ReVanced(github.com)
github.com
ReVanced
https://github.com/ReVancedTeam
247 comments
It also restored the dislike button and added support for sponsorblock (which can automatically skip sponsor segments, as well as intros, outros, "like and subscribe" reminders, non-music sections of music videos, and other fluff.)
The name comes from it being an "advanced" YouTube app, only without any "ad"s ;)
Oh, and you could disable the comments section!
All-in-all, it just made YouTube a much better experience.
The name comes from it being an "advanced" YouTube app, only without any "ad"s ;)
Oh, and you could disable the comments section!
All-in-all, it just made YouTube a much better experience.
>It also restored the dislike button
As a useless button to click? I would assume youtube removed the actual functionality in the backend so what's the point of the button?
As a useless button to click? I would assume youtube removed the actual functionality in the backend so what's the point of the button?
It uses an alternative backend where videos pre-removal had their dislike counters archived, and anything post-removal uses dislike data from users with the extension to crowdsource a likely dislike counter.
(in theory, if 5% of viewers of a video are people that have the extension, and only 10% of those viewers hit the dislike button, chances are that's a good sample size to assume that this video should have a 10% dislike ratio, but in practice it's probably a bit more complicated/weighted)
(in theory, if 5% of viewers of a video are people that have the extension, and only 10% of those viewers hit the dislike button, chances are that's a good sample size to assume that this video should have a 10% dislike ratio, but in practice it's probably a bit more complicated/weighted)
outadoc(6)
I think it used an alternate backend, possibly https://returnyoutubedislike.com/
Yes, it is that one.
YouTube still has a dislike button. They just don't show you the number of dislikes anymore.
[deleted]
Oh wow, I just assumed it was made by a guy called Vance.
Bob Vance from Vance Refrigeration /s
I know I would find a comment like this! Love you guys
sometimes the flowers arrange themselves, Jim.
I think my positive perception of self named software dates back to Irfanview.
I've been using it since 1998, never felt the need to change to anything else.
I've been using it since 1998, never felt the need to change to anything else.
ACDSee and XnView were also big players at the time. I also faintly remember one with a panda in its logo, but can't tell what it was...
> Apparently Vanced was a patched YouTube app
This is the part I missed in the original conversations.
If you redistribute a modified version of a company’s app, it’s going to be taken down. You can’t distribute another company’s work as your own.
The difference here appears to be that it’s a patcher, so they’re not distributing the proprietary app. Theoretically more robust against takedowns, but it also significantly limits the audience of who can go through all of the steps to do it.
I expect the real outcome is going to be a game of whack-a-mole as random people try to patch and distribute the app under different names. This isn’t actually a great situation because it sets an expectation among users that the app will always be changing names and distributors. Hackers love these situations because the door is now wide open for them to insert malicious code into a version and distribute it as the latest Revanced. Not good.
This is the part I missed in the original conversations.
If you redistribute a modified version of a company’s app, it’s going to be taken down. You can’t distribute another company’s work as your own.
The difference here appears to be that it’s a patcher, so they’re not distributing the proprietary app. Theoretically more robust against takedowns, but it also significantly limits the audience of who can go through all of the steps to do it.
I expect the real outcome is going to be a game of whack-a-mole as random people try to patch and distribute the app under different names. This isn’t actually a great situation because it sets an expectation among users that the app will always be changing names and distributors. Hackers love these situations because the door is now wide open for them to insert malicious code into a version and distribute it as the latest Revanced. Not good.
Vanced didn't redistribute a modified version of the Youtube app, they distributed a "manager" app which downloaded the official app's APKs and applied the patches at runtime. (edit: actually, I'm not 100% sure of that, since I've always used a rooted version which does apply patches at runtime, but I'm unsure about non-rooted.)
They were taken down for using a similar enough logo to Youtube that Google lawyered them into stopping that way, not for any kind of infringement in terms of software.
They were taken down for using a similar enough logo to Youtube that Google lawyered them into stopping that way, not for any kind of infringement in terms of software.
> They were taken down for using a similar enough logo to Youtube that Google lawyered them into stopping that way, not for any kind of infringement in terms of software.
Is there a source for this? Seems like they could have just changed the logo if that was the case, no?
Is there a source for this? Seems like they could have just changed the logo if that was the case, no?
It does seem that way but it is the official motivation from the creators.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30747352
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30747352
> I expect the real outcome is going to be a game of whack-a-mole as random people try to patch and distribute the app under different names.
From their github org and an faq (I can't remember where I saw it), it seems they're planning on patching the YouTube app on your device, unlike what Vanced did.
And yes, it will be a game of whack-a-mole but since you can download individual versions of apps and only update when you want, I believe breakage will be quite limited.
From their github org and an faq (I can't remember where I saw it), it seems they're planning on patching the YouTube app on your device, unlike what Vanced did.
And yes, it will be a game of whack-a-mole but since you can download individual versions of apps and only update when you want, I believe breakage will be quite limited.
best part of vanced was the ability to background youtube so you can listen to music with the screen being locked
BTW, Firefox on mobile lets you do that as well.
Firefox for Android also supports uBlock Origin
..but, unfortunately doesn't have text-reflow.
Yandex Browser has text-reflow and used to support uBlock Origin [and other extensions] too. Now it no longer supports installing uBO. So Android currently has two browsers, each of which is half useful!
Yandex Browser has text-reflow and used to support uBlock Origin [and other extensions] too. Now it no longer supports installing uBO. So Android currently has two browsers, each of which is half useful!
Note that Yandex is a Russian company and as such carries significant risks.
You are not wrong but the same can be said for PRC and USA companies. Mentioning that every time the products and services of these three countries are mentioned is not interesting.
New pipe will do that too. Or just watching the video in the phone browser.
It doesn't work in android chrome, I just tried. It does work in Firefox though.
Or you know, paying a few bucks for the music via Premium subscription.
>Or you know, paying a few bucks for the music via Premium subscription.
Or you know, not lecturing people off your high horse on giving their hard earned cash to your corporate overlords on top of their private data, and instead, letting them use the internet as they please.
A few bucks here and a few bucks there adds up significantly for those not on Bay Area wages and getting hit by rampant inflation and energy prices.
You can donate to the creators Patreon, PayPal or Crypto wallets, if you wish to support them.
If YouTube were a boot-strapped start-up in a garage, I would totally agree with your point, but instead Google-YouTube is a multi trillion dollar monopoly and I'm already giving them my private data they monetize, which is more than enough, there's no way I'm giving them my hard earned cash on top of my private data, while they engage in anti consumer behavior by removing the dislike button and using other dark patterns to squeeze view time out of small creators and "maximize engagement" out of their user base.
Or you know, not lecturing people off your high horse on giving their hard earned cash to your corporate overlords on top of their private data, and instead, letting them use the internet as they please.
A few bucks here and a few bucks there adds up significantly for those not on Bay Area wages and getting hit by rampant inflation and energy prices.
You can donate to the creators Patreon, PayPal or Crypto wallets, if you wish to support them.
If YouTube were a boot-strapped start-up in a garage, I would totally agree with your point, but instead Google-YouTube is a multi trillion dollar monopoly and I'm already giving them my private data they monetize, which is more than enough, there's no way I'm giving them my hard earned cash on top of my private data, while they engage in anti consumer behavior by removing the dislike button and using other dark patterns to squeeze view time out of small creators and "maximize engagement" out of their user base.
That's some serious mental gymnastic you have going there just to avoid paying musicians a few bucks to listen to their music.
Don't worry, pirates have gone through these mental gymnastics to feel better about their entitlement since the time Napster appeared.
Still doesn't change the fact that the author of that post refuses to pay a shitty 12 bucks per months to get access to all the music he wants and pay both the infrastructure provider and the musician performing the tracks. They could easily pay for Spotify, Deezer, Tidal, iTunes or any of the other services if "YouTube is such an evil monster monopoly". But it's not about that is it?
I wonder if you're so lenient when someone refuses to pay for your own companys services and just wants them for free.
Don't worry, pirates have gone through these mental gymnastics to feel better about their entitlement since the time Napster appeared.
Still doesn't change the fact that the author of that post refuses to pay a shitty 12 bucks per months to get access to all the music he wants and pay both the infrastructure provider and the musician performing the tracks. They could easily pay for Spotify, Deezer, Tidal, iTunes or any of the other services if "YouTube is such an evil monster monopoly". But it's not about that is it?
I wonder if you're so lenient when someone refuses to pay for your own companys services and just wants them for free.
That's some serious mental gymnastics there, too. I refuse to pay for YT premium because of the abusive relationship Alphabet/Google/YouTube has with my family, my devices, and me.
Bless the musicians, every one.
Bless the musicians, every one.
12 bucks is about two or three days of work where I live. I will do everything that is in my hands that won't get me arrested to save money and improve my quality of life. Google does the same, so why shouldn't I?
Look up how much YouTube and Spotify pay musicians. I'm not sure how little the others pay in comparison but I assume their cut is the industry standard.
Paying £12 a month doesn't bring back dislikes, doesn't remove sponsored segments and doesn't improve the comment section that is ripe with bots.
>I wonder if you're so lenient when someone refuses to pay for your own companys services and just wants them for free.
I wouldn't make my own companies DRM so easily breakable, are Google too poor or something?
Paying £12 a month doesn't bring back dislikes, doesn't remove sponsored segments and doesn't improve the comment section that is ripe with bots.
>I wonder if you're so lenient when someone refuses to pay for your own companys services and just wants them for free.
I wouldn't make my own companies DRM so easily breakable, are Google too poor or something?
No, obviously YouTube should be a free service with no ads and no subscription. The content is someone else's anyways.
youtube should be regulated as the monopoly it is.
YouTube premium isn't available in all countries yet, although it's in way more countries than it was s few years ago
I pay for youtube premium and still use Vanced for all of it's advanced features, but background playback is useful for far more than music.
It's not "a few bucks", it's like $12 a month, more than most streaming services, for the privilege of having it not pause the video when you lock the phone. Which it shouldn't be doing in the first place. Also this yet one more thing on top of the subscriptions you already have. Can't subscribe to all of them.
There are more features than that. You get music streaming ( usually in the $£$ 10 range), no ads and offline downloads. It's really not a bad deal, especially shared on the family plan.
Losing ads, sure, and it would be good to pay them something, but IDGAF about YouTube Music (I have Spotify for that) or their watered-down download function (which I'm pretty sure is locked to playing the download in their app). So the 50 SEK (5.32 USD) difference between Premium Lite and Premium would be purely to make it not pause.
I'm not sure it's worth the $20 per month for a family plan of up to five either.
$4/person for music streaming, and all the video on the internet, without ads? What is a fair price for you?
zero because they didn't do the creation work in the first place and they don't share their revenue with the creators. So how about that?
They share revenues with creators, and enable them to have a massive reach by hosting unlimited amount of video for free.
The hosting of an unlimited number of videos of (almost) unlimited length at up to 8k resolution for an indefinite length of time is worth nothing to you? I'm incredibly grateful that there is such a vast video archive on the internet with such liberal terms for video uploading and playback.
And Google does revenue share with creaters. Heard of the YouTube partner program? Partners receive money per view from people who watch ads or have premium, and premium views are worth more.
And Google does revenue share with creaters. Heard of the YouTube partner program? Partners receive money per view from people who watch ads or have premium, and premium views are worth more.
I do pay that much for no ads and music streaming, but I'm not sure that giving Google more money in a monthly subscription on top of the money they generate from serving me ads is the best use of my funds. I pay that much because I hate YouTube ads. YMMV.
And if you don't care about their music service?
paying still doesn't give you all the features Vance offers for free so no
NewPipe does this, too :)
The most important part of Vanced is it allowed you to login to your account. NewPipe isn't an alternative to Vanced. It fills a completely different (more privacy-focused) niche.
apparently??? it was such an amazing app used by millions and by me every single day, i was devastated to hear it was discontinued
To make it clear, personal opinion: this is piracy. Use yt-dlp, NewPipe, SmartTubeNext, invidious, VLC, whatever. Or pay for Premium.
But re-using a proprietary app and patching it is IMHO crossing the line.
But re-using a proprietary app and patching it is IMHO crossing the line.
It's at least 'profiteering' off of the current state of YouTube, where anyone that uses an ad-blocking mechanism (desktop or mobile) is effectively being subsidized by the premium subscribers and mobile users without adblock.
profiteering is earning. what are the devs of vanced earning?
I mean the users using any ad blocking mechanism, including (re)vanced or simply ublock origin. YouTube isn't free for Google to host.
that is not same as profiteering. leeching maybe but "profiteering" is what brave does with replacing google ads with their own so that they show their ads and earn instead of google.
that is not what anyone with ad block is doing..
nothing in life is free. everyone knows that. you and me know that. we use adblock regardless of that knowledge. how is this argument used against vanced now since we have accepted the necessity for ublock orign?
nothing in life is free. everyone knows that. you and me know that. we use adblock regardless of that knowledge. how is this argument used against vanced now since we have accepted the necessity for ublock orign?
Also, it’s not like youtube isn’t popular exactly due to the freely generated content on it, not in spite of their hosting costs.
If they're not distributing the patched application, I don't see why this is any worse than using an unauthorized YouTube client.
They were distributing it.
Revanced is not distributing it. Aissen said this is piracy, not Vanced.
Agreed, I was talking about Vanced, my comment wasn't clear. Revanced is a bit more gray, but still very dark.
I have a feeling that any piece of closed-source software that becomes important enough will inevitably be reverse engineered by highly motivated people. This is doubly so for Vanced: The original team took pains to not release the source, but it merely took a few weeks for someone else to reverse engineer the reverse engineered codebase.
I've worked on preserving a few games with decompilers long after the original creators have moved on. Anecdotally, the death of Flash all but killed off a couple of assorted communities that didn't have enough motivation to hack the binaries themselves.
My guess is the only software that can perpetually maintain a community is software where the source code is available to be modified.
I've worked on preserving a few games with decompilers long after the original creators have moved on. Anecdotally, the death of Flash all but killed off a couple of assorted communities that didn't have enough motivation to hack the binaries themselves.
My guess is the only software that can perpetually maintain a community is software where the source code is available to be modified.
I don't know much about the topic so forgive my ignorance, but aren't Android apps written in Java/JVM language?
Meaning decompilation should be really straightforward, I remember IntelliJ having a decompiler, many times I would accidental open a `class` file and it would suggest decompilation. This kind of code was still hard to read, but it was Java, not bytecode.
It's all relative, I'm sure, and I don't have any experience with decompilers other than this one: https://www.benf.org/other/cfr/, but, if you look at the change log there you will see that "really straightforward" is an unfortunately optimistic outlook. :)
Nah, java can be decompiled really really well. To the point that basically every app uses obfuscation to make the resulting code harder to comprehend.
Generally it's not too hard to decompile. But whether the code is any way readable or easy to modify is another question.
Android has ProGuard, which makes decompilation harder, but certainly not impossible if one is motivated enough.
ProGuard does basic name minification and some code movement. It is easy to read proguarded bytecode if you have a bit of experience.
There was literally no source code to release. YouTube Vance was a hex edited YouTube app binary.
Looks like their patches repo is public - I wonder if that'll lead the the adblocking technique being patched out quickly by Google? Either way happy to see this app revived, even as a premium subscriber - it provides functionality that makes YouTube much nicer to use
Interestingly, it's not the patches repo which contains the actual patches, it's the _integrations_ repo: https://github.com/ReVancedTeam/revanced-integrations/blob/m...
i'm confident Google can't patch this without breaking their own app
why?
(Re)Vanced is an app, dealing with googles backend.
They can either change the youtube app, to break Vanced, but this can be mitigated by not upgrading the youtube app, until there are patches for the new version,... or they can change the backend, thus breaking all the older youtube clients, making everyone upgrade their clients "now", which is a pain in the ass for many people.
They can either change the youtube app, to break Vanced, but this can be mitigated by not upgrading the youtube app, until there are patches for the new version,... or they can change the backend, thus breaking all the older youtube clients, making everyone upgrade their clients "now", which is a pain in the ass for many people.
For many devices it wouldn't be "pain in the ass", it would be straight up impossible. There are millions of devices, like smart TVs, that are out of support and don't receive updates, substantially changing API would break them. It might happen at some point, but it would piss off many people.
Yes, because google always cares about not pissing off people and they never shut down old services...
/s of course
/s of course
What I've seen is reducing quality available for older versions/protocols - so yeah, it will stay play but you won't get the highest bitrates without upgrading.
Is this somehow based on the original Vanced app (which wasn't open source afaik?) or are they essentially beginning from scratch?
The Re in ReVanced is for "Reverse Engineered" Vanced. ReVanced is going to be identical to the original Vanced, but later on (especially since it's open source) more patches/"plugins" will be available.
At first is different because to avoid the same issue as Vanced, it will not ship you patched version of YouTube App but it will ship a patcher.
That mean you'll must have installed YouTube because it will be companion or patch (I'm not sure if it will patch the YouTube app or be a service next to YouTube to apply Vanced feature at runtime)
That mean you'll must have installed YouTube because it will be companion or patch (I'm not sure if it will patch the YouTube app or be a service next to YouTube to apply Vanced feature at runtime)
don't know for sure, but since Vanced wasn't open-source, ReVanced possibly decompiled it and extracted the patches?
I decided to be a translator for this project - that's the best contribution I can do as I know nothing about android - it seems like a good cause for the following reasons:
- I know of people who live in countries where YouTube Red isn't available, I pay for YouTube red myself and it's life changing. I want them to be able to experience this too in a way or another
- I feel like Google might have done the right thing in their eyes by forcing Vanced to shutdown, but I also think they didn't address the problem in its entirety. You can shut down 1 app - 10 more pop up. Maybe the strategy should be, introduce better features instead of taking them away and think about monetizing differently?
- I really can't stand Monday.com ads btw ;) they're everywhere even in my sleep.
- I know of people who live in countries where YouTube Red isn't available, I pay for YouTube red myself and it's life changing. I want them to be able to experience this too in a way or another
- I feel like Google might have done the right thing in their eyes by forcing Vanced to shutdown, but I also think they didn't address the problem in its entirety. You can shut down 1 app - 10 more pop up. Maybe the strategy should be, introduce better features instead of taking them away and think about monetizing differently?
- I really can't stand Monday.com ads btw ;) they're everywhere even in my sleep.
My guess is YouTube is well aware of the fact that new ones are going to pop up. I'm guessing they did the math and realized that YouTube Vanced became big enough that it was worth shutting down and removing it from the limelight while minimizing the Streisand Effect.
> Maybe the strategy should be, introduce better features instead of taking them away and think about monetizing differently?
As a Vanced user, I do agree that the app is objectively superior than the YouTube app. Customizable toolbars, better dark mode, disabling thumbnails auto-playing, more video control options etc. But 99.99% of people used Vanced to get rid of ads without paying, and that isn't something YouTube can compete against. No amount of "good features" would've caused people to abandon Vanced and switch to vanilla YouTube (well, unless they reduced or removed ads, which would be detrimental to their business and creators).
Every Vanced user should've known that this was a fight club situation, where if Vanced got big enough it would have to die.
> Maybe the strategy should be, introduce better features instead of taking them away and think about monetizing differently?
As a Vanced user, I do agree that the app is objectively superior than the YouTube app. Customizable toolbars, better dark mode, disabling thumbnails auto-playing, more video control options etc. But 99.99% of people used Vanced to get rid of ads without paying, and that isn't something YouTube can compete against. No amount of "good features" would've caused people to abandon Vanced and switch to vanilla YouTube (well, unless they reduced or removed ads, which would be detrimental to their business and creators).
Every Vanced user should've known that this was a fight club situation, where if Vanced got big enough it would have to die.
>No amount of "good features" would've caused people to abandon Vanced and switch to vanilla YouTube
Maybe for the majority of people, but surely I'm not the only one who would go back to Vanilla YouTube and pay for Premium if you could run Sponsorblock. I'm not paying 10 bucks a month to get rid of ads just to be bombarbed by "goofy" segways into mid-video commercials.
Sponsorblock - to me - is the killer feature of Vanced. It's crazy how much of a video is just stupid fluff that nobody has any use or need for.
Maybe for the majority of people, but surely I'm not the only one who would go back to Vanilla YouTube and pay for Premium if you could run Sponsorblock. I'm not paying 10 bucks a month to get rid of ads just to be bombarbed by "goofy" segways into mid-video commercials.
Sponsorblock - to me - is the killer feature of Vanced. It's crazy how much of a video is just stupid fluff that nobody has any use or need for.
They should mirror somewhere outside of GitHub, this may get taken down.
codeberg might be a good candidate. Slightly tangentially, to facilitate mobility and cross-server collaboration and repo syncing, Gitea (which they're built on) is getting federation in place
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/18240
https://forgefriends.org/
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/18240
https://forgefriends.org/
But after Codebergs Terms of Use, "Forks, migrations and testing repos are considered as inactive when they don't contain unique contributions and are inactive for more than a month. They shouldn't be kept for a prolonged amount of time, and thus might be removed after notifying maintainers and providing a 90 days period to ask for preservation."
Also "You are legally responsible for your edits and contributions on the platform, so for your own protection you should exercise caution and avoid contributing any content that may result in criminal or civil liability under any applicable laws (e.g. copyright and patent infringements, but also things like age-restricted content without age confirmation). Both the German legislation and the legislation in your country of residence may be relevant here."
Codeberg is a registered organization and also has to act on copyright infringements...
Also "You are legally responsible for your edits and contributions on the platform, so for your own protection you should exercise caution and avoid contributing any content that may result in criminal or civil liability under any applicable laws (e.g. copyright and patent infringements, but also things like age-restricted content without age confirmation). Both the German legislation and the legislation in your country of residence may be relevant here."
Codeberg is a registered organization and also has to act on copyright infringements...
Legal part: Very good point - I would have assumed from a first look-through of the repos that it's legally clear but IANAL nor German so it should be taken into consideration when choosing where to host.
Activity part: Given the popularity of the project and Codeberg seeming to be quite approachable, I would assume it would not be an issue.
And, a major point of federation is to facilitate a more traditional and decentralized workflow where a takedown at a single host is not too disruptive for the project.
Activity part: Given the popularity of the project and Codeberg seeming to be quite approachable, I would assume it would not be an issue.
And, a major point of federation is to facilitate a more traditional and decentralized workflow where a takedown at a single host is not too disruptive for the project.
not sure MS will be too concerned about Google losing ad revenue
Maybe not, but MS does follow the DMCA takedown process.
> "If the notice alleges that the entire contents of a repository infringe, or a package infringes, we will skip to Step 6 and disable the entire repository or package expeditiously." [0]
This is what was going on with some Grand Theft Auto mods[1] and youtube-dl [2]
[0] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-polic...
[1] https://www.thegamer.com/taketwo-dmca-takedowns-gta-mods/
[2] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/youtube-dl-re...
> "If the notice alleges that the entire contents of a repository infringe, or a package infringes, we will skip to Step 6 and disable the entire repository or package expeditiously." [0]
This is what was going on with some Grand Theft Auto mods[1] and youtube-dl [2]
[0] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-polic...
[1] https://www.thegamer.com/taketwo-dmca-takedowns-gta-mods/
[2] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/youtube-dl-re...
So does everyone else. Only self-hosted gives you the ability to ignore DMCA takedowns because the same entity is taking liability for either not following a dmca or performing the actual copyright infringement.
> MS does follow the DMCA takedown process.
which would be bad if the repo had any copyrighted materials. But does it?
which would be bad if the repo had any copyrighted materials. But does it?
you're not thinking like a bureaucrat
they can do it exceptionally slowly and specifically
they can do it exceptionally slowly and specifically
Zip it and host it as a torrent with a magnet link?
(Original) Vanced source code: https://github.com/fdciabdul/Vanced-Backup/tree/master/sourc...
I wouldn't be so resistant to paying Youtube if they weren't so trigger happy with censorship.
In general, this is my position to most paying things. There's always some legitimate reason for me to not pay for anything. Honestly, I've done it all my life. I never paid for a single college textbook, for instance. If more people would make paid things that weren't also evil, then maybe they could have my money.
The interesting thing is that the more money you have, the easier this becomes. For instance, with low cash flow, you can't afford an occasional $86 SF parking ticket. But with high cash flow, you can do the math and know that if you can escape every 3 days downtown, you come out ahead just paying the ticket.
The interesting thing is that the more money you have, the easier this becomes. For instance, with low cash flow, you can't afford an occasional $86 SF parking ticket. But with high cash flow, you can do the math and know that if you can escape every 3 days downtown, you come out ahead just paying the ticket.
Same thing here. I'm happy to pay for Nebula. But I don't want to pay to a platform that is constantly criticized by all the creators publishing there.
I wouldn't be so resistant to paying YouTube if they weren't stealing my data.
Same. I was happy to pay for it a couple of years ago, but I recently cancelled a pretty long running premium subscription.
If they're not outright removing videos from people I subscribe to, or outright removing people entirely, they're creating an atmosphere where those who remain rigorously self-censor to preserve their clout and income streams. Most of the content that's left is uninteresting because it's too risky to discuss anything controversial, let alone express a controversial opinion. RIP.
If they're not outright removing videos from people I subscribe to, or outright removing people entirely, they're creating an atmosphere where those who remain rigorously self-censor to preserve their clout and income streams. Most of the content that's left is uninteresting because it's too risky to discuss anything controversial, let alone express a controversial opinion. RIP.
I have plenty of very interesting stuff on my feed too. Even discussions of "controversial" topics. Other than bad-faith DMCA claims, I rarely see videos get taken down. Which leads me to wonder what type of content you're subscribing to.
Most of the time when I see complaints of "censorship" or "controversial" topics, it's a dog whistle for a very specific kind of speech.
Most of the time when I see complaints of "censorship" or "controversial" topics, it's a dog whistle for a very specific kind of speech.
Sorry, what exactly are you insinuating?
Youtube's frequency of ads has become so extreme that I've just yesterday opted to pay 11€/month for YT Premium.
I had tried before disabling them with a Pihole or by blocking domains. It didn't work. Also, on a Samsung TV, you can't really install another front end.
I had tried before disabling them with a Pihole or by blocking domains. It didn't work. Also, on a Samsung TV, you can't really install another front end.
This is cable tv all over again. Pretty soon there will be ads on paid YouTube subscriptions too, mark my words.
There are: “now for a quick word about this week’s sponsor”
There is a difference there in that the sponsorship money all goes to the content creator, rather than to YT who may or may not (at their whim) share a small portion with whoever posted the video (which is far from always the content creator).
They also aren't stalking you around everything you do on the Internet in the name of targetting.
They also aren't stalking you around everything you do on the Internet in the name of targetting.
I mean, that's on content creators doing live reads, and YT has nothing to do with it.
Exactly. So I’m paying 12$ a month, which is more than Netflix and still get ads. That’s actually the reason why I won’t get YT premium.
Why not just stop watching people who do that if you don’t like it?
Because we don't have to. We have technology that fixes the problem: sponsor block and ublock origin.
SponsorBlock fixes this
I wouldn't be surprised, but it's also the moment I stop paying for YT Premium.
No doubt. YouTube premium customers are just providing disposable income data to advertisers. They've segmented the market, it's only a matter of time before some manager looks at how much more valuable the premium group is and decides to show ads to them too because doing otherwise is leaving money on the table.
1. Get an Android TV device. This is not actually a TV, but a device that connects to your TV via HDMI. Prices vary, but it's not expensive.
2. Install SmartTubeNext on the Android TV. Now you have something better than YouTube Premium: This app supports SponsorBlock, which not only gets rid of YT ads, it also skips filler segments, self-promotion segments and sponsor segments.
3. You can also install a SponsorBlock browser extension.
Both of these are Open Source Software.
2. Install SmartTubeNext on the Android TV. Now you have something better than YouTube Premium: This app supports SponsorBlock, which not only gets rid of YT ads, it also skips filler segments, self-promotion segments and sponsor segments.
3. You can also install a SponsorBlock browser extension.
Both of these are Open Source Software.
You can also install SmartTubeNext on a Firestick.
Which is running a fork of Android TV afaik
I have a Sharp TV on my living room and the YT app crashes everytime a certain type of ad is played after the video starts. I don't know if its the video codec or if the TV is having a hard time going back to the original video. Out of nowhere a 5 second chocolate or cheese ad plays and the TV OS completely crashes.
Tried attaching an ARM SBC with Librelec but the state of the Youtube apps are extremely broken in a way that you need api keys from a google cloud account and that allows you to only play videos. Your subscriptions and everything are not imported. PS4 runs fine but I don't want to run a 100W console to watch YT videos.
Meanwhile I've found out that most of my favorite channels (mostly tech and retro stuff) are also uploading to Odyssey as a sort of backup strategy. That works very well for me.
Tried attaching an ARM SBC with Librelec but the state of the Youtube apps are extremely broken in a way that you need api keys from a google cloud account and that allows you to only play videos. Your subscriptions and everything are not imported. PS4 runs fine but I don't want to run a 100W console to watch YT videos.
Meanwhile I've found out that most of my favorite channels (mostly tech and retro stuff) are also uploading to Odyssey as a sort of backup strategy. That works very well for me.
Get an Amazon Firestick and install SmartTubeNext on to it. The Firestick plugs into your HDMI so your TV doesn't need to do any extra processing.
Can your SBC run Android (or even better, LineageOS)? If so, you can install Kodi for Android and launch Youtube or Newpipe within Kodi.
It is a RockPro64. The stock image offered by Pine is borderline useless barebones without the store. Some complicated process involving connecting an usb-c cable and running ADB from Android SDK is necessary.
I also tried some Android distribution called Slash TV which seems to be kinda complete but the videos keep defaulting to 480p even after I set my preferences to high quality. It seems Slash TV is a one man's project and it hasn't received an upgrade in a while.
I was surprised how much of a nice product Librelec is but all the YT apps for Kodi (Youtube, Tubed) are in this broken state due to some API changes.
I also tried some Android distribution called Slash TV which seems to be kinda complete but the videos keep defaulting to 480p even after I set my preferences to high quality. It seems Slash TV is a one man's project and it hasn't received an upgrade in a while.
I was surprised how much of a nice product Librelec is but all the YT apps for Kodi (Youtube, Tubed) are in this broken state due to some API changes.
Yeah, I run LibreELEC on an x86 machine, but the connectivity to online providers is just not there. Netflix and Spotify are other two services with mostly broken plugins.
Would a Chromecast cover your use case?
Maybe but if the solution is throwing more money into hardware I'd rather get something like an Apple TV or Nvidia Shield.
Oh, good point; I was thinking from the perspective that a Chromecast is cheap, but it looks like an Apple TV is only $180 which probably is close enough if you use it any decent amount.
I don't youtube that much but ublock+firefox and newpipe have been efficient for me.
Edit: overlooked your comment and did not see you mentioned a smart TV.
Edit: overlooked your comment and did not see you mentioned a smart TV.
With TVs it is especially important to look at the _software_ it comes with. If it is some locked-down piece which requires the blessing of the manufacturer to install anything on it, then I would stay away from such TVs.
It seems to me that Android TVs offer at least some degree of customization because it is possible to install apps there. But the value you get from them depends on whether you can get the root access and on other restrictions the manufacturer has imposed on it. So, in general it is not an ideal usage model.
In my opinion, a pure Linux TVs would be much better. For instance, running Kodi as a frontend with TVHeadend or minisatip as a backend. They would of course have plenty of possibilities to play other media and would be fully customizable, giving the customer a _choice_ to consider and utilize that capability. In my opinion, there is a reasonably sized market for such TVs.
It seems to me that Android TVs offer at least some degree of customization because it is possible to install apps there. But the value you get from them depends on whether you can get the root access and on other restrictions the manufacturer has imposed on it. So, in general it is not an ideal usage model.
In my opinion, a pure Linux TVs would be much better. For instance, running Kodi as a frontend with TVHeadend or minisatip as a backend. They would of course have plenty of possibilities to play other media and would be fully customizable, giving the customer a _choice_ to consider and utilize that capability. In my opinion, there is a reasonably sized market for such TVs.
Android has smarttube app which is even better (imho) compared to official youtube app, even if you pay for adfree
For starters, it supports sponsorblock which is even more adblocking. Secondly i think ux is miles better
You dont need root but you need to manually download and install it
For starters, it supports sponsorblock which is even more adblocking. Secondly i think ux is miles better
You dont need root but you need to manually download and install it
That's really nice, I need to save this for when I buy an android tv
Be warned, even if you can block ads in youtube apps, most TV brands (and Google) started putting ads in their home screen. Mine was alright for 2-3 years but early this year there was an update that started putting "Watch these cool stuff in Disney app" and it is not removable.
I rolled back the update for my home screen app, which works for now. I think you are able to use entirely different home screen apps but I didn't want to go that far yet. The moment I can't disable ads is the moment I will start using PI and using my TV as a dumb screen
I rolled back the update for my home screen app, which works for now. I think you are able to use entirely different home screen apps but I didn't want to go that far yet. The moment I can't disable ads is the moment I will start using PI and using my TV as a dumb screen
On Android TVs, you can install launchers to replace the absolute dogshit launcher that Google has pushed with the latest big updates, thankfully.
I never connect my TVs to the internet because you can't trust the manufacturers to keep them up to date and secure. And they might install more ads as part of a system "update".
Security? Are they not behind a firewall? What security vector are exposed plugging them into the internet? I don't see Samsung and co letting their telemetry domains lapse. Privacy and annoying updates are something totally different though.
The answer is to grab a Pi or similar tiny box and treat the TV as a dumb monitor.
This works very well.
This works very well.
Host based content blockers have no future. Ad companies have been moving to first-party ad delivery in the past few years, and YouTube serves ads and videos from the same host.
Edit: nevermind, I've completely misread your comment to be about Pi-hole :)
Edit: nevermind, I've completely misread your comment to be about Pi-hole :)
Are there remotes for Pi? How do you control it? What tv like OS do you use?
Can it also turn on/off tv? I think HDMI allows that but not sure if Pi can do that
Can it also turn on/off tv? I think HDMI allows that but not sure if Pi can do that
There are lots of USB-IR remote receivers. The nicest, in my opinion, is the Flirc (flirc.tv) which has all the smarts in the USB dongle to convert IR remote signals into a simulated keyboard. It's reasonably cheap, too. I like using a TiVO remote, because their ergonomics are almost perfect.
To turn on and off a TV you need an HDMI port that supports CEC. The Pi does, so you just need to install cec-client.
As for OS, you should use the general purpose Linux distro that you are most familiar with. If in doubt, use Gunnar Wolf's Debian for Pi, which is as close as you can get to 100% Debian on a Pi.
To turn on and off a TV you need an HDMI port that supports CEC. The Pi does, so you just need to install cec-client.
As for OS, you should use the general purpose Linux distro that you are most familiar with. If in doubt, use Gunnar Wolf's Debian for Pi, which is as close as you can get to 100% Debian on a Pi.
I'm in the same boat. On desktop it's pretty easy to work around ads thanks to uBlock Origin and SponsorBlock. But on an Android TV it's becoming unbearable. It's like Youtube has come to torture and extortion to get our money so we can get a little bit of peace of mind.
This is a godsend for Android TVs: https://github.com/yuliskov/SmartTubeNext
You do realize that you are paying more than 11/month right? Google is also stealing your data. I don't know how you value yours, but mine is priceless.
I've been using YT premium family for over a year now - I watch a lot of youtube in the background while working, it's a fair price for me - worth more than Netflix for sure since I spend more time on it.
When I occasionally see YT on other peoples TV without it I'm shocked at how many ads they get. I'm not sure what's the alternative to YT but this insane ad spam might start driving people away to alternatives.
When I occasionally see YT on other peoples TV without it I'm shocked at how many ads they get. I'm not sure what's the alternative to YT but this insane ad spam might start driving people away to alternatives.
I use ublock origin + sponsorblock + ddg privacy extension, and haven't had ads on YouTube in years
Also you can just use invidious on mobile (and presumably on your TV) for the same experience (minus the sponsor / merch flogging skips which are fantasic)
Also you can just use invidious on mobile (and presumably on your TV) for the same experience (minus the sponsor / merch flogging skips which are fantasic)
I get YouTube Red with YouTube music, and for me it's more than worth it.
You're going to pay about $10 a month for music streaming anyway, and I watch YouTube so much. If I didn't have premium, I'd be wasting at least an hour per day on ads.
You're going to pay about $10 a month for music streaming anyway, and I watch YouTube so much. If I didn't have premium, I'd be wasting at least an hour per day on ads.
I use NewPipe on my Nvidia Shield. It's not very polished but it gets the job done and is FOSS.
nextdns blocks them quite well, and it's a lot less expensive than YT premium (also blocks ads in games).
I've never said no to anything more in my life than YouTube Premium.
What did Google expect? If they take this one down another will appear to take its place, and so on.
When you essentially have a monopoly position, and most of your product updates are to improve your own revenue and not to make the customer experience better because you simply don’t have to do that anymore, eventually people will try to revolt and create alternatives. Because of the network effect lock-in, this kind of creativity (patching the existing monopolist’s app rather than creating a whole new service) is one of the more accessible methods of trying to improve the product. I’m not making a judgment on whether or not it is right, but from a purely providing-the-best-product-to-the-user perspective, I am happy to see alternatives flourish.
There are already alternatives out there (like New Pipe). Vanced was taken down because they tried to monetise it via an NFT which crossed a line.
Could anyone who is familiar with Java/Kotlin/Android explain how does this work?
I tried decompiling YouTube App on Android to remove the ads some time ago, but I failed to compile it back because some kind of security thing did not allow the app to start.
I tried decompiling YouTube App on Android to remove the ads some time ago, but I failed to compile it back because some kind of security thing did not allow the app to start.
Although I am not really familiar with Android Development, I got it to work like this:
- decompile using apktool
- make changes
- recompile apk using apktool
- zipalign apk
- sign apk (using the apksigner.jar) with a certificate
Tools like uber-apk-signer really help to do the last three steps
- decompile using apktool
- make changes
- recompile apk using apktool
- zipalign apk
- sign apk (using the apksigner.jar) with a certificate
Tools like uber-apk-signer really help to do the last three steps
At least they didn't make the copyright mistakes this time. Perhaps it would be better if this version of Vanced stayed difficult to install to avoid spreading it too wide.
>At least they didn't make the copyright mistakes this time
more like, trademark mistakes. Patching and redistributing a proprietary app most definitely violates copyrights.
more like, trademark mistakes. Patching and redistributing a proprietary app most definitely violates copyrights.
> redistributing a proprietary app
Revanced patches the locally installed version, so hopefully that means they'll be in the clear
Revanced patches the locally installed version, so hopefully that means they'll be in the clear
Google didn’t do anything until Vanced tried to release an NFT and profit off the app
How can people actually believe that? Sure, a 'deleted-an-hour-after-posting' tweet is what made Google muster up all their lawyers to take down an app that millions used to circumvent paying for YouTube Premium and/or watch ads.
It was a stupid coincident. Google would've killed Vanced sooner or later.
It was a stupid coincident. Google would've killed Vanced sooner or later.
When a narrative fits one's belief, they won't stop to question its validity.
> Not affiliated with Vanced team.
I wonder if the original "vanced" can now file a dispute over this project's name?
I wonder if the original "vanced" can now file a dispute over this project's name?
Theoretically they could sue for trademark infringements, but:
1. ReVanced has a disclaimer that they're not affiliated, which helps make sure people aren't confused.
2. The Vanced people probably are glad someone's continuing their efforts after they're no longer able to.
3. Vanced has been discontinued and taken down, so it's no longer "used in commerce", so I think the common law trademark should cease to exist.
1. ReVanced has a disclaimer that they're not affiliated, which helps make sure people aren't confused.
2. The Vanced people probably are glad someone's continuing their efforts after they're no longer able to.
3. Vanced has been discontinued and taken down, so it's no longer "used in commerce", so I think the common law trademark should cease to exist.
> sue for trademark infringements
Yeah, maybe at the piracy trademark comission on pirate island... For obvious reasons Vanced had no trademark on anything and thus can't sue for trademark infringements.
They could possibly sue for a copyright infringement, but for that they'd have to prove that they do in fact hold a copyright on whatever they're suing for. They'd have to prove that (whatever) indeed is either (a) an original work that's protected under copyright or (b) it's a derivative work that's protected under copyright.
Yeah, maybe at the piracy trademark comission on pirate island... For obvious reasons Vanced had no trademark on anything and thus can't sue for trademark infringements.
They could possibly sue for a copyright infringement, but for that they'd have to prove that they do in fact hold a copyright on whatever they're suing for. They'd have to prove that (whatever) indeed is either (a) an original work that's protected under copyright or (b) it's a derivative work that's protected under copyright.
Most common law jurisdictions give trademarks as a matter of law just for using something in commerce. I think Vanced could have legitimately sued to stop another product called "Vanced" from using that name. What "obvious reason" would prevent them from having had a trademark?
Copyright infringement is a much stronger claim at this point if they were actually upset. Vanced obviously had original code, so to the extent ReVanced copies that without permission, it would be infringing.
Copyright infringement is a much stronger claim at this point if they were actually upset. Vanced obviously had original code, so to the extent ReVanced copies that without permission, it would be infringing.
Sensational!
I wonder if they fixed the bug Vanced had where you set mobile video to 480p and it kept trying to play 1080p instead even when your connection wouldn't support it.
I wonder if they fixed the bug Vanced had where you set mobile video to 480p and it kept trying to play 1080p instead even when your connection wouldn't support it.
I hope they get a version without MicroG requirement again. I like having an additional YouTube app installed that’s logged out without immediately getting the ad-infested free version. I used NewPipe in the past for that but that is constantly buffering for me and I don’t have a lick of experience with Android development to resolve that.
side note, on iOS, I uninstalled youtube app and use the site in safari with an ad blocker.
Check out Vinegar (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/vinegar-tube-cleaner/id1591303...)
It is so good I am almost afraid to mention it and it get too popular.
No affiliation at all with the product, just a happy user.
(edited to remove incorrect statement)
(edited to remove incorrect statement)
What adblocker do you use? I would love to cancel my premium subscription. I used to use vanced on android, but I really like iOS since I've switched.
I really like AdGuard. Their free version is more than adequate.
https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardForiOS
https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardForiOS
works like a charm here as well, and saves me from having another pretty much useless website-as-an-app installed on my phone!
[deleted]
well this is sooner than I expected
zozbot234(10)
It always suprises me how unwilling the tech community is to support creators on YouTube.
You're not hurting YouTube by blocking ads, you're hurting the people who get ads from their videos.
Just pay for Youtube Premium - its no different than Spotify or Apple music price-wise and people shell out for that without thinking every month.
You're not hurting YouTube by blocking ads, you're hurting the people who get ads from their videos.
Just pay for Youtube Premium - its no different than Spotify or Apple music price-wise and people shell out for that without thinking every month.
No. If your business model is ads, I won't support you. I'll find a way to block your ads and I'll tell everyone who will listen how to do the same. I don't appreciate being brainwashed just so creators can get paid.
> If your business model is ads
But... The point is exactly that the business model is either ads or you pay directly. Your response is that because there's the ad option ( which let's face it, the vast majority of people prefer), you wouldn't pay to remove ads? That doesn't really make any sense.
You can't rail against ad-based business models and not accept the only possible alternative.
But... The point is exactly that the business model is either ads or you pay directly. Your response is that because there's the ad option ( which let's face it, the vast majority of people prefer), you wouldn't pay to remove ads? That doesn't really make any sense.
You can't rail against ad-based business models and not accept the only possible alternative.
> Your response is that because there's the ad option ( which let's face it, the vast majority of people prefer), you wouldn't pay to remove ads?
Yes, I'm not gonna pay to remove ads. Paying doesn't actually remove all ads, just YouTube's, it won't do a thing to the paid promotion segments in videos. Paying also makes my attention even more valuable to advertisers, I want it to have zero if not negative value. It also doesn't stop adtech's endless tracking and surveillance capitalism, it encourages it.
> You can't rail against ad-based business models and not accept the only possible alternative.
That's far from the only alternative. You can charge money for your work up front. You can make a patreon, I've seen plenty of YouTube creators doing this with considerable success.
Yes, I'm not gonna pay to remove ads. Paying doesn't actually remove all ads, just YouTube's, it won't do a thing to the paid promotion segments in videos. Paying also makes my attention even more valuable to advertisers, I want it to have zero if not negative value. It also doesn't stop adtech's endless tracking and surveillance capitalism, it encourages it.
> You can't rail against ad-based business models and not accept the only possible alternative.
That's far from the only alternative. You can charge money for your work up front. You can make a patreon, I've seen plenty of YouTube creators doing this with considerable success.
How would be your business model without ads if you owned YouTube then?
As a video platform owner, you should pay creators, you should pay for all the server costs which is capable of 4k+ streaming, besides you serve all the music and pay royalties.
As a video platform owner, you should pay creators, you should pay for all the server costs which is capable of 4k+ streaming, besides you serve all the music and pay royalties.
I don't really know. If it can't work without advertising then maybe it shouldn't exist in the first place.
Why not just stop watching the videos? Then you’re not exposed to ads.
Because I don't have to. The videos are free.
Maybe you didn't know this, but Google is stingy as fuck in terms of the portion of ad revenue they share with content creators. Most content creators just see youtube as a way to get exposure, then they turn around and monetize other ways like sponsors, patreon, product sales, etc.
Do you have an actual source? Some numbers? Because 1k views=$1 is pretty good for a clips channel[0], and YT Premium views have always payed more than ad-supported views[1,2]. It's generally not sustainable to only rely on Adsense but it's a piece of the pie that most creators couldn't make up for overnight if it disappeared.
0: https://youtu.be/aaoVlFVqYuk?t=20
1: https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/totalbiscuit-youtube-red-p...
2: https://twitter.com/LinusTech/status/1486935690315112455?s=2...
0: https://youtu.be/aaoVlFVqYuk?t=20
1: https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/totalbiscuit-youtube-red-p...
2: https://twitter.com/LinusTech/status/1486935690315112455?s=2...
I’ve also read an article that google pays 68% of ad revenue to creators if I’m not mistaken.
You are forgetting about things like patreon or buying merch which will generate much more revenue for the creator than premium does.
LinusTechTips made a video specifically about the issue of Vanced from the perspective of a user as well as a creator.
LinusTechTips made a video specifically about the issue of Vanced from the perspective of a user as well as a creator.
But for REALLY small creators that don't think they deserve a patreon or want to sell merch. I ran a very niche live-stream for a while, and the most steady stream of income for my live streams was from Youtube Premium users.
Youtube premium does not block sponsors so even if you buy the subscription you sometimes end up with 2-5mins of ads in video. The only way to get rid of them on mobile is with Vanced
I absolutely would, but Youtube Premium isn't nearly on the level Vanced is. Its just better in anything and makes the whole experience much better. I used it once and could never go back to the normal youtube app honestly.
Youtube Premium is not available in my country. I should not have to endure two unskipable ads at the beginning and middle of a two minute video because of that.
In my opinion, you have a valid use case.
No thank you. If the only reason people make videos is so I'll watch the ads, they can go straight to hell where they belong.
I would pay for YouTube premium but it's not available in my country.
Every time this discussion comes up on HN I get downvoted for being completely against adblock. It's crazy how far people will go to justify taking food off other people's plate. Usually the argument about tracking comes up. As if it's used for anything other than attempt to sell you products and services. Completely screw over small businesses and screw the content creators. On a venture capitalist forum. The hypocrisy is unreal.
> It's crazy how far people will go to justify taking food off other people's plate.
We don't have to justify it. We simply don't want to see ads. That's the end of it. The second they insist on showing us ads despite our preferences, their software becomes malware and will be blocked.
And nobody is "taking" anything off anyone's plate. They're the ones sending us free stuff bundled with ads. We're just deleting the noise. Just like ripping ads out of magazines and throwing them away.
We don't have to justify it. We simply don't want to see ads. That's the end of it. The second they insist on showing us ads despite our preferences, their software becomes malware and will be blocked.
And nobody is "taking" anything off anyone's plate. They're the ones sending us free stuff bundled with ads. We're just deleting the noise. Just like ripping ads out of magazines and throwing them away.
If you don’t watch the videos, then you won’t see the ads, no?
Yeah, but I'll watch the videos anyway. Because they're free, I'm not obligated to pay attention to ads and uBlock Origin gets rid of them.
Nothing is “free”
Sure it is. At no point does YouTube charge me any money before streaming any of their videos. They send it to my browser absolutely free of charge.
They do so hoping that I'm gonna look at the ads. I'm not obligated to make it happen.
They do so hoping that I'm gonna look at the ads. I'm not obligated to make it happen.
> We don't have to justify it. We simply don't want to see ads. That's the end of it.
Replace "see ads" with "pay money." Pirates are thieves and content theft is piracy.
Replace "see ads" with "pay money." Pirates are thieves and content theft is piracy.
Nope. "Piracy" is just copyright infringement. It is literally just copying bits, no theft of any kind is occurring. The only loss here is the corporation's artificial monopoly rights which shouldn't even exist anyway.
Exactly. Because you know what's better than paid shit ? Free shit. Especially if it contributes to me not showing ads _and_ costing Google. I am happy to steal your precious, endlessly reproducible bytes.
I am genuinely concerned that you feel bad. But do you know how much money poor people pay to watch ads + all the scam ads they get (and unfortunately lose money). Seriously, test it. (I used to live in 3rd world and now use adblock)...
> Completely screw over small businesses and screw the content creators. On a venture capitalist forum
Then please try to screw VCs (not innocent people in developing world that want to see something for 1GB data per month and they lose so much money for ads). Sure please bill the VCs.
Yes, the hypocrisy is unreal.
> Completely screw over small businesses and screw the content creators. On a venture capitalist forum
Then please try to screw VCs (not innocent people in developing world that want to see something for 1GB data per month and they lose so much money for ads). Sure please bill the VCs.
Yes, the hypocrisy is unreal.
Am I taking food off other people's plate when I manually skip ads in podcasts I'm listening to? Do people who change channels on TV when ads start steal? Is it theft to toss ad inserts from a newspaper straight into trash?
It's because modern advertising's purpose isn't to tell people about a product they already wanted but didn't know existed (which would be fine), it's to cause people to feel a sense of fear/loss/inadequacy that they previously didn't and then present the product as a solution, or associate a product with something people love in a manipulative way, because those types of ads are worlds more effective at driving sales. That's cancer capitalism and a lot of people with principles rightly refuse to be a part of it.
> modern advertising's purpose isn't to tell people about a product they already wanted but didn't know existed
Yes.
> it's to cause people to feel a sense of fear/loss/inadequacy that they previously didn't and then present the product as a solution
Maybe a bit.
But, these days I think the real reason is the corrupctive influence ad money buys. Major media platforms censor at the whim of their advertisers. Content providers also do so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAkQlZgnbUQ
Yes.
> it's to cause people to feel a sense of fear/loss/inadequacy that they previously didn't and then present the product as a solution
Maybe a bit.
But, these days I think the real reason is the corrupctive influence ad money buys. Major media platforms censor at the whim of their advertisers. Content providers also do so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAkQlZgnbUQ
Completely agree. I've seen websites delete whole pages and heavily censor remaining ones because somebody complained to Google that their sensibilities were offended. Advertisers should not have this power.
TBH, I'm very puzzled: is YouTube really that much worth your time and effort? Some might claim it's a kind of movement, or sorta free software, but, to me, it all looks like simply simple piracy, which is a highway to vendor lock-in.
Pirates act as if they are in control of their decisions, but, in reality, the company is still in control. Piracy is incorporated into the business model as an accepted risk, and the company will do their best to control the risk. You're at the mercy of the company, especially when the company in question is large and multi-national.
Also, anything you do "on the platform" will only empower the platform, furthering their abuse and exploit on users. The company will only care about the number of users and the total amount of revenue, and the number of pirates will always be too small to impact their metric. So, for the company, you're just a user who refuses to leave the platform despite of the misuse.
The only proper way to react to any sabotage against user is to leave the platform, even temporarily. Now some people will obviously come up with "lifestyle" issues, but one should realize that the lifestyle in question is something formed by the company and their products. It's variable by nature, and nothing constant, and, actually, can be changed with a surprisingly small amount of effort. (e.g. domain block)
Thus, if you really dream of better internet, you should not be making/using things like this. It's all a wasted effort, which will get easily buried at a snap of someone's finger, leaving no legacy that can be succeeded by others.
Pirates act as if they are in control of their decisions, but, in reality, the company is still in control. Piracy is incorporated into the business model as an accepted risk, and the company will do their best to control the risk. You're at the mercy of the company, especially when the company in question is large and multi-national.
Also, anything you do "on the platform" will only empower the platform, furthering their abuse and exploit on users. The company will only care about the number of users and the total amount of revenue, and the number of pirates will always be too small to impact their metric. So, for the company, you're just a user who refuses to leave the platform despite of the misuse.
The only proper way to react to any sabotage against user is to leave the platform, even temporarily. Now some people will obviously come up with "lifestyle" issues, but one should realize that the lifestyle in question is something formed by the company and their products. It's variable by nature, and nothing constant, and, actually, can be changed with a surprisingly small amount of effort. (e.g. domain block)
Thus, if you really dream of better internet, you should not be making/using things like this. It's all a wasted effort, which will get easily buried at a snap of someone's finger, leaving no legacy that can be succeeded by others.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/13/22975890/youtube-vanced-a...