YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#681

Post by dvngnt_ » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 4:00 PM UTC

nvm0n2 wrote: post #613

yukkuri wrote: post #78

A lot of absurd moralizing here about "you're stealing by not watching ads". I keep adblock on for most sites because ads are so intrusive and often malware vectors. If advertisers want my eyes they need to not be obnoxious. I started blocking YouTube ads in particular because it kept serving me ads that were brazenly homophobic ("how gross and smelly is gay sex? Find out!") I feel no moral problem with this, if you…

When was the last time someone got malware from YouTube ads? Has that ever happened?

Google ads absolutely have malware.

YouTube I'm not sure but there are blatant crypto scams so you could lose your money

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#682

Post by rchaud » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 4:02 PM UTC

temporallobe wrote: post #679

eqvinox wrote: post #427

This is of course bringing up the discussion on the "morality" of Adblocking. I'd like to point out something that I don't think is getting enough attention. There was a point in the past where video platforms were competing, and by no means was it clear that YouTube would end up dominating this area to the point of being close to a monopoly. When YouTube won that race, they won it with a given set of parameters, inc…

What still gets me is that even with YT Premium, there are still ads if the content creators decide to embed them as part of the content. Yes, they are skippable, but there are still ads…that I paying, to NOT see. This is also a moral issue. What does the exact definition of “no ads” actually mean to YT and is their definition misleading or purposefully vague? Unless they qualify their definition with something like…

Like a TV show with ads, but where the TV actors put in their own ads right into the shows dialogue, in addition to the network's commercial breaks.

This happens because Youtube doesn't pay content makers a flat rate, unless they're a whale.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#683

Post by rchaud » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 4:08 PM UTC

I've never paid for Youtube because it isn't a proper product. It's a hodgepodge network of amateur videos that've been cobbled together into an offering that just barely resembles something you can throw a price tag on.

There's plenty of content o Youtube that's simply stolen from the original creators (home video fail compilations, newsreader bloopers). Yet YT can take a cut of the ad revenue from the tens of millions of view those videos get.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#684

Post by caconym_ » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 4:08 PM UTC

least wrote: post #531

caconym_ wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you also suggest that when an application is ad-ridden or potentially malware-ridden to also just not use the app? Naturally that's an option, but the review is to warn other users of their experience. Is a restaurant owner pissed off about a one star review by somebody who didn't like the decor in the bathroom implicitly suggesting that people who receive food poisoning at a restaurant have no right to communic…

I think there's even greater utility in telling people about minor things that might annoy them, because those minor things aren't going to get a developer's application pulled from the app store, but have a meaningful impact on the user's experience. That is, in fact, exactly what reviews are for.

> I think there's even greater utility in [...]

You really think it's more important for me to air my grievances about a free software's occasional donation nag messages than to tell other potential users it's a front for malware? That's honestly really strange, and I categorically disagree.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#685

Post by lobocinza » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 4:08 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #546

JimDabell wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Including Google Video. Google did try the tactic of using their search engine to promote their own video platform, but it was against YouTube and Google only bought them because it didn’t work.

it didnt work because people don't search for videos via google usually. They get the video directly from youtube, or was linked by friends virally. Plus the early days of google (before youtube acquisition), i dont think their video search was as good as the text search anyway (but i might be misremembering of course...).

Their video search still sucks.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#686

Post by lobocinza » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 4:08 PM UTC

temporallobe wrote: post #679

eqvinox wrote: post #427

This is of course bringing up the discussion on the "morality" of Adblocking. I'd like to point out something that I don't think is getting enough attention. There was a point in the past where video platforms were competing, and by no means was it clear that YouTube would end up dominating this area to the point of being close to a monopoly. When YouTube won that race, they won it with a given set of parameters, inc…

What still gets me is that even with YT Premium, there are still ads if the content creators decide to embed them as part of the content. Yes, they are skippable, but there are still ads…that I paying, to NOT see. This is also a moral issue. What does the exact definition of “no ads” actually mean to YT and is their definition misleading or purposefully vague? Unless they qualify their definition with something like…

Use yt-dlp, no ads or sponsor segments.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#687

Post by rchaud » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 4:10 PM UTC

daveevad wrote: post #441

ohhnoodont wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially when youtube's early success was built on piracy. That continued for a long time even after Google's acquisition. Arguably still is a major contributor regardless of Content ID.

Between Youtube and PirateBay, who do you think has distributed more unauthorized copyrighted works?

Pirate Bay websites disappear all the time due to network uptime or just evading copyright cops. Youtube just sits there however, churning out its trove of pirated content and have the gall to throw ads on it.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#688

Post by okdood64 » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 4:20 PM UTC

aezart wrote: post #622

okdood64 wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had Premium for years. Never have seen a single ad.

You've never seen a "this video is sponsored by..." segment?

That's not an ad in the context of this thread. It's something edited into the video by the creator themselves.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#689

Post by rchaud » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 4:22 PM UTC

singron wrote: post #678

It's interesting how few users can ruin a FOSS project. I doubt Google would stoop this low, but sabatage seems surprisingly practical by pumping a lot of low effort comments through open communication systems. The uBO had similar issues with Facebook's anti-adblock. IMO the anti-adblock worked. The maintainers probably all muted the thread, and now 99% of the time, ads show up in the feed.

I don't see why it should. Every game torrent I've ever uh, "evaluated", has had a never ending stream of comments of "it doesn't work" from people who don't read the instructions. I never the uploader get involved in the comments. We used to call them noobs and tell them to re-read the instructions, that would be that.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#690

Post by rchaud » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 4:23 PM UTC

thinkingemote wrote: post #569

atleastoptimal wrote: post #439

The big issue is, I know ads pay for Youtube, but maybe 1 times out of 100 do I see an ad that promotes positive feelings about the product being advertised. the other 99 times I am less inclined to purchase the product out of annoyance by the ad. Shouldn't the billions of dollars of recommendation research at this point reached a peak where ads are ideally appealing to the viewers they're served to? Wouldn't that ma…

Ads work whether you like them or not. If you see an ad for a toaster from brand ToastX that annoys you and no other toaster ads then you are more likely to buy ToastX brand when you are shopping for a toaster. People do not remember the ads when they go shopping. Instead our brain goes "I've seen this brand before". (Obviously a positive emotion works better) This insidiousness.and manipulation is a good reason to b…

if that was the case, wish.com would be displacing Walmart.