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

411–420 of 433 posts

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

#411

Post by paulcole »

unshavedyak wrote: post #404
paulcole wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I want to pay for what i use Lol. You want to pay what you want to pay. > show me how much i owe It’s not complicated. $13.99 for a subscription to YouTube Premium in the US. https://www.investopedia.com/youtube-premium-now-costs-usd2-... Do you go to the grocery store and say, “Show me the baker’s salary as well as what the wheat, yeast, salt, and water cost and I’ll pay that happily?” No, you pay what they charge…

> It’s not complicated. $13.99 for a subscription to YouTube Premium in the US. Lol you understand, you're clearly avoiding the core idea. > Do you go to the grocery store and say, “Show me the baker’s salary as well as what the wheat, yeast, salt, and water cost and I’ll pay that happily?” No, you pay what they charge for bread or you don’t buy bread or you steal the bread. The grocery store isn't offering a free pr…

No, I understand your core idea, I just think it’s nonsensical and very entitled.

> So i'm offering to pay what i'm "stealing", but of course that's no where near enough because there's no way the handful of videos i watch a month equates to $14/m.

You don’t set the price (and you know you don’t yet you offer anyway)!

And the price literally does equate to $14/m if you watch those videos without ads. You can use whatever logical argument you want to convince yourself otherwise, but the numbers are right there.

If you block ads on YouTube and you don’t pay for YouTube Premium, you’re doing something you know you’re not supposed to do. Twist yourself into a pretzel to explain that it’s technically not actually stealing, but it is what it is.

Pay $14/month, watch ads, or stop watching YouTube if your moral outrage at their scummyness is that high. Or do whatever you want because it really doesn’t matter.

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

#412

Post by unshavedyak »

paulcole wrote: post #411
unshavedyak wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s not complicated. $13.99 for a subscription to YouTube Premium in the US. Lol you understand, you're clearly avoiding the core idea. > Do you go to the grocery store and say, “Show me the baker’s salary as well as what the wheat, yeast, salt, and water cost and I’ll pay that happily?” No, you pay what they charge for bread or you don’t buy bread or you steal the bread. The grocery store isn't offering a free pr…

No, I understand your core idea, I just think it’s nonsensical and very entitled. > So i'm offering to pay what i'm "stealing", but of course that's no where near enough because there's no way the handful of videos i watch a month equates to $14/m. You don’t set the price (and you know you don’t yet you offer anyway)! And the price literally does equate to $14/m if you watch those videos without ads. You can use what…

> No, I understand your core idea, I just think it’s nonsensical and very entitled.

Yea, i literally said you understand.

As an aside, i really hope Youtube finds a way to block all adblocks. I want more viewers for competition in the subscription space to exist.

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

#413

Post by karmasimida »

mvdtnz wrote: post #92
_huayra_ wrote: post #14

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.

Yeah, the amount of effort and money spent to maintain such system is easily more expensive than just do the subscription at this point

Yeah, you might be losing the game, you are winning the game as well.

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

#414

Post by aaaao »

harimau777 wrote: post #276
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.

Personally, my biggest issue with YouTube ads are how many of them are for transphobic propaganda. Paying for premium would just be rewarding them for profiting from hate speech.

Sounds good to me, how do I get those ads instead of all the ones trying to sell me stuff. Either way I'm pleased to hear that people are getting the message out.

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

#415

Post by not_paid_by_yt »

paulcole wrote: post #291
hkt wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data of rich profiles is enormously valuable to Google. They allow Google unparalleled ability to target ads elsewhere, too. That's the game.

OK, but they make YouTube. They make the rules of the game. Pay for it with $$$ or by watching Ads, don’t watch YouTube, or pretend there’s some kind of morality in stealing it.

why should I care about """stealing it"""? I don't have any Alphabet stock, I am not employed by Alphabet, in any case they can afford to run Youtube at a loss or just shut it down.

It's kinda cute how much you care about the profit margins of a company when it will (likely) never benefit you. Maybe you should setup a donation fund for Alphabet in these hard times.

I mean surely you would personally give them at least 20 USD considering how badly they are being wronged, maybe 100 if you are feeling generous.

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

#416

Post by jamaicahest »

erinnh wrote: post #324
philistine wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah but how do you setup a one-stop-shop solution to download the new videos from channels you follow?

Personally, I use Tubearchivist. There are others though. https://github.com/tubearchivist/tubearchivist

> For minimal system requirements, the Tube Archivist stack needs around 2GB of available memory for a small testing setup and around 4GB of available memory for a mid to large sized installation. Minimal with dual core with 4 threads, better quad core plus. This project requires docker. Ensure it is installed and running on your system.

What the hell. Is this an entire OS?

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

#417

Post by kervantas »

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…

> They even trialed an unbundled Premium in Europe two years ago, but never did anything with it.

Oh, they did something with it – cancelled it. https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/25/23889917/youtube-premium-...

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

#418

Post by acdha »

hkt wrote: post #373
acdha wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s wishful thinking to hope that they can’t mine that. If you connect to a Google server, they’re analyzing your activity. Not running their JavaScript disrupts ads but they still get information about what type of videos you like, when and where you watch them, and what kind of devices you use.

True enough. I've thought before it'd be good to cache and mirror YouTube videos as they're watched, and then provide them through IPFS with an index that's shipped around so people can pre-filter their searches and page hits against that index first. Lots of work, obviously. More than I have time for, alas. But I'm confident that'll happen eventually.

IPFS seems like a poor choice for that: wouldn’t it be giving the copyright enforcers an API to query to look for potential people to sue?

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

#419

Post by hkt »

acdha wrote: post #418
hkt wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True enough. I've thought before it'd be good to cache and mirror YouTube videos as they're watched, and then provide them through IPFS with an index that's shipped around so people can pre-filter their searches and page hits against that index first. Lots of work, obviously. More than I have time for, alas. But I'm confident that'll happen eventually.

IPFS seems like a poor choice for that: wouldn’t it be giving the copyright enforcers an API to query to look for potential people to sue?

True enough. Things like Tribler would be good, if they did intra-tribler connections.

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

#420

Post by hkt »

unshavedyak wrote: post #383
paulcole wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said. Consider yourself a hero for fighting the good fight or somebody who’s convinced themselves they’re entitled to something they didn’t pay for. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

No one is convinced of that (well, in my thread at least), quit strawmaning. I want to pay for what i use. Definitely. I struggle to see how a few dozen videos in hosting fees and possible ad revenue accounts to $14/m. It's insulting, upcharged, loaded with data mining and obfuscated for extreme profit in my assumption. If they want to use ads as a justification for paying, great - show me how much i owe. How me how…

> I want to pay for what i use.

You do. Ascribe a value to the data you give up to them by consuming content on their platform. They do.

Post reply on HN