Live data from Hacker News

Does uBlock Origin bypass the latest YouTube anti-adblock script?

drhyperion451.github.io

381–390 of 486 posts

Re: Does uBlock Origin bypass the latest YouTube anti-adblock script?

#381
post #273

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.

There’s no need at all to rely on Chrome: If Google wanted to, they could enable DRM for all videos on Youtube today. Almost every desktop and mobile browser supports it. They’d lose a couple of legacy client apps, but much less traffic than they would if they were to make it Chrome-only.

And this is what would happen. The only reason why it is not happening - many users would go and watch tiktok instead or FB videos would get a chance.

I don't see the reason to support the company, which dreams to make internet worse.

Re: Does uBlock Origin bypass the latest YouTube anti-adblock script?

#382
post #222
post #52

A reliable way I found to confirm whether there is new anti-content blocker code released by Youtube is to visit uBlockOrigin's reddit sub[1]: If there are well over 1,000 "here now" (near top right), this confirms the anti-content blocker code has been updated. If well below 1,000 "here now", all is fine. At time of writing, it's fine. * * * [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/

Someone needs to write a reddit "here now" prometheus exporter.

and they would break their API again

Re: Does uBlock Origin bypass the latest YouTube anti-adblock script?

#383

Youtube seems to me to be a bullshit test platform. They will work around ad blockers and continue to pile on repetitive and banal adverts that have nothing to do with the user until they reach breaking point (where people flee and seek alternatives), and then they will relax their system to show marginally less bullshit. The confusing part of this battle is the app users, who do not agree with the avalanche of adver…

bullshit as a platform is a new model in 2023...

Re: Does uBlock Origin bypass the latest YouTube anti-adblock script?

#384
post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no need at all to rely on Chrome: If Google wanted to, they could enable DRM for all videos on Youtube today. Almost every desktop and mobile browser supports it. They’d lose a couple of legacy client apps, but much less traffic than they would if they were to make it Chrome-only.

And this is what would happen. The only reason why it is not happening - many users would go and watch tiktok instead or FB videos would get a chance. I don't see the reason to support the company, which dreams to make internet worse.

They could always exempt Youtube Shorts (which are competing with TikTok/Instagram reels etc.) from DRM and only apply it to longer-form content. Shorts don't get ads anyway in my experience (but I almost never use them).

Re: Does uBlock Origin bypass the latest YouTube anti-adblock script?

#385
post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pay for YouTube to support the platform and creators. If you don't pay for a service, you aren't the customer you are the product. Google may need to shut down the free viewership of most YouTube videos unless the creator pays for them to be hosted or the viewers sign up for a subscription. The ad model is clearly failing.

Just because you are paying for a service doesn't mean that companies won't double dip or triple dip by either showing you ads or selling your data.

I both pay for YouTube Premium (let's call it what it is: a hope that content creators get paid) and also use uBlock Origin religiously. Nothing's stopping people from doing both.

Re: Does uBlock Origin bypass the latest YouTube anti-adblock script?

#386
post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peertube is just self hosted video hosting. You either need to pay someone a lot of money to host it for you, or do it yourself with the constant maintenance that comes with it.

The claim was not that video needs to be hosted but that video hosting is expensive. It's not, because we can easily distribute the cost now.

How do we distribute the cost? Say a popular creator uploads a video to a peertube instance and gets 10 million views, the video is 10 minutes and 15mbps bitrate, that's roughly 10 petabytes of data the peertube server needs to send.

If we take say, Vultr as an example for outgoing data costs, that's something like $100,000 of data for a single video.

Yes P2P will take some of that load off, but not that much with how restrictive NAT is these days.

Re: Does uBlock Origin bypass the latest YouTube anti-adblock script?

#387
post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I see an ad I just close YT for the rest of the day. I'm sure that's exactly the behavior YT wants here.

Their whole business is based on retention, so I don’t think that’s true.

What is the value of retention if you can't monetize it!?!

For network effects it doesn't matter if you have 99% of the audience or 90% (assuming only 10% will leave because of anti ad blocker).

Re: Does uBlock Origin bypass the latest YouTube anti-adblock script?

#388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To know whether that is unreasonable or not you'd have to compare it to the cost of providing you that service, taking into account that youtube is just a delivery mechanism and so is infrastructure , not content. And what is or is not affordable is really dependent on where you live and that kind of money is a very large amount in some places. And especially in those places access to youtube for educational purposes…

Why would the cost of providing YT be relevant? I look at the value I get, and YT Premium is a no brainer. Here in South Africa YT Premium Family is R109.99/mo (5.83 USD). By comparison, Netflix is R159/mo. Minimum wage is R25.42/hr.

Because infrastructure is cost+, Neflix gives you content that they have the rights to.

Re: Does uBlock Origin bypass the latest YouTube anti-adblock script?

#389
post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about no? There are anti competitive practices at place here and we are not supposed to just sit and take it, not all of us are Americans that accept unrestricted capitalism with the no breaks. I suppose you were also fine with Unity's change of toś and pricing, but many others weren't. We sent a strong enough message to the company so that their CEO resigned and hit them hard in the wallet and now they know bett…

I'm curious -- what do you want to happen in this situation? What is your best desired outcome? It sounds like you are arguing that video sharing sites are a utility?

Video sharing sites of the size/impact of Youtube, similarly to social platforms like Facebook/Instagram/Twitter whatever, and platforms like Google Search/Maps, etc have a tremendous impact on society. They have become a major way of how people communicate, make daily choices, purchasing decisions, vacation plans, etc.

When a company is that big and that impactful (despite being a for-profit company), it is in interest to the general public that there are some checks and balances in place.

For me, the best scenarios is governments involve themselves as they involve themselves in other areas of business:

- telecommunications and utilities (Verizon)

- transport (Uber has different treaties/operating models in different countries)

- online marketplaces (Google)

Only through treating these behemoths as providers of "public goods/utilities" via our governments, can we have them not regressing to what any monopoly would naturally regress to: arrogant hands-twisting thugs, not afraid to exploit their users for every penny.

Keep in mind that governments already DO involve themselves in the business (mal)practices of these tech giants. For example, Tesla's new cybergarbage is unlikely to pass a scruitiny in the EU due to pedestrian safety/impact concerns. Google/Facebook/Instagram all have to respect the GDPR and its US cousin the CCPA, etc, etc. If it wasn't for measures like this, you'd not have "do-not-track" options in your browser, nor would you have adblockers in the Google play store...

I simply want MORE, quicker and better government involvement into anticompetitive practices that (mostly) US tech giants use.

Re: Does uBlock Origin bypass the latest YouTube anti-adblock script?

#390

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 pay for Nebula, I pay for Patreon. I cannot find it in me to give Alphabet a red cent of my money. Alphabet's primary goal is to turn the internet into cable and I honestly have no stomach for it.

Furthermore, I have precious few moments on this earth, I have no desire to have to spend them watching propaganda from corps (and sometimes just unfiltered political propaganda).

But most of all, ads are a privacy and security risk like no other. They follow you across the internet for ages, sell your data to the highest bidder (sometimes that bidder is the feds) and are the foremost distribution network for malware.

Sorry, I rather YouTube go away than have to agree to the above.

Post reply on HN