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

YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

androidpolice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

721–730 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#721

Post by eipi10_hn »

midoridensha wrote: post #160
2Gkashmiri wrote: post #29

As someone who has no "special love" for YouTube, I feel like the equation for YouTube is different for me that what they have in mind. YouTube chose to host a public mode of displaying videos that someone in a third world country made or Linus Sebastian made. As long as they don't put everything behind Netflix style login, I will fight tooth and nail with UBO. I don't care about "ethics" of ad blockers. If its publi…

> If its public, I will do what I darn want. Want to stop me, well put it behind a paywall. The ethics are pretty clear I think: if I navigate with my browser to YouTube, or any site with ads, I'm able to see the content, plus annoying ads. I don't have to watch the ads: I can use an ad-blocker to tell my browser to not render those ads. The site has every right to serve me HTML/JS/video however they wish, but they h…

Yes, in fact the "ethics" is written clearly in web standards principles:

> 2.12 People should be able to render web content as they want

> People must be able to change web pages according to their needs. For example, people should be able to install style sheets, assistive browser extensions, and blockers of unwanted content or scripts or auto-played videos. We will build features and write specifications that respect peoples' agency, and will create user agents to represent those preferences on the web user's behalf.

https://www.w3.org/TR/ethical-web-principles/#render

---

And guess who is one of the members of World Wide Web Consortium: https://www.w3.org/membership/list/?initial=g&ecosystem=

> Google's mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#722

Post by stevenicr »

paulddraper wrote: post #608
stevenicr wrote: post #89

The primary reason I use an adblocker is to prevent malware / viruses. I would be more accepting of ads in general if: 1 - they were all served from the primary websites server - eg yahoo blaming third party ad servers for injecting virus scripts and taking no responsibility is not okay with me. 2 - I had easy choices to block ads for things like gambling and alcohol at the ip level, not just browser level. 3 - no fl…

> they were all served from the primary websites server > I had easy choices to block ads for things like gambling and alcohol at the ip level ???

> they were all served from the primary websites server - - If your website is YooToo dot com, then serve the ads from your server - not a subdomain (easy to offload to other server), - I've seen many instances where malware was injected by web sites that pull their ads from third party servers.. sometimes it's a third party ad network, sometimes it's a bad actor that makes a deal with a desperate site to host ads server from their server,

(I'd see a fair amount of offers from lesser known entities offering to place flash ads on sites for a few hundred a month back in the day, I'm sure it's still a thing using javascript and similar these days, I've seen things flagged from sites that host video files lately)

There's been malware ads served from yahoo dot com - that were injected by a third party server - I think the details show they fake the ad for X city where XY company is located and server the viruses to other cities.. this is also sketchy for data tracking (outside jurisdictions?) and other issues.

> I had easy choices to block ads for things like gambling and alcohol at the ip level -

I don't think it's right to serve ads for alcohol to people that do not want them, same with gambling and similar - think about it this way, the technology exists to push weight loss, abilify, and other drugs to people who have been flagged as depressed, we should be able to prevent ads in the same way.

I've seen opt-out of ad networks by going to a site and checking off tracking / targeted marketing / remarketing from a, b - z networks - but these I believe add a cookie to the browser you are using - so you opt out of targeted ads in that one browser on that one device

- I think people should be able to sign a document online and opt out of gambling, drugs, sugar, alcohol, and many other types of ads if they want to block them, and it should be via ip address - so it's blocked on phones, chromecasts, vizio tvs, playstations, laptops, tablets - all the things that connect... the big ad networks should be able to handle this with minor code changes.

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#723

Post by kossTKR »

mcpackieh wrote: post #309

I block ads because they're psychological warfare that corporations wage against me. I don't care how unobtrusive the ads are. I don't care if the ads don't track me. I grew up changing the channel on TV when ads came on, and ripping adverts out of magazines before sitting down to read them. I vote for billboard bans whenever I can. I have zero tolerance for ads of any sort. Advertisers have no morals, they're comple…

This is the kind of clear headed thought the world needs right now. Thank you!

The world is run by scummy, greedy and straight up evil people and they have created a global public consciousness where that fact in itself is almost impossible to spread.

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#724

Post by Nathanba »

joeythedolphin wrote: post #615
mcpackieh wrote: post #309

I block ads because they're psychological warfare that corporations wage against me. I don't care how unobtrusive the ads are. I don't care if the ads don't track me. I grew up changing the channel on TV when ads came on, and ripping adverts out of magazines before sitting down to read them. I vote for billboard bans whenever I can. I have zero tolerance for ads of any sort. Advertisers have no morals, they're comple…

Bless you! In my late 30s, I went serious about getting ads out of my life. I noticed they were propaganda and brainwashing usually with seriously dark undertones. I stopped watching sports and TV, stopped reading news articles, stopped looking at billboard highway signs, etc. I had no idea how much the advertisements controlled how I felt and thought. I wish we could have stricter laws against advertisers. I believe…

wont help much because people are themselves walking ads, always self promoting, constantly mirroring what they are told from somewhere else or by someone else

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#725

Post by yafbum »

Fargren wrote: post #366
_gabe_ wrote: post #313

This is just so funny to me. Google has to have the absolute worst PR for any company I've ever seen to make this happen. Somehow, they've duped the general public (at least on HN) into believing they insert the ads into videos. All they need to do is run a marketing campaign about how as a content creator you get to decide when ads play, whether they're unskippable, and how many ads to place in your video. Blast tha…

I don't think content creators can choose not to have ads in their videos. Creators can turn off monetization, but YouTube can still play ads, they just won't pay the creator. https://www.makeuseof.com/youtube-ads-without-paying-creator... I do agree with your general point. Creators can choose to show less ads, and we should prefer channels that choose to monetize less. EDIT: I'm no longer sure whether YouTube is di…

Many videos feature music that is not free-to-use. Music rightsholders demand their pound of flesh on those regardless of what the creator says. "let's play" videos (where people upload and comment themselves playing) is a gray zone, if only because of the music rights, which can cause ads to show as well.

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#726

Post by yafbum »

_gabe_ wrote: post #313

This is just so funny to me. Google has to have the absolute worst PR for any company I've ever seen to make this happen. Somehow, they've duped the general public (at least on HN) into believing they insert the ads into videos. All they need to do is run a marketing campaign about how as a content creator you get to decide when ads play, whether they're unskippable, and how many ads to place in your video. Blast tha…

Taking flak for ads is part of the service they provide. It'd be pretty stupid of them to throw their content partners under the bus in this way.

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#727

Post by christophilus »

miki123211 wrote: post #324

If you're on iOS, I highly recommend Yattee[1], a free Youtube app with no ads, background playback and sponsor block built-in. The way they get around App Store restrictions is by claiming that they aren't a Youtube app. They're technically a video-watching app which is supposed to be used with your own personal server. The server API they require, however, is supported by Invidious[2], an open-source, privacy-prese…

Brave on iOS is my choice. It also lets you download videos for offline viewing.

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#729

Post by nkrisc »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #226

This doesn't really affect me since I subscribe to premium, but something that a lot of ad-based services don't seem to grasp is why people block ads. It's because they've become increasingly obnoxious. Nobody blocked ads when they were a simple column of links in the gutter or maybe an animated GIF banner with 3 frames. No, adblockers became popular because ads kept getting more loud (both visually and audibly), in…

I block ads because it’s my computer and I’ll choose what data it downloads (in principle).

If publishers don’t like it they can put their content behind a subscription.

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#730

Post by userbinator »

I like how this article is currently right next to the "drink verification can" one. IMHO an adblocker is morally equivalent to changing the channel, muting, or leaving the room while an ad is playing on the actual "tube", and forcing me to consume content should be illegal.
Post reply on HN