Earlier quoted context omitted.
uBlock Origin is literally free
The cost is you have to give another party total access to all of your data on all sites.
What? You download a blocklist. What gets sent back to ublock?
YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers
951–960 of 1001 posts
Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers
#952Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers
#953To be fair, YT Premium is one of the few subscriptions I think is a no-brainer and good value for money. Sometimes when I've forgotten to log in and see what it's like without, it's amazing anyone can watch videos on there. Like a lot of people I've generally been OK to watch ads in exchange for free content but it seems over the years instead of ads getting better and/or more relevant to my interests (even broadly),…
> To be fair, YT Premium is one of the few subscriptions I think is a no-brainer and good value for money. I cannot think of any subscription that offers literally no upside beside what a free browser extension that you install in 1 click already provides. Youtube Premium is literally the worst value for money that I can think of, because I can get effortlessly the same for 0 cost.
This is what we want, though, right? The alternatives would be a paywall, or charge per view. (Or, I guess, pay to "own", like a Kindle ebook, but seems like a mismatch for most of their content.)
Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers
#954Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To be fair, YT Premium is one of the few subscriptions I think is a no-brainer and good value for money. I cannot think of any subscription that offers literally no upside beside what a free browser extension that you install in 1 click already provides. Youtube Premium is literally the worst value for money that I can think of, because I can get effortlessly the same for 0 cost.
In Google/YouTube's defense, this mentality is why we can't have nice things. You think it's cheap to host the content YouTube does? Paying for premium to remove ads is a way of saying "Thank you for providing me this service, instead of displaying me irrelevant ads, just take my money"
It's also worth noting that creators get paid more for YT Premium views than ad-based views. YouTube, for all its problems, has far better revenue-sharing than pretty much any other "user generate content" platform.
Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers
#955I think they’ve been testing this for a while. Noticed a couple of ads slipping through uBlock on Mac Safari a few months back. Haven’t seen it happen recently, though. Personally I don’t mind a few ads, but the volume of them was just getting completely out of control for a while there on YouTube. It’s what prompted me to finally install an ad blocker!!
Why not yt premium? The added benefit of paying is that you won't see ads on your phone or TV.
Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers
#956They will try and fail. The solution that will be left...is one that many will not like, especially if your personal and/or work email is on Google.
Inserting ads directly into the video stream doesn't seem to be counterable, no? It's not cheap, but might be worth it.
Sponsorblock can already block the youtuber's own ads where they tell you how great raid shadow legends is and to like and subscribe.
Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers
#957Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that they have the largest analytics platform, they should be able to fairly easily see that sites that employ adblocker blockers suffer very high bounce rates for visits coming from search. Personally, I would absolutely stop going to youtube if they tried to block me from visiting while my adblocker is active.
Exactly, they should want those people to bounce and not come back.
What if a competitor decides to serve these customers?
What if that is enough customers for that competitor to build a product good enough to also attract the people Google wants to keep?
Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers
#958Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the old saying goes, good ideas shouldn't require force. If they have a "no-brainer" offering, no need to strong-arm people into using it, right? I get it that they are not a charity and can monetize or paywall their platforms as seen fit, but there's something just sad about the model where you build a customer-friendly and open platform, then progressively crapify it once you capture a niche and eliminate most a…
Pretty much all big tech companies figured out this is the recipe for infinite money Only Microsoft seems to be aware this causes Dutch Disease, min-maxing your monopolistic platform revenue is terrible long-term for you company
Google is pretty far from maximizing their monopolistic platform
What about selling your gmail data? Selling your search queries directly to third parties? Forcing your maps navigations to route near advertisers?
Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers
#959Is it weird that this makes me want to subscribe to YouTube premium less than before? Feels like I've been poised to give them money for a while, since so many people seem to like the service. Now I feel like they're challenging me to a duel.
I mean, either way, Youtube comes out ahead. If you're blocking all their ads and not paying a sub, you're just a cost. They're cutting you. What I don't understand is why you feel entitled to benefit from this resource without supporting it in any way.
I think you are missing the point that Youtube chose to provide this service the way it is, and we are using it as they want.
Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers
#960Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What is the best way to detect if a user has enabled uBlock or Adblock? 1. Don't. 2. If the user blocks your advertisements, then the user doesn't want them. You should respect the user's desires. 3. If the user blocks your scripts, then the user doesn't want them. You should respect the user's desires. 4. If your site breaks because of things, then your site sucks. You should build your site to fail gracefully.
On the flip side: It's their site, they pay for the resources, provide the work, if they want to block people who block their ads, they have that right. You are not entitled to my website because I put it up.
> It's their site, they pay for the resources, provide the work, if they want to block people who block their ads, they have that right.
> You are not entitled to my website because I put it up.
Yup, I absolutely agree. But if you want people to pay for your site, then you must force users to log in to use your content.
If you put your site up without a login portal then your site is free. Advertisements sent to anonymous users are not a valid option: they are easily gamed, easily abused, and easily contain malicious content. If you want to serve advertisements, that's your business, but do it to users who have clearly opted into it.
If users don't want that then they won't sign up to your site. It's a win-win on both sides.