Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

iter.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#441

Post by asadotzler »

bobsmooth wrote: post #225
vjulian wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it hard to discern whether your post is sarcasm. Assuming it’s not, I’m surprised that someone is so cheerfully and voluntarily paying an extra fiat to the virtual landowner.

Video hosting is expensive. Making videos is expensive. You're not noble for stealing from Youtube or its creators.

It's not stealing. It's using. I have no obligation under any legal framework to use their content the way they wish I would. Trust me, or pay a lawyer to learn the same truth at considerably more cost.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#442

Post by Evidlo »

madars wrote: post #362
apitman wrote: post #353

> On Firefox this is easily resolvable - you can use a HTML filter to filter out the script tag from the source HTML before the page even starts being parsed. But that relies on extension APIs that Chromium doesn’t support. I'm shocked

The second Chrome drops uBlock Origin (as part of their "Manifest V3 without blocking Web Request" plan), I'm off to an alternative browser. Enough is enough.

On the upside, if they do, it might obviate the need for YouTube's anti adblocker measures because of the small market share of non-chromium browsers

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#443

Post by stiray »

scoofy wrote: post #426
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #414

The primary thing that makes advertisements disagreeable is their irrelevance. That’s not to say whether or not the advertisement is for a product or service for which the viewer is interested in purchasing but how it relates to the context in which it is viewed. People complain about billboards next to a countryside highway because it is entirely irrelevant to driving through the countryside. Actual complaints may b…

You can also pay for YouTube. I do. It’s nice, not crazy expensive. No ads. Creators get paid. Everyone wins.

You lose on long run. In few years, you will pay more and still watch ads while YT will no longer be free. (let me remind you of video streaming services)

Managers want their rewards that are tied to earnings and stockholders want to earn more.

And once they both get their money, the next year reward will be tied to even more earnings. And stockholders will want to earn more.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#444

Post by krelian »

cvoss wrote: post #289
yugioh3 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people deserve to get paid for the work they put into creating content and building platforms, no? books, movies, tv shows, news, etc, are all distributed in some way or another that costs the consumer either money or their time viewing advertising. if you don't want to watch ads, pay YouTube for a subscription.

If I can actually pay someone for content, then, if I don't pay, I should expect not to be granted access to content. But that's not how YT works. YT doesn't charge you for good stuff. It charges you for not delivering crap. That's not legitimate business, that's a racket. I have no qualm punishing YT for that. Content creators are free to find other ways to monetize their labor, if their labor is actually valuable.…

The mental gymnastics some will go through to justify being a cheapskate...

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#445

Post by rf15 »

MathMonkeyMan wrote: post #107
ysavir wrote: post #15

I've been getting these buffer loading times recently, and ironically, I don't mind them all that much. The annoyance of ads isn't primarily in the time it takes up, but in having the audio play and a video feed run that isn't the video I clicked on. If an actual ad played, I'd be irritated beyond belief. But when there's a 12 second buffer, I have enough patience training for slow load times that I instinctively jus…

Yeah I've been getting the initial delay with the popup "find out why playback is slow." No thanks, I already know, and it's not so bad.

turns out you rather stare at an empty plate than being served shit

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#446

Post by bowsamic »

mcdeltat wrote: post #234

I recently stopped watching youtube altogether and surprisingly haven't been missing it. And I used to watch a LOT (like hours per day) of youtube, mostly quality educational/scientific content. But ultimately you'd be surprised how much you don't need in your life. And side effect is no more ads. If someone sends me an occasional youtube video to watch, I'll take a look, but otherwise no engagement with the platform…

> mostly quality educational/scientific content

Probably because it wasn’t. In my experience even the stuff people consider quality on YouTube is still kinda gross engagement bait, especially things like video essays (which are an absolute plague imo)

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#447

Post by asadotzler »

cyberax wrote: post #284
Retr0id wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could splice ads out of the video on the client just as easily as they splice them in, assuming you can detect them (which could be done via crowdsourced databases a la sponsorblock).

They can splice the video just for you at a random location.

Sure, and I can use "technology" to identify those splices, and fix them in various ways that work for me because I control the client (unlike Chrome users) and that gives me the power to make the web behave how I want it to, if I'm willing to put in the effort (or someone else does it for me.)

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#448

Post by pclmulqdq »

motoxpro wrote: post #430
solannou wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm barely sure that the long term strategy of YouTube is "more ads". The premium account won't be always ads free

This is a big misunderstanding of the business model. The price might go up, but there will always be a tier with no ads.

Unfortunately, the way ads work, the people who pay to avoid ads are inevitably the ones worth advertising to. The Nash equilibrium is that every user sees ads.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#449

Post by asadotzler »

nickff wrote: post #185
absurdo wrote: post #4

I was wondering when buffering was going to be a thing. I’ve been seeing it on YT and figured it’s the Adblock wars getting heated up. The next step is to scrape the videos, strip the ads, store them on a torrent magnet and serve that instead. Yes it would have to be from a shady RU or CN or NK or IN site. I’m fine with that.

[flagged]

I pick up a free, ad supported newspaper, bring it home, cut the ads out of it, then read it. I'm not violating anything.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#450

Post by petesergeant »

stickfigure wrote: post #277
mcdeltat wrote: post #234

I recently stopped watching youtube altogether and surprisingly haven't been missing it. And I used to watch a LOT (like hours per day) of youtube, mostly quality educational/scientific content. But ultimately you'd be surprised how much you don't need in your life. And side effect is no more ads. If someone sends me an occasional youtube video to watch, I'll take a look, but otherwise no engagement with the platform…

Or just pay for it? I have my whole family on my plan. Nobody gets ads. It is a bargain. You're right, I could probably finish my motorcycle build projects without videos. But why??

> Or just pay for it?

So I do now, but only since I moved to a country where it doesn't cost so much. I watch maybe 6 hours absolutely tops of YouTube a month? I get charged $7/m for it, which still feels usurious, but in the UK they want almost $17/m which is firmly in "go fuck yourself" territory. I'd like them to tier pricing so casual users like me aren't paying for people who are using YouTube as their primary entertainment mechanism.

Post reply on HN