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

Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

vancedapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 360 posts

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#81

Post by leetcrew »

wbobeirne wrote: post #18

Asking this question in good faith and in the interest of a productive discussion: Can someone give me their reasoning for why to use this over just paying for YouTube premium? They're providing a service that you value and spend enough time on to warrant looking for a way to not have to view ads, and if everyone were to start using Vanced overnight, YouTube wouldn't be able to justify staying up indefinitely. It fee…

> if everyone were to start using Vanced overnight, YouTube wouldn't be able to justify staying up indefinitely.

I personally find categorical imperative arguments to be ridiculous. almost anything could be bad if everyone did them all the time.

the reality is that adblocking, torrenting, and similar workarounds are used by a small subset of technically savvy users. most people just don't care enough to configure any of these tools (or even switch to a browser where they are on by default!). Google is not going to run out of ad revenue any time soon.

I don't feel any obligation to allow Google to use my own device and internet connection to serve me ad content that I don't wish to see. Google doesn't seem to care very much either; the most they do is reorganize APIs every so often to break these kinds of workarounds. I'm not sure that's even intentional tbh. content creators have reacted by embedding ads in the content itself. this is usually more tolerable than the preroll ads, so I don't really mind.

I do agree there is a cost to adblocking and torrenting, but it's not the one you identified. when I pay for content or view associated ads, I am voting for more of that type of content to exist in the future. when I don't pay or block ads, I am throwing away my vote. for most throwaway content, I don't really care. but I find a way to pay for stuff I do care about, or at least disable adblock while I'm consuming it.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#82

Post by Teever »

endisneigh wrote: post #45
wand3r wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont use vanced but I am looking into it. Allegedly vanced has an iOS alternative. My reasoning is that Google is disgusting and has created a defacto monopoly. There is no way to outcompete a free product at scale so there basically can’t be an alternative. So I obviously use video and that means I use youtube. I dont want to support google, never want to see an ad and I honestly don’t care about the creator. If i…

> I honestly don’t care about the creator. At least you’re honest

A very important life rule is to never, ever care about someone more than they care about you.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#83

Post by kelnos »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #24
wbobeirne wrote: post #18

Asking this question in good faith and in the interest of a productive discussion: Can someone give me their reasoning for why to use this over just paying for YouTube premium? They're providing a service that you value and spend enough time on to warrant looking for a way to not have to view ads, and if everyone were to start using Vanced overnight, YouTube wouldn't be able to justify staying up indefinitely. It fee…

I feel content on the internet was free for so long, people just feel entitled to it. Now everyone is anti-ad, with most not being able to support an argument as to why targeted ads are bad (like any human at Google cares how user 1839028934 watches vtubers for 8 hours a day), but they still feel entitled to consume content for free.

I believe all advertising is emotional and mental manipulation, and I feel it is unethical to subject people to that.

Targeted ads are a) that same manipulation but on steroids, and b) the result of privacy-damaging, pervasive, surveillance capitalism. I am against these things as a matter of principle.

For the record, I do pay for YouTube Premium, as well as the ad-free Hulu plan (rather than the ad-supported plan), etc. If I am given the option to pay to remove ads, for a price I consider reasonable based on the value I get, I will pay it. Most websites, however, either do not present this option at all, or require something ridiculous like a $20/mo subscription when the perceived value I get from it is an order of magnitude lower.

I recently clicked a link to an article at The Guardian, and, in their bid for donations, told me that this was the 18th article I've read in the past year. I wish more sites would do this, but I believe that my consumption of any particular news source is similar to that. I am certainly not going to pay for a double-digit monthly subscription for any site where I read just 2 (or even 5 or 10) articles per month; that does not feel like a fair exchange to me. I would be fine paying for articles a la carte (say, 5 or 10 cents each), but of course micropayments seems to be a dead concept these days (for reasons I understand and sympathize with).

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#85

Post by notum »

endisneigh wrote: post #74
JSavageOne wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best way to support creators actually is to support them directly. Youtube takes half the ad revenue, and ad revenue generally doesn't pay much anyways.

If this were actually true creators would have paywalls. Fact of the matter is that YouTube and the visibility benefits the average creator tremendously. Only once you’re super popular like joe Rogan are you in a position to do better by yourself.

This is true and creators use the system because it's the best exposure to profit ratio offered at the moment.

One fact does not nullify the other. I'm still allowed to hate ads while I support content creators.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#86

Post by shaky-carrousel »

wand3r wrote: post #35
wbobeirne wrote: post #18

Asking this question in good faith and in the interest of a productive discussion: Can someone give me their reasoning for why to use this over just paying for YouTube premium? They're providing a service that you value and spend enough time on to warrant looking for a way to not have to view ads, and if everyone were to start using Vanced overnight, YouTube wouldn't be able to justify staying up indefinitely. It fee…

I dont use vanced but I am looking into it. Allegedly vanced has an iOS alternative. My reasoning is that Google is disgusting and has created a defacto monopoly. There is no way to outcompete a free product at scale so there basically can’t be an alternative. So I obviously use video and that means I use youtube. I dont want to support google, never want to see an ad and I honestly don’t care about the creator. If i…

I use Musi with YouTube. With it, I can play videos in the background, and there are no ads in the video. There are in the app itself, but pihole takes care of that.

I also use Hyperweb, so all YouTube links in safari open in Musi automatically.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#88

Post by DetroitThrow »

leetcrew wrote: post #81
wbobeirne wrote: post #18

Asking this question in good faith and in the interest of a productive discussion: Can someone give me their reasoning for why to use this over just paying for YouTube premium? They're providing a service that you value and spend enough time on to warrant looking for a way to not have to view ads, and if everyone were to start using Vanced overnight, YouTube wouldn't be able to justify staying up indefinitely. It fee…

> if everyone were to start using Vanced overnight, YouTube wouldn't be able to justify staying up indefinitely. I personally find categorical imperative arguments to be ridiculous. almost anything could be bad if everyone did them all the time. the reality is that adblocking, torrenting, and similar workarounds are used by a small subset of technically savvy users. most people just don't care enough to configure any…

>I personally find categorical imperative arguments to be ridiculous. almost anything could be bad if everyone did them all the time.

Btw..... This is in good faith but...... If everyone started using electric cars at once, the traffic jam would be unimaginable!!!! To me, individuals aren't thinking of the negative externalities :(( (especially to private oil monopolies)

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#89

Post by lordleft »

wbobeirne wrote: post #18

Asking this question in good faith and in the interest of a productive discussion: Can someone give me their reasoning for why to use this over just paying for YouTube premium? They're providing a service that you value and spend enough time on to warrant looking for a way to not have to view ads, and if everyone were to start using Vanced overnight, YouTube wouldn't be able to justify staying up indefinitely. It fee…

Totally agree with this. If you're going to block yt ads, at least acknowledge that you're expecting content for free. Maybe you can find a way to ethically justify that for yourself (you buy merch from the company, etc), but own your choice. Don't flee into elaborate rationalizations that deny the facts of the matter.

Linus from LTT recently raised this point.

Re: Vanced: YouTube adblocker for Android

#90

Post by k12sosse »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #24
wbobeirne wrote: post #18

Asking this question in good faith and in the interest of a productive discussion: Can someone give me their reasoning for why to use this over just paying for YouTube premium? They're providing a service that you value and spend enough time on to warrant looking for a way to not have to view ads, and if everyone were to start using Vanced overnight, YouTube wouldn't be able to justify staying up indefinitely. It fee…

I feel content on the internet was free for so long, people just feel entitled to it. Now everyone is anti-ad, with most not being able to support an argument as to why targeted ads are bad (like any human at Google cares how user 1839028934 watches vtubers for 8 hours a day), but they still feel entitled to consume content for free.

It's weird that people just think because it's available over the Internet it should be free because "this isn't how it worked in 1993".

Would love to see what would happen if YouTube went behind a paywall - even a low figure like $1.99 a month to view anything at all.

How would this change consumption habits, how would this change producing habits.

Post reply on HN