261–270 of 486 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What is most interesting about this whole adblocking war: we're winning. Until Google changes how the web works and all other browsers will align. And they can do that, since they almost own the web trough Chrome.
Then use Firefox and/or non chromium based browsers. Don't play the game. It's not a new game. Remember when Linux was "evil commie software"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well within their rights, I guess, but it still seems like they are throwing a tantrum to me. I still don't see how it has anything to do with a tantrum. A tantrum is someone yelling and screaming because they aren't getting what they want. This is Google getting exactly what it wants, and I don't see any yelling and screaming. It's just quietly asserting its rights to block adblockers.
Does google really have the right to block my control over what is shown or not shown on my computer? They may have the ability to do so, but that is not necessarily equivalent to a right. For example, what if I had a robot that detected when an ad was being played on youtube, and automatically turned off my monitor and headphones momentarily, turning them back on once the ad was over. Would that violate google's "ri…
In general? Of course not.
On a webpage they serve to you? Of course they have the right to, to the extent JavaScript makes it possible. What possible legal basis could there be for them not to have that right? With limited exceptions, they have the right to do wherever they want with their webpage code. And there is no legal exception against blocking adblockers.
What is most interesting about this whole adblocking war: we're winning. If we weren't youtube/Google wouldn't be making such a fuss. So keep it up. I can also heartily recommend the 'unhook' browser extension, it takes care of all of those upsells and feeds.
>What is most interesting about this whole adblocking war: we're winning. Until Google changes how the web works and all other browsers will align. And they can do that, since they almost own the web trough Chrome.
What is most interesting about this whole adblocking war: we're winning. If we weren't youtube/Google wouldn't be making such a fuss. So keep it up. I can also heartily recommend the 'unhook' browser extension, it takes care of all of those upsells and feeds.
What does winning mean in this context? If we take this to an extreme, doesn't content just not get made? Do you think Google is going to go to a model where things are freely accessible without ads? Feels like even when a company provides a way to get rid of ads, many people still won't pay. They _say_ they will, but I find often people will want to substitute their own terms (Well, youtube premium is $x, but I thin…
That just means, by definition, that the prices YouTube are trying to charge are too high, doesn't it? What we're seeing is basically a negotiation tactic: you either reduce the price, or we'll keep using ad blockers.
Not to mention, most creators don't really live off YouTube ads, those pay too little for the vast majority of channels as far as I understand. Creators live off their own sponsorships, Patreon etc.
Note, I'm actually someone who thinks YouTube Premium is good value for my money and am already paying for it.
what i’m reading from these comments: we will do anything, including leaving youtube, but for sure we will not be either watching ads or paying for content.
I don't wish to be tracked by Google. If I paid for YouTube Premium then I voluntarily provide even more tracking data to Google. If they offered an ad free tier where you weren't tracked then I would pay for it. Since Google don't respect people's right to privacy or to watch content ad free I don't pay them and instead use ad blockers locally and pay for a proxy server with ad blocking DNS.
What is most interesting about this whole adblocking war: we're winning. If we weren't youtube/Google wouldn't be making such a fuss. So keep it up. I can also heartily recommend the 'unhook' browser extension, it takes care of all of those upsells and feeds.
What does winning mean in this context? If we take this to an extreme, doesn't content just not get made? Do you think Google is going to go to a model where things are freely accessible without ads? Feels like even when a company provides a way to get rid of ads, many people still won't pay. They _say_ they will, but I find often people will want to substitute their own terms (Well, youtube premium is $x, but I thin…
I can't speak for anybody else but my content will still get made.
> Do you think Google is going to go to a model where things are freely accessible without ads?
Maybe, maybe not, whose to say what Google will do. Maybe they will value the influence or the goodwill more than the lack of income. Maybe some of the content will be free and other bits will be walled off (effectively this is already the case with youtube music). Maybe there will be less MFY content and that's perfectly ok with me, 99.99% of it is crap anyway. Youtuber isn't a profession I recognize.
> Feels like even when a company provides a way to get rid of ads, many people still won't pay.
And that's ok.
> They _say_ they will, but I find often people will want to substitute their own terms (Well, youtube premium is $x, but I think it's only worth $y, so I'm going to just block ads completely).
Yes, or you pay and you still get ads...
What is most interesting about this whole adblocking war: we're winning. If we weren't youtube/Google wouldn't be making such a fuss. So keep it up. I can also heartily recommend the 'unhook' browser extension, it takes care of all of those upsells and feeds.
What does winning mean in this context? If we take this to an extreme, doesn't content just not get made? Do you think Google is going to go to a model where things are freely accessible without ads? Feels like even when a company provides a way to get rid of ads, many people still won't pay. They _say_ they will, but I find often people will want to substitute their own terms (Well, youtube premium is $x, but I thin…
But if you're happy to pay whatever is asked of you, that'll be a 100 dollars thanks
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me the opposite: chrome was making an entrance on account of supporting WebMIDI and I gave them the benefit of the doubt for a bit but this is the bit that did it for me and besides some compatibility testing FF all the way for me. Google is already receiving plenty of money, if they promoted youtube as a commons they should maintain it as a commons. This bait-and-switch crap has gone more than far enough. Rememb…
I hope so :). I just see it, in the current context of layoff, as them wanting/needing more money and hoping blocker either leave (and stop costing them bandwidth) or switch to YT Premium. I do believe that the worsening experience on YT could be a win by making platform I want to support such as nebula more attractive. Or that it could backfire with a global adblock adoption making the current ad economy less viable…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paid services that still show ads? Cable, Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, Amazon Prime Video, etc.
YouTube as well, from the end-user perspective. I understand that there is a distinction between sponsor segments and preroll/midroll ads, but at the end of the day it’s all ads and paying for YouTube doesn’t get rid of all the ads.