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.<p>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.<p>When YouTube won that race, they won it with a given set of parameters, including the kind and amount of ads they show. Society at large has, at that point in the past, basically decided that YouTube's offering is the best, and given this market domineering position.<p>YouTube is increasingly moving away from the parameters of this implicit agreement, in minor ways at first, more now. Had they "competed" in the video platform race with current policies, maybe everyone'd be using Vimeo now.<p>And here's the crux. YouTube can only do this because their old policies allowed them to establish this domineering position, and by doing so are breaking the implicit "deal" that actually allowed them to get into this position.<p>To me, there's currently no alternative to going onto YouTube. And no, I won't pay for YouTube Premium — because that wasn't part of the deal either. The platform won the race as a free platform. So, until Google can figure out how to serve a <i>reasonable</i> amount of <i>safe</i> ads — adblocker it is.
Apart from the Youtube stuff, the post also highlights something else, entitlement towards free services like uBlock origin.<p>> It’s one thing to play cat and mouse with YouTube. It’s quite another to deal with a wave of angry users.<p>> And then one of the moderators actually deleted their Reddit account. “The ID in the post wasn’t updated because my mother was hospitalized,” they said.
It’s sad to see them leave because of some drive-by comments — new users who sign up for Reddit, leave their comments,<p>I have seen this becoming more and more common on open source projects and totally free services, where people act as if they are entitled to something as if it is their god given right. The people doing public services like uBlock origin can only take so much from the mob.
While it has ultimately come up in this discussion my honest input is most of the comments I see here evaded the elephant in the room of all of it which is that Google doesn't do a good enough job of vetting the people who advertise with it, its search engines have repeatedly allowed malware to slip through the cracks leading to people being exploited and nothing stops those same malware developers from serving up ads on YouTube with the self same malware and engaging in malvertisement.<p>"Entitled" came up a lot, but I would have to disagree. Au contraire, YouTube is the one that feels "Entitled" to show me advertisements, even when that feature potentially exposes me to the risk of Malware.
A lot of absurd moralizing here about "you're stealing by not watching ads".<p>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.<p>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!")<p>I feel no moral problem with this, if you do then your priorities are bad, IMO.<p>Edit: as a counter example, ubo doesn't seem to work on Twitch but I have never attempted to find a different solution as it has never run ads worse than the usual "lying about how good a product is" you always get with marketing. Further, I don't see them very often because the channels I watch the most I buy subscriptions.
I use NewPipe on my phone, SmartTubeNext on my Android TV, and uBlock+FF inside of a container without being logged in on my laptop.<p>I was at a friend's house yesterday and they showed me a video on YouTube. I couldn't believe how many ads there were. It was unwatchable. Not sure how people don't pay for premium or block ads. What a miserable experience.
As the dev of a macOS app that breaks all the time because of external hardware, the tone of the article hits close to home. <i>(I’m talking about <a href="https://lunar.fyi/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://lunar.fyi/</a> whose brightness control commands can be blocked by USB-C hubs, “smart” monitors, too long cables etc.)</i><p>I had to disable public GitHub issues on the app repo [1] because people seemed to fuel each other with spiteful comments and “why can’t you just!!” sentences.<p>The contact form still attracts many such “entitled” people and it hurts to wake up to such messages, but at least I can choose to ignore those if I can’t bring anything to the discussion. There’s no peer pressure.<p>These people are expecting too much from a handful of developers who are sharing a lot of free work and time that could have been spent better than hunting new IDs in URLs and updating regular expressions.<p>[1] <a href="https://github.com/alin23/Lunar">https://github.com/alin23/Lunar</a>
This ad block debate makes me think about patio11’s post “The optimal amount of fraud is non zero”. Essentially in trying to make a system as fraud-free as possible you make it too difficult to work with / the cost of fighting fraud is higher than the cost of the fraud.<p>Ads vs Ad Blockers seem to be in that space, but on the cost of customer good will. Can YouTube squeeze more money from ads by doing this? Sure. Is it worth the customer anger? Maybe?<p><a href="https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fraud/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...</a>
Mega thread issue on GitHub tracking this <a href="https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/19976">https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/19976</a><p>Reddit is not and should not be considered a tech support site.
Why, from first principles, should YouTube allow this? Why shouldn’t they go thermonuclear?<p>I understand ads are annoying - I block as many as I can! - but I’ve never seen someone put together a coherent defense of the practice.
Youtube is entitled to the technical shenanigans it uses to force people to watch ads and I am entitled to the technical shenanigans I use to avoid them on my own device.<p>If youtube blocks off access completely, people will stop considering it a reliable video host and another "default" website will take its place.
I am otherwise unGoogled on purpose (Kagi, Fastmail, Apple Maps, etc.) and YouTube Premium is some of the best money I spend on a monthly basis, especially because of family usage and plan. YouTube Music has been a surprisingly excellent throw-in as well, and I often end up using it more than Apple Music because it's so easy to browser-search with an Alfred shortcut. I want to support creators, and cannot personally wrap my head around western IT folks deeming it worthwhile to either spend time watching ads or trying to evade them.
At a technical level, what prevents Google from deploying unblockable ads on YouTube? I’m honestly surprised adblockers are able to block YouTube at all.<p>The easiest way to prevent an adblocker from blocking is to make ads and real content indistinguishable in frontend code and network requests. Tie ads and real content together in a way that if you block ads, the video also doesn’t load.<p>Or in the case of video ads, you could stream the ad as part of the video itself instead of a separate pre roll.<p>If I had a billion dollars of revenue on the line, I’m pretty sure I’d be able to make the YouTube player serve ads in a way that evades adblockers. The fact that they haven’t been able to do this makes me think I’m underestimating the difficulty of the problem.
YouTube is at the breaking point for me this week. Apparently I was tested with the optional popup that I needed to remove my adblocker or else. I refused now they don't bother with the popup and just display a message on the video itself and block me because of my adblocker. Literally a few minutes ago I tried to reply to a comment on my phone (that doesn't have adblockers) and every ad would cause what I typed to disappear while I was typing so I had to make sure to only comment after like 3 ads ran first. But I got so frustrated with it I left halfway through the video. Google is known for having bad service with useless customer support so why would I want to pay for service I know will continue to get worse no matter what? There is no reward for trying to maintain what I had. Are there no other means then a subscription to bring back what I once had for free? Why not invent something instead of ruining my feeds and forcing dumb shorts everywhere that are worse then tiktok? I am happy to pay it's competition for service.
YouTube will "lose" the war, but they'll make adblocking difficult enough for a while that it might get some premium subscribers in the short term in exchange for the loss of goodwill.
Sad to see this because Google won't let me pay for Premium—it is not available in most of the countries I've lived in for the last few years. I wish I could pay for the right for my kids to not see ads, but Google won't let me. It's terrible when a relaxing piano video gets interrupted by some loud, materialistic ad and my kids can't take their eyes off it.
I'd feel more guilty adblocking Youtube if I was certain a fair share the advertising money was going to the creators producing the content. But from their own testimonies, Youtube keeps demonetizing videos for absurd reasons, or allows bad actors to file false copyright claims and outright steal their revenue.<p>It's gotten to the point where I've seen a couple creators give up on the Youtube monetization and go "I don't care, use Adblock, I make my money on sponsorships anyway". There's also been a rise in popularity of creator-owned platforms like Floatplane and Nebula.
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 maximize profits for all sides? It still feels like ads at this point are aimed deliberately to annoy me.
If YouTube provides a service that removes ads ONLY for $4.99/month, they would already have my money. However they have to bundle it with YouTube Music and other stuff into "Premium", then never mind.
My main issue with YouTube, being a paying customer, it's that they still try to shove trash down your throat like cringe shorts or stupid bullshit news.<p>I still think there's some shady monetization going regarding their recomedation system as well, where the "algorithm" will recommend shit that has nothing to do with the content you watch
I use uBO for many years now and from time to time I wondered why YouTube worked so well even without the ads. Knowing how much effort is being put into this, explains a lot.<p>I absolutely love this extension and every time I come across a browser without it, I am horrified what the normal web is like today. Thanks a lot for providing everyone with a very good chance to experience a much better web.
The argument for the morality of adblockers, in my opinion, begins and ends with the idea that, were the adblocker something you could insert in your brain directly, you would clearly have the right to do so, and also clearly have the right not to disclose this to google.<p>Google gets paid by advertisers to go fishing. They bait the hooks. I don't think it is reasonable to complain that the fish eat the bait and not the hooks.<p>Maybe it's not good for their business model, but I don't understand why the fish has any duty to the fisherman. You want me to pay for this content? Great, let's settle on a price that doesn't involve your dominant market position first. What do you think you could charge <i>everyone</i> without losing your moat? That seems like a price I'm much more willing to pay.
Just to summarize: I have nothing against marketing/ads as long as it is responsible, treats me with respect, as a human being, and does not break local laws.<p>I have multiple problems with YouTube ads and online ads in general.
It seems, to me, that there are severe flaws in online advertisement regulations or it's just extremely hard to enforce.<p>One can compare the regulations and what responsibilities advertisers have for ads in other media vs. online ads.<p>Here are some of the reasons why I have problems with YouTube ads:<p>1. Online ads are often scummy, marketing some pyramid scheme, plainly lying with fake videos/screenshots, breaking my country's laws (probably, hard to verify) or, in the case of some web ads, contain malware.<p>2. YouTube takes no responsibility for what is shown to me or on which videos (for example, showing political propaganda from "ultra right" as ads).<p>3. The amount of online ads per minute of video is often obscene, even if you can skip some of them.<p>4. Ads volume is through the roof - this is intentional.<p>5. (off-topic) Zero protection from YouTube against abuse of copyright strikes.<p>6. (off-topic) YouTube takes no responsibility for their recommendation algorithms and yet wants to make money on all videos, regardless of the topic. I think such behaviour is irresponsible for such a big corporation as Alphabet.<p>Edit:
To summarize: please treat me with respect and I'll watch your ads.
I wouldn't mind subscribing to YouTube Premium. I use YouTube a crap ton, and every time I hear a creator weigh in on the matter, they claim that subscribers that use YTP earn them way more than 100s of ad views. This could potentially solve my problem with patron, where I just don't have the monthly budget to support everyone directly. A fixed donation that's divided up between everyone I watched that month sounds like a good alternative to those who don't make the cut for my patron budget.<p>However, I hate how they price YTP. Why is everyone so allergic to options/add-ons with subscriptions? Ideally, I just want to pay for two seat license to YTP+Music, so my wife and I can consolidate our Spotify duo plan with YTP. Failing that, I would love to pay for just YTP without Youtube music and keep Spotify. Under the current model I would have to either pay for two separate full price subscriptions for $28, or for less money, get the family plan and have 3 extra licenses I don't need. I could sublet them to friends or other family, but I don't want to mix our accounts together, and I shouldn't have to be a mini-landlord because Google won't do $14/m + $2.5/m per seat.
I've been wondering, how much does the average YouTube viewer generate in revenue by watching ads? $0.1 a month? $0.25? $0.5 if avid viewer?
Given that I'm not an avid viewer and I do not care at all for YouTube Music, I just find the monthly cost of YouTube Premium too high.
I don't know what the right price should be, but by comparing with other digital subscriptions I have, I think I would be OK with paying something like $5 a month.
It could be like a lighter version of Premium. Just ad-free and none of the other "benefits".
Let's consider other options. What about:<p>- Select "Watch ads later" a few times, until required, so time sensitive situations aren't bothered<p>- Choose "Watch 1 long ad, then no more today" and pay the piper all at once with a couple minutes of ads.<p>- Only relevant ads! When I worked at [video game news co], video game content got video game ads. The now defunct Grooveshark's ads were bands showcasing their music and upcoming shows.<p>And doesn't this Youtube ads issue seem like Google is getting desperate for ad revenue? Like they have a lever and they're pulling it to 100% now.
>> Maybe that’s how YouTube will win this war of attrition.<p>YouTube will win because they are financially incentivised to so so. UBO and other free blockers will fail because there is so much downside, and no upside.<p>Wars are always won by those with the most resources, whether it is money or people or both.<p>I say this not to gloat (I'm no fan of google) but rather because it can be useful to understand both the goals, and where the goals are leading to.<p>I know HN doesn't appreciate some truths being spoken, and I imagine I'll be down-voted, but YouTube is paid for by advertisers. Content creators are paid by adverts (and embedded sponsors.)<p>Yes we all want our entertainment for free. Yes we done want ads. Yes we dont want to pay for our content (or our software.) I get that, I really do.<p>But content creators need to eat. Someone has to pay for the bandwidth. Since I'm not chipping in, I appreciate advertisers doing so.<p>Personally, and this is not a recommendation, or a judgement, I don't use an ad blocker. I'd there are too many ads I stop visiting a site. For the rest, including YT, I understand what I get and I understand what I give. I get this is not the popular HN position. Each sees this his own way.
I feel like if you're the type of person to download uBlock and set specific filters you're the type of person to never click on an ad on purpose.<p>I don't understand why Youtube is doing this, wouldn't it make their numbers look better if the people that won't click ads never have them delivered to them (5% of users clicked on ads vs 1% of users clicked on ads)
I.try to search for videos on a peertube instance first. Not much is there, but I want the few who put content there to be rewarded with my eyeballs. More video is uploaded someplace than there is time. Even if we restrict ourself to great content you can't watch it all (most are also looking for a subject they are interested in which keeps things manageable)
I use youtube in Firefox via a dedicated container, I wish that I can specify ublock rules by container because I have to disable most of rules to avoid adblock detection of youtube. I don't know what it is possible except creating a specific profile for YouTube which is annoying.
I wonder why Youtube does not try other kinds of ads.why not ads in the sidebar, under the videos etc. They know which products and keywords are mentioned, and sometimes i google them anyway. Why do they insist on silly clickbait ads that are much worse than old-time TV ads. I don't want that because i don't like people wasting my time beyond a few hundred milliseconds. They d probably have made more money if they showed me banner ads instead of trying to make me stop using blockers<p>I guess it's because they want to sell "video inventory" to their advertisers. But why really? They own both the demand and the supply of advertising and they can 'convince' advertisers to use banners instead of videos. Why not be a good monopoly ?
I run ad-blockers because most of the internet becomes unusable without them and I'd rather focus on education and interesting things. If that ceases to be the case, I'll cease using the internet and go to my local library. There's no scenario where I'll watch ad's on youtube. The internet is just not structured for money making unless its a paid service. Advertisers are the aberration here. They're wasting their and others' time and contributing to global warming unnecessarily. Maybe if people had more critical thinking skills they would see what a burden advertising/marketing/propaganda is on their time and how often they become biased by it - in one form or another.
I’m totally surprised that the users who don’t want to pay for youtube premium and who don’t want to pay their fair share through ads are also the entitled type who harass the adblock devs expecting instant service for free.
Not sure this is the best topic to ask this.<p>This is not a domain I am knowledgeable about but : if Youtube detects (somehow) when an ad is blocked , why don't adblockers become "adfastworwarders" ?<p>I am using a bookmarklet to play Youtube videos faster & I noticed the videos are also played at the same speed. Couldn't "adfastworwarders" detect the start of an ad & like play it at x10 or x20? It would still create a tiny "cut" in the watching experience but perhaps a way to skip ads ?<p>Any reason this cannot be a path for adblockers?
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.<p>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.
Fucking hell, if you don't like ads then just don't use YouTube.<p>Everyone bitches about this sort of stuff and then refuses to boycott.<p>Look at the fucking shitshow Twitter has become under ol Musky...and have people left? Yeah, some for sure, but not very many at all.<p>The problem isn't just these companies, we can't act like the problem isn't us as well.<p>Pay for their services, or stop using them. If enough people did this simple thing, they'd have to react to it. Twitter would already be dead if everyone had _actually_ left.
> entitlement towards free services like uBlock origin.<p>To be fair uBlock origin users feel entitled to use YouTube, an extremely expensive operation to run, without giving anything in return.<p>I say this as someone who uses Privacy Badger and uBlock Origin. Websites are nigh unusable without ad block. But as far as ads go YouTube is far and away one of the least offensive imho.<p>If you don’t like ads you could choose to pay for YouTube Premium or simply not use the service. Demanding to use the service for free is rather entitled.
Ads are the unfortunate trade off we make to keep things free. I hate ads. I hate the idea of ads. Tailored propaganda to manipulate you into purchasing product just sounds awful… especially when it’s targeted at children (a demographic where advertising is especially effective).<p>I think YouTube’s current system is a fair deal. You either watch the content and pay by watching ads, or you pay by purchasing YouTube premium. If you don’t want to pay, and you don’t want to watch ads: leave.
“Open source software is not about you”<p>Related article <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18538123">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18538123</a><p>>As a user of something open source you are not thereby entitled to anything at all. You are not entitled to contribute. You are not entitled to features. You are not entitled to the attention of others. You are not entitled to having value attached to your complaints. You are not entitled to this explanation.
This all seems over-complicated.<p>Why not just use fadblock?<p><a href="https://github.com/0x48piraj/fadblock">https://github.com/0x48piraj/fadblock</a><p>It doesn't need to be updated in this cat and mouse game. it just skips the ads in milliseconds and you don't even notice them.
A lot of the HN comments are about YouTube, but this article is really about how toxic the internet technology enthusiast community can be. The uBO volunteer teams are trying their best to give people the tools and information they want, but they’re becoming the outlet for people’s anger instead.<p>The part about people failing to follow instructions but then taking the time to complain about the instructions not working hits home for me. My limited experience being on the front lines of a much less popular project was marked by similar experiences: Many of the people who took the time to make accounts and participate in online forums seemingly had all the time in the world to complain about us, but couldn’t be bothered to read basic instructions. In many cases people would write pages of complaints about us and rant on social media about how awful we were before they’d even try contacting support.<p>Not everyone is awful like this. It’s actually only a small number of people. However, it doesn’t take many people to make forums and social media into completely toxic places for a subject. The first impression for anyone coming to Reddit or other places for support might be that it’s a dumpster fire, even though it could be as few as 20 in a vocal, toxic minority setting the tone.<p>The internet is a weird place. The demographic of users who complain that the volunteer support staff for their free ad blocker which lets them avoid watching ads on their free website being toxic is not at all surprising to me.
My solution seems ethically valid: I watch the majority of YT videos on a browser with adblocks turned off, but if it's a long technical video I'm trying to learn something from, then I use a full adblock setup on a different browser because the advertising interruptions make concentration impossible.<p>I suppose if I was rolling in money I'd just pay for premium - though I'm sure all that data would also be fed into their user-marketing-optimization database and sold on to whoever, which I also dislike.
For tech capable people following a few channels and nothing else, here’s another option.<p>Set up and use podsync. It uses your free API credits to monitor YouTube content and downloads them for you. Then just use any simple web server to share the static files and import the “channel” using your favorite Podcast player.<p>End result, you have YouTube ad-free in your podcast app, with notifications (per channel) for new episodes and likely some offline caching.<p>While this is my top favorite way to watch YT, I also support my channels directly through Patreon.
Youtube, I don't want Youtube Music or Youtube Shitnuggets. Give me a plan where I pay 5€ a month just to watch youtube with no fucking ads. Is that not enough ?
By the way I haven't seen a single ad on Youtube in a year because of sanctions. Do not need an adblocker. Wish other ad platforms would comply with sanctions too.
I use an ad blocker but I'm not entitled. If YouTube decides to stop me from using it I'll either pay for Premium or stop watching YouTube. I don't think I have any right to watch it for free without paying if they don't want to allow that.<p>It's hard to know if in the long run they will start requiring subscriptions, develop better anti-blocker tech, or just give up and eat the loss. But somehow I wouldn't bet on #3.
Just embed the ads in the video stream at upload time. I might be inclined to not fast forward if they're short enough and entertaining.<p>I will always use an ad blocker otherwise, because the main thing I'm protecting against is tracking. Similarly, I don't mind the old school static ads some blogs and websites still use but I will go out of my way to block all dynamic ads for the same reason (tracking).
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.<p>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 have not seen youtube's warning on iphone safari (not logged in, firefox focus and 1blocker legacy content blockers)<p>but that could be because i am using vinegar[0] to replace youtube's player with a <video> tag<p>0. <a href="https://andadinosaur.com/launch-vinegar" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://andadinosaur.com/launch-vinegar</a>
"YouTube isn't rolling out the anti-adblock to everyone. It seems to depend on things like your account, browser, and IP address. And if you're not logged in or you're in a private window, you're safe."<p>If I am not mistaken one also needs to have Javascript enabled.<p>"And... if you're not logged in, you're safe."
I would have expected for youtube to splice the ads directly into the video stream ages ago. Combined with some stream throttling it'd make it almost impossible to skip (or at least waiting for the ad to be over).<p>Any reason why this hasn't been done so far?
I watch ads on YouTube mobile app because there in no way to block ads over there but why the hell YouTube and Google want me to watch ads on a desktop YouTube?! Doesn't majority of Google's and YouTube's ad revenue come from mobile?
It would not be a problem if YouTube and other platforms would serve us ADs that are not annoying but they are sharing everything everywhere. I'm marketing guy by profession and I'm creating Ads, but I still use adBlockers.
I guess I fall in the minority camp here, that I don't mind paying for YouTube to not see ads. I think they've earned it, the creators earned it, but I still use Sponsorblock to block most other ads on Youtube.
Lots of talk.<p>I just wish people with free time could gather together and build a completely distributed Google (YouTube, Search etc.)
* On top of Freenet 2023
* As performant as Google
* Funding the project by ads. Yes, you need it.
Reddit shouldn't be considered as a tech support site. As most of the drama happens there. GitHub issues might have less drama as compared to that. Just avoid reddit at all costs for your peace of mind.
Here's what I do, I use Brave for YouTube and another browser for everything else. Brave apparently bocks the ads and they don't get to spy on me anywhere else but their own site.
Look, just say you’re a cheapskate if you use Adblock and don’t pay for Premium. Just say “I want to get something for nothing”. There are people that refuse to tip because they think the tipping system in the US is immoral. No, they’re just cheap. People are here writing tomes on why they don’t want to pay with attention or $$$ when they’re really just cheap.<p>Edit: Look if you’re going to downvote, at least provide a coherent rebuttal. K8sToGo already failed in that regard with this gem: “Well since you are not cheap you can just buy premium for all of us. Thanks in advance.”
Some interesting information in that article about youtube blocking people with privacy plugins. So it seems you need to wave your state given privacy rights to to use youtube.<p>Even after disabling my only adblocker, Youtube seems to partally load, then break for long periods. I don't even have any extra privacy plugins installed, but I do use Brave browser, that does have some privacy settings built in. If I try to open in private mode, the video loads fine.
Maybe a minority opinion, but I believe uBlock just needs to stop trying.<p>Let Youtube "win" and further sink into garbage heap and become more irrelevant. The more ads Youtube shows, the less useful and relevant it becomes.<p>Sure, I mean, maybe Youtube always exists and always makes money, but its origins are practically lost at this point.
There is an adblocker for Youtube. It's called Youtube Premium for $13.99 a month. Youtube is a business pure and simple. You either pay with your attention/time (ads) or cash money. I think its hard for people to realize they are like any other streaming service like Netflix, Disney+ or Hulu.
Jesus Christ, some people are so entitled.<p>I want YouTube to be free!
I want my YouTube ad free!
I want my adblocker free!
I want support and devs for my free adblocker to be on top of everything and to make sure I never have to watch an ad and never pay a dime on the Internet!
Not sure if it's AdNauseam or BypassPaywalls (which does prevent you from seeing your logged in algorithmic recommendations), but I'm not getting ads or bothered anymore. I was, using Brave, with or without uBlock Origin turned on.<p>Hopefully this brings more creators over to Rumble, Bitchute, and/or Odysee though -- it's about time YouTube gets ditched en masse, and not just for the fringe content.
Holy moley the ads. This latest campaign finally convinced me to turn off the adblockers on youtube and goodness Foxnews emergency rations and buygold are the ads utter contemptable garbage. Obvious scams, get rich quick schemes, Trump political ads....please for all that is holy get that shit off of my screen.<p>I'd even be willing to watch a blank screen for the length of the ads if I didn't have to see this trash.
I don't think "Ads" is the right term. There's a lot of fraud, misinformation and and <i>targeted</i> political propaganda peddled by YT as "ads".<p>I do wonder what the right term for those videos are, but it ain't "ads".
With great need for revenue comes great foolishness. Like the idea you could squeeze the 1% of the population who could, if hostile, easily undo all your drm defenses in a bang and help the rest of the population to do that too. Another unity moment, created by well incentivized management.