premium does support creators. Views from premium subscribers are worth significantly more than views from freeloaders.

Most creators have to get sponsors because youtube is very unreliable with what can be monetized, what can't, unblocking stuff after fake reports and so on.

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

#242

Post by recursive »

mortenjorck wrote: post #232
mvdtnz wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Mus…

I didn't realize you music was a thing until I got it with premium. And I'm glad to have it. It seems pretty good.

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

#243

Post by LtWorf »

heavyset_go wrote: post #145
gruez wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't care if Google is sustainable in the long term or not, just like they don't care if they serve me malicious content and malware via their ad networks, or take money, and show me ads, from groups that want people like me dead.

In my area they started to put ads to meet hot russian women in youtube. I reported and they said it's supposed to stay there.

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

#244

Post by LtWorf »

gruez wrote: post #102
jona-f wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We treat google how they treat us, as exploitive as possible.

All this performative righteousness is only going to end up hurting your cause in the long term. If a major site offers an ad-free option, and people refuse to take it, what does it tell the executives? What does it tell other publishers who are considering their monetization options? How do you think a business should respond to users that neither refuse to watch ads nor pay, can't be bargained with (see above), but…

They still mine your data…

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

#245

Post by somsak2 »

TylerE wrote: post #221
bsaul wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the amount of ads on youtube has grown exponentially and i highly doubt this was because of profitability issues.

Has YouTube ever turned a profit?

Profit numbers for YT have never been broken out in financial reports.

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

#246

Post by briHass »

dotnet00 wrote: post #116
numpad0 wrote: post #95

What is the cost for Google to serve YouTube data to users, is it $0.01/hour/DAU, or is it median 2-3x Premium subscription per user? If it's latter, how will this ever work out? And, with inevitable encation spreading across Web, what is its long-term replacement? Is it App market dystopia, or some sort of Metaverse system, or could it be fragmented regional Webs? We have been seeing more Gitea repository in Chinese…

I think we're just heading for (hopefully) a return to fragmentation of content. YouTube's dominance was largely from them pouring Google Ad money into the platform such that content creators made decent money while users didn't have to suffer as many ads as other platforms. But over the years creators have become less dependent on Google ad money, instead relying more on sponsorships, paid subscriptions ala Patreon…

This is my hope as well. If the majority of a content-creator's revenue comes from in-video sponsor segments, what difference does it make where the video is uploaded. Most podcasts follow this model, with the exception of ones that have a lucrative exclusive arrangement with a particular service, like Joe Rogan's on Spotify.

This already happened with many of the right-wing creators that were banned from YT some time back. Many of these creators upload to multiple 'alt-tech' sites (e.g. Rumble), and rely on sponsors or direct support, which isn't locked to YT.

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

#247

Post by ThrowawayTestr »

LtWorf wrote: post #241
mvdtnz wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Premium does support creators. Views from premium subscribers are worth significantly more than views from freeloaders.

Most creators have to get sponsors because youtube is very unreliable with what can be monetized, what can't, unblocking stuff after fake reports and so on.

Regardless, YouTube Premium puts way more money in creators' pockets than ads and is more reliable.

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

#248

Post by cyral »

lemoncookiechip wrote: post #68

Gorhill (uBO's developer) is in the comment section urging people to not use these types of unverified fixes: https://x.com/gorhill/status/1713305785659211991

The official/default list doesn’t block these though, so we are not supposed to make use of the user defined filters for now?

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

#249

Post by throw_nbvc1234 »

unshavedyak wrote: post #131
mvdtnz wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're just rationalising. You know it's not a defensible position.

I think it's somewhat defendable when youtube doesn't give you an option to pay for what you'd be "stealing". Overall i agree with you, but lets not pretend that Youtube doesn't feel exploitative in the corporate behavior here. Especially considering the data they're stealing from me, harvesting and selling, etc. Ie show me the ads i'm missing, and let me pay for the view. It would be what, $3|5|7/m or w/e in value?…

You're not just paying Youtube/Google for the ad, you're paying the content creators as well. You can always buy the music directly from artists if you don't like Spotify's revenue model. Or ditch Spotify and use the free Youtube Music subscription you get with premium, maybe combined it'd be worth the $14 to you.

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

#250

Post by somsak2 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #204
jamiequint wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the principle? I should get anything I want for free as long as I can get away with it? I shouldn't have to pay for anything if I don't want to? Genuinely curious what the principled argument is here.

I don't see any mention of getting anything in that comment, I just see a refusal to give google money.

not giving google money is quite an odd "principle"
Post reply on HN