YouTube's ban leads to a record number of users uninstalling their ad-blockers(zdnet.com)
zdnet.com
YouTube's ban leads to a record number of users uninstalling their ad-blockers
https://www.zdnet.com/article/youtubes-ban-leads-to-a-record-number-of-users-uninstalling-their-ad-blockers/
100 comments
I see what you mean about Google's greed. But to be perfectly honoust there is some greed on our behalf as well.
The "contract" with YouTube being: don't pay us in $$$, give us your privacy — by attempting to use without revealing our privacy gold we're somewhat free loading, being greedy. It would be better to reject the "contract" and find different ways to access the content without relying on Google's "free" distribution infrastructure. There are alternatives (like https://peertube.tv/)
It's a sad content distribution and discoverability (especially video) has become so centralized.
The "contract" with YouTube being: don't pay us in $$$, give us your privacy — by attempting to use without revealing our privacy gold we're somewhat free loading, being greedy. It would be better to reject the "contract" and find different ways to access the content without relying on Google's "free" distribution infrastructure. There are alternatives (like https://peertube.tv/)
It's a sad content distribution and discoverability (especially video) has become so centralized.
Not sure why you're being down voted. I love ad blockers and that's my go-to when it comes to Google. But I think it's fair for them to offer YouTube in exchange of either privacy, ads or premium subscription
It is naive to think they don't collect data from their YT premium users. Plus, for free users they show ads and collect data.
Yes, I do agree with you. It is not just Google's greed but also our own. In fact, if I had the time and resources, I would love to create a different video sharing site.
It would be a site that is like YouTube but only allows 1080P video (to save on hosting). It would take a few minutes, maybe 5 to load a video, to save on bandwidth. It would have a limit on video length as well maybe,
It would also not have any analytics or recommendation algorithm, and it would have a modest paid tier (2$ a month for some additional features). It might have a Patreon-like feature from which I would take a modest percentage, just to pay for hosting.
Instead of a recommendation algorithm, it would have some basic categories and new videos would just appear in the categories that you subscribe to, but only sorted by date.
It would be a slower, simpler site for genuine video sharing, but with some limitations to keep things realistic. I am being 100% serious: I do think a slower, more modest site with less features would be quite nice, sort of like Medium but for video.
It would be a site that is like YouTube but only allows 1080P video (to save on hosting). It would take a few minutes, maybe 5 to load a video, to save on bandwidth. It would have a limit on video length as well maybe,
It would also not have any analytics or recommendation algorithm, and it would have a modest paid tier (2$ a month for some additional features). It might have a Patreon-like feature from which I would take a modest percentage, just to pay for hosting.
Instead of a recommendation algorithm, it would have some basic categories and new videos would just appear in the categories that you subscribe to, but only sorted by date.
It would be a slower, simpler site for genuine video sharing, but with some limitations to keep things realistic. I am being 100% serious: I do think a slower, more modest site with less features would be quite nice, sort of like Medium but for video.
I think the point of Google's media distribution infrastructure isn't just bandwidth or providing ingest and playback that "just works". (That, indeed is what I personally would be interested in.)
The "infrastructure" to the bigger audience is about
* being available ubiquitously and recognized as a brand
* discoverability, search, recommendations, filling you free time with cat videos, memes
* being a platform for wannabee influencers with real advertisers money in the form of pennies offered to creatives
Especially the latter two need to continuously monitor every little move happening in the "attention market".
The "infrastructure" to the bigger audience is about
* being available ubiquitously and recognized as a brand
* discoverability, search, recommendations, filling you free time with cat videos, memes
* being a platform for wannabee influencers with real advertisers money in the form of pennies offered to creatives
Especially the latter two need to continuously monitor every little move happening in the "attention market".
I don't see how taking 5min to start playing a video saves you much on bandwidth? I see how you save by accepting somewhat longer start times, and more variance, but even with the delay you're still paying to transfer the same number of bytes.
Well, it would load the video more slowly, thereby causing people to watch fewer videos. Their selections would be more thoughtful and more focused rather than frenetic and shallow.
Or people would set lots of videos to load in background tabs but only get around to watching some of them.
I'd like to think I could cultivate a decent user base through decency and keep those types away. Plus I would add some technological features to make it only attractive to people who want a more deliberate experience.
> would be quite nice, sort of like Medium
The worst example possible.
The worst example possible.
Medium has its problems but at least it is trying to find another business model besides the ad-only kind, and that in itself is laudable.
Medium employs the worst kind of ad-business model. I'm not referring to traditional ads but to the practice of imposing a corporate paywall (which is akin to an ad since it's not your paywall but the company's) to entice users into paying Medium for content that they don't even own. Additionally, they pay creators peanuts through an opaque monetization system. It's reminiscent of every other content aggregator website now.
You would think controlling what the world watches via algorithms with no oversight whatsoever would be a valuable thing to have.
But having that AND getting ad money is more valuable, of course, so they do it.
But having that AND getting ad money is more valuable, of course, so they do it.
Isn't the first one what makes the later one valuable? And without it would have somewhat less value...
And who would actually pay on what people watch? Would that really be sustainable model?
And who would actually pay on what people watch? Would that really be sustainable model?
The first one lets you move opinion on things like AI regulation, anti-trust actions, election sentiment, and more... so the first one is valuable on its own. If you have the first, using it to get the second is like using a commercial passenger jet as a reading light (yes that's a Jim Butcher reference).
They also get all of your information/habits/etc..
It's pretty sweet being an all powerful tech company.
Which has what value, exactly? I see the value being for lining up the ads you're most likely to be relevant to you. It increases the amount they can charge advertisers, and you're seeing ads that are more relevant to you. Is there some other value in having this information?
in the individual case, it's ads or blackmail (and because the latter is illegal, Google isn't doing it).
in the aggregate, at the population level? very valuable. especially changes over time.
in the aggregate, at the population level? very valuable. especially changes over time.
> but even if not, YouTube is being greedy here
While I agree with the greedy part, what do you specifically suggest they do? If they do nothing then the people without an adblocker are effectively subsidizing those who don't see the ads, resulting in them seeing more ads.
If you don't want ads there's YouTube Premium ( even if it sucks that you need to get YouTube Music at the same time ). The worst part of that deal is that I'm pretty confident that Google is still collecting everything that can about me and uses it everywhere else.
While I agree with the greedy part, what do you specifically suggest they do? If they do nothing then the people without an adblocker are effectively subsidizing those who don't see the ads, resulting in them seeing more ads.
If you don't want ads there's YouTube Premium ( even if it sucks that you need to get YouTube Music at the same time ). The worst part of that deal is that I'm pretty confident that Google is still collecting everything that can about me and uses it everywhere else.
I think Google should offer a paid tier like YouTube premium, but with the following feautures:
(1) You can opt out of any analytics and tracking
(2) They would turn off ads for your OWN channel. So for example, if I have a channel and I pay for premium, then I should be able to TURN OFF ads so that OTHERS who view my channel don't see ads.
If Google had these features, I would buy premium in a heartbeat.
(1) You can opt out of any analytics and tracking
(2) They would turn off ads for your OWN channel. So for example, if I have a channel and I pay for premium, then I should be able to TURN OFF ads so that OTHERS who view my channel don't see ads.
If Google had these features, I would buy premium in a heartbeat.
YouTube premium's cost is unreasonable compared to the ad revenue they're missing out on. I personally don't mind covering the lost income from ads but I'm not going to pay simply to avoid being abused. And this model is repeated across quite a few ad-free services - Meta's program charges triple[1] what it earns per user, Reddit charges 150x[2] what it earns from advertising.
Just let us pay your ad revenue and don't be exploitative.
1. Meta earns about 40/year from EU citizens while their ad-free service will cost 120/year
2. The ad-free reddit experience costs 50/year while for an average user they only earn about 30 cents every year.
Just let us pay your ad revenue and don't be exploitative.
1. Meta earns about 40/year from EU citizens while their ad-free service will cost 120/year
2. The ad-free reddit experience costs 50/year while for an average user they only earn about 30 cents every year.
I think 40/year is the ARPU globally - the EU number is 71.52.
But it’s a bit worse than that, since users willing to pay for adblocking are disproportionately rich users, making them more valuable.
But it’s a bit worse than that, since users willing to pay for adblocking are disproportionately rich users, making them more valuable.
(1) 99% of the general public is still barely aware of analytics & tracking, let alone care about it
(2) This makes no business sense for Youtube. If you are a serious channel you might bring in tens of thousands of dollars per video easily. If you are a mega channel that might be hundreds or millions of dollars. You want to offset that with a single $10/month subscription?
(2) This makes no business sense for Youtube. If you are a serious channel you might bring in tens of thousands of dollars per video easily. If you are a mega channel that might be hundreds or millions of dollars. You want to offset that with a single $10/month subscription?
And who would buy this premium subscription? Most popular YouTubers want to make money from ads displayed on their videos, it's often one of their primary revenue streams.
Most mid-sized youtubers make a lot more in patreon than they do in advertising revenue and see their content as a way to generate more patreon revenue rather than caring any revenue directly from their content - I also think it's much more pleasant to have a stable income from patreon instead of working with a constantly fluctuating advertising revenue.
Well, I would for one. I've made some money from my channel, but mainly through promoting my own courses and other things. I'm not after a lot of wealth, just enough.
That would open you up to arbitrarily large bills which nobody in their right mind would sign up for. If your content goes viral and you're paying to replace the advertising revenue, you could be in a deep hole.
Sponsored videos?
If we consider popular channels I wonder if single premium subscription is enough to cover the costs.
Maybe Youtube could become actual hosting platform and allow creators and companies to pay some fee per minute of streaming at each resolution.
Maybe Youtube could become actual hosting platform and allow creators and companies to pay some fee per minute of streaming at each resolution.
With (2) they'd need to charge for this tier in proportion to viewership, no? An amount that makes sense for someone with 100 subs is going to be really different than for someone with 100M.
That is a good point. Well, perhaps there would have to be tiers like you said, just like many other services that offer tiers (web hosting, etc).
Why not Vimeo?
It is a good option.
Technically, but not practically. None of the channels I subscribe to are on it. At the end of the day it's all about content. If YouTube had no content then I wouldn't be there.
> They are greedy, and instead of having a thriving business, they are making the exact same mistake as cable TV providers:
How are they supposed to have a thriving business with no ads?
Why would anyone pay for YouTube if not to remove the ads?
The videos that get the most views only exist because YouTube shares ad revenue with creators. That content largely wouldn't exist without ad money to fund it.
The cost to run YouTube is enormous.
How are they supposed to have a thriving business with no ads?
Why would anyone pay for YouTube if not to remove the ads?
The videos that get the most views only exist because YouTube shares ad revenue with creators. That content largely wouldn't exist without ad money to fund it.
The cost to run YouTube is enormous.
They will win.
They will setup DRM, or render the full site in canvas, or with wasm, or something, or requires a TPM trusted signatured in an approved web browser or some shit.
The new generation will accept a limited client, because they know mostly locked down phones. So only a few will not accept it, and they will not have to care about it a single bit.
They will setup DRM, or render the full site in canvas, or with wasm, or something, or requires a TPM trusted signatured in an approved web browser or some shit.
The new generation will accept a limited client, because they know mostly locked down phones. So only a few will not accept it, and they will not have to care about it a single bit.
They won't. The movie industry has been trying to stop piracy with technical measures forever. Things still get pirated. Every measure they take will be broken.
They'll win over the masses, which is what they really care about. But they won't ever defeat the die-hards.
They'll win over the masses, which is what they really care about. But they won't ever defeat the die-hards.
The landscape is not the same as it was.
Previously Google was not a monopoly in so many areas. Now the Internet goes through Google. It caters to investors, not to users. It controls search engine, and a browser, and phones. It can decide what is happening on client side, and on search server side.
The wild west of the Internet has ended. We have the corporate Internet now, that is surveilled and scanned, and they became quite efficient with that.
Previously you could find pirate links through Google, this has ended. You could run pirate software, but software more and more ask OS for approval to be executed. Android will scan sideloaded apps for example.
While environment becomes safer, it also becomes more controlled by corporations. Piracy eventually will be very hard to do. All blockades can be broken, but there more and more of them.
Previously Google was not a monopoly in so many areas. Now the Internet goes through Google. It caters to investors, not to users. It controls search engine, and a browser, and phones. It can decide what is happening on client side, and on search server side.
The wild west of the Internet has ended. We have the corporate Internet now, that is surveilled and scanned, and they became quite efficient with that.
Previously you could find pirate links through Google, this has ended. You could run pirate software, but software more and more ask OS for approval to be executed. Android will scan sideloaded apps for example.
While environment becomes safer, it also becomes more controlled by corporations. Piracy eventually will be very hard to do. All blockades can be broken, but there more and more of them.
And even the die-hards will lose convenience, reverse engineering a custom WASM VM every time it's updated is massive work.
And TPM checks are really hard to bypass.
All that to watch a few videos without a 20 second ads?
Not sure it's event worth it.
And TPM checks are really hard to bypass.
All that to watch a few videos without a 20 second ads?
Not sure it's event worth it.
That's why you don't do it, but the die-hards do.
The die-hards aren't really doing it for any practical purpose, they're just doing it to show it can be done. Mainstream media have been ignoring. them for decades now and continue to make boatloads of money.
Depends on how highly you value your privacy. Ads aren't just annoying visually, they contain little tracker bits spying on you.
Long before I had an adblocker, I developed "banner blindness", the real benefit my adblocker gives me is less info leaking out to the platforms. (and since ublock/umatrix is so great, also more security and better loading times, but these are cherries)
If that counts as a "practical purpose" is up to you.
Long before I had an adblocker, I developed "banner blindness", the real benefit my adblocker gives me is less info leaking out to the platforms. (and since ublock/umatrix is so great, also more security and better loading times, but these are cherries)
If that counts as a "practical purpose" is up to you.
Netflix killed Torrents.
Spotify killed Napster.
By providing a better service. Not by combatting the pirates in a technological arms race. Incidentally, movie/TV piracy is on the rise again as streaming has become more fragmented and more expensive.
https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/25/streaming-video-piracy/#:~:te...
https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/25/streaming-video-piracy/#:~:te...
Torrenting is on the rise again since the golden era of streaming where Netflix gave you access to everything has ended.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/digital-cont...
https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/digital-cont...
Netflix with account sharing has perhaps killed Torrents, which to me doesn't seem that different. People I know went from free torrents to free Netflix (or a "ok I'll pay your beer for letting me use your Netflix"). Now account sharing is out, Torrents will increase again.
Torrents are back big-time because Netflix became too annoying and video streaming too fragmented.
https://torrentfreak.com/online-piracy-continues-to-rise-wit...
https://torrentfreak.com/sharp-rise-in-piracy-rates-across-s...
https://torrentfreak.com/online-piracy-continues-to-rise-wit...
https://torrentfreak.com/sharp-rise-in-piracy-rates-across-s...
Torrents never left. I've had no issue over the last 15 years with either torrents or newsgroups, everything's just as accessible and quickly released as it was then.
Netflix had the chance to become the Steam of Movies, effectively killing piracy in the field, however between every company creating their own streaming service and hiking prices, my (admittedly anecdotal) impression is that some people are going back to pirating at least some of the time.
Torrenting isn't dead and Spotify came years after the various lawsuits that killed Napster.
> Netflix killed Torrents.
Not really.
Not really.
There is like a decade between Napster ending and Spotify launching. No, it's iTunes that killed mp3 pirating, Spotify killed what was left of it plus optical media.
Netflix may have dampened torrents at some point, but boy are those making a comeback with the splintered enshittifcation prone streaming world we live in.
Netflix may have dampened torrents at some point, but boy are those making a comeback with the splintered enshittifcation prone streaming world we live in.
They will setup DRM, or render the full site in canvas, or with wasm, or something, or requires a TPM trusted signatured in an approved web browser or some shit.
That was going to be WEI [1] but they shelved it for now. I expect they will be more subtle with the next project release after it gets renamed.
[1] - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/your-computer-should-s...
That was going to be WEI [1] but they shelved it for now. I expect they will be more subtle with the next project release after it gets renamed.
[1] - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/your-computer-should-s...
You forgot the golden rule of anti-piracy measures: they never defeat pirates but do alienate your customers.
Netflix drm wants a word.
Not sure what you mean. It's pretty straightforward to get Netflix shows.
They have the power to block adblocker extentions from Chrome and then only allow Chrome and no derivatives to use YouTube.
uBlock has been working fine. If you get blocked from youtube, you can go to uBlock options, click purge all caches, then "Update Now." Do a full reload in youtube and you're good to go. Tactics are changing continually.
You can check if the uBlock filters are "working" here:
https://drhyperion451.github.io/does-uBO-bypass-yt/
(it just checks the YT anti-AB script ID against the UB anti-anti-AB script ID to see if it has been updated).
https://drhyperion451.github.io/does-uBO-bypass-yt/
(it just checks the YT anti-AB script ID against the UB anti-anti-AB script ID to see if it has been updated).
This isn't working for me on Firefox / uBlock and Ubuntu :(
I don't get the popup, but the video is just black and the play button does nothing.
I don't get the popup, but the video is just black and the play button does nothing.
I have mostly same configuration except I use Fedora.
Sometimes ublock doesn't work for me. I just open the video in a temporary container it works without any issues.
Have you tried this approach?
Sometimes ublock doesn't work for me. I just open the video in a temporary container it works without any issues.
Have you tried this approach?
Thanks, this seems to work for me!
It's mostly affecting people that log into Youtube and don't block javascript from google. That's why there are so many people with conflicting anecdotes.
Did you already hit their three strikes soft ban prior to updating the cache?
What is it? Hard for anyone to tell without describing it.
Possibly. I didn't know this was a thing!
Brave browser works for me on both desktop and iPhone
This doesn't really pass the sniff test, unless users of ad blockers are particularly uninformed.
If you want to avoid the YT messages, you can turn off the blocker for YT. If you're uninstalling then you're likely upgrading to a blocker that actually works. The article might be more convincing if they included stats from reliable YT blockers like uBlock Origin.
If you want to avoid the YT messages, you can turn off the blocker for YT. If you're uninstalling then you're likely upgrading to a blocker that actually works. The article might be more convincing if they included stats from reliable YT blockers like uBlock Origin.
I deeply dislike advertising, but I am also willing to pay for services I value, so I am subscribed to YouTube Premium. But given how evil and greedy Google has become, I fully expect the "premium" service to eventually transition from no ads to "limited ads" (and that is the day I will cancel my account and walk away forever).
There's an argument to be made that a site that permits ad blockers should command a higher price from advertisers than one that forbids them, since a user who would use an ad blocker is the least likely user to ever click on an ad. If you're showing ads to a userbase that consists of a mix of users who would and wouldn't use an ad blocker if able to do it, then you're increasing your impressions by policy without increasing your conversions, compared to a site that shows ads only to users who have the chance to block ads and don't.
There are different types of ads.
The types of ads run on YouTube have more in common with TV and aren't primarily for direct action.
Unless you think everyone who installs ad blockers is going to plug their ears and look away from the screen for 5 seconds when ads come on - advertisers will be happy to advertise to them.
The types of ads run on YouTube have more in common with TV and aren't primarily for direct action.
Unless you think everyone who installs ad blockers is going to plug their ears and look away from the screen for 5 seconds when ads come on - advertisers will be happy to advertise to them.
Depending on the way the site and its ads are presented, and which ad-blocked is in use, that argument often falls flat because the blocked adverts still get counted as delivered as they leave the relevant server and are blocked from rendering client-side.
Obviously this is not universally true (for example DNS based blocking stops the request for the ad content going through at all so if the counting is done at that point a blocked ad won't be counted) but a lot of in-browser blocks might see the blocked impression still counted.
Obviously this is not universally true (for example DNS based blocking stops the request for the ad content going through at all so if the counting is done at that point a blocked ad won't be counted) but a lot of in-browser blocks might see the blocked impression still counted.
>that argument often falls flat because the blocked adverts still get counted as delivered as they leave the relevant server and are blocked from rendering client-side
And this counter-argument falls flat because YouTube must be able to detect which users are blocking ads in order to show them a message to disable ad blocking. If YouTube is detecting that situation and still counting blocked ads as delivered then they're cheating their customers. There are only three possibilities:
1. YouTube can't tell if user A is blocking ads, so the customer gets billed for an impression that didn't happen, but the user also can't be stopped from blocking the ad.
2. YouTube can tell when user A blocks ads, and must shoulder the cost of delivering a video without a corresponding ad impression. The argument I brought up addresses this.
3. YouTube can tell when user A blocks ads, and changes the customer anyway. In this case YT would have no incentive to stop people from blocking ads.
And this counter-argument falls flat because YouTube must be able to detect which users are blocking ads in order to show them a message to disable ad blocking. If YouTube is detecting that situation and still counting blocked ads as delivered then they're cheating their customers. There are only three possibilities:
1. YouTube can't tell if user A is blocking ads, so the customer gets billed for an impression that didn't happen, but the user also can't be stopped from blocking the ad.
2. YouTube can tell when user A blocks ads, and must shoulder the cost of delivering a video without a corresponding ad impression. The argument I brought up addresses this.
3. YouTube can tell when user A blocks ads, and changes the customer anyway. In this case YT would have no incentive to stop people from blocking ads.
> YouTube must be able to detect which users are blocking ads in order to show them a message to disable ad blocking
They must be able to detect some blockers in order to show some users a message to disable ad blocking. They certainly aren't detecting mine, or are for some reason choosing not to show me the message.
> If YouTube is detecting that situation and still counting blocked ads as delivered then they're cheating their customers.
I'm sure they aren't cheating their customers in any way said customers can prove…
In order for their customers to have any confidence that they are getting better value from allowing blocking, as the previous assertion, YouTube would have to convincingly prove that they can detect a large majority of blocking and therefore account for it in how they charge for impressions.
They must be able to detect some blockers in order to show some users a message to disable ad blocking. They certainly aren't detecting mine, or are for some reason choosing not to show me the message.
> If YouTube is detecting that situation and still counting blocked ads as delivered then they're cheating their customers.
I'm sure they aren't cheating their customers in any way said customers can prove…
In order for their customers to have any confidence that they are getting better value from allowing blocking, as the previous assertion, YouTube would have to convincingly prove that they can detect a large majority of blocking and therefore account for it in how they charge for impressions.
>They certainly aren't detecting mine, or are for some reason choosing not to show me the message.
If they can't detect your blocking then you would fall under case #1 above. If they can detect it but choose to allow it for whatever reason then it's not part of this discussion.
>In order for their customers to have any confidence that they are getting better value from allowing blocking, as the previous assertion, YouTube would have to convincingly prove that they can detect a large majority of blocking and therefore account for it in how they charge for impressions.
No, my assertion was that a site that doesn't forbid ad blockers should have a better conversion ratio than one that does, all else being equal, not a better ratio than another arbitrary one. Under the assumption that total_impressions = non_blocking_users * k:
total_impressions / non_blocking_users > total_impressions / (non_blocking_users + blocking_users)
This is true regardless of how large blocking_users is, both in absolute terms and compared to non_blocking users. Whether you can accurately measure blocking_users also doesn't matter.
If they can't detect your blocking then you would fall under case #1 above. If they can detect it but choose to allow it for whatever reason then it's not part of this discussion.
>In order for their customers to have any confidence that they are getting better value from allowing blocking, as the previous assertion, YouTube would have to convincingly prove that they can detect a large majority of blocking and therefore account for it in how they charge for impressions.
No, my assertion was that a site that doesn't forbid ad blockers should have a better conversion ratio than one that does, all else being equal, not a better ratio than another arbitrary one. Under the assumption that total_impressions = non_blocking_users * k:
total_impressions / non_blocking_users > total_impressions / (non_blocking_users + blocking_users)
This is true regardless of how large blocking_users is, both in absolute terms and compared to non_blocking users. Whether you can accurately measure blocking_users also doesn't matter.
Can we consider youtube as a publisher here? If yes, it is in favour of Google to display as many ads as possible.
https://blog.google/products/adsense/evolving-how-publishers...
https://blog.google/products/adsense/evolving-how-publishers...
[deleted]
I just don’t understand why people don’t use Invidious instead of paying money to these greedy bastards
Because (a) it's not that widely known and (b) Google is trying to block it [1], so many instances are broken now, which isn't a great experience.
[1]: https://github.com/iv-org/invidious/issues/3915
[1]: https://github.com/iv-org/invidious/issues/3915
I know they’re trying to block it. Even this thread which is flagged now is a case in point. Let’s kill the greedy bastards. Let’s make Google bankrupt, anyway it’s not useful much anymore
Libredirect extension to automatically get a curated list of instances and choose the ones with lowest ping times and dash (better than 720p) enabled. Also for dozens of other enshittified services.
The statement "subscriptions to AdGuard's paid service surged, as it's not affected by YouTube's crackdown" is false. AdGuard apps are also affected by YouTube's anti-adblocker measures. However, there are workarounds. You can avoid the anti-adblocker measures by setting your user agent to an old browser, such as Internet Explorer.
Well good, because hopefully it will shed enough load that YouTube considers it a success doesn't go any further than this. uBlock Origin still works, that's good enough for me.
[dupe]
Lots of news last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38128765
Lots of news last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38128765
I once watched a 15 min Youtube ad about immigrants running an ice scream sandwich shop. Just wanted to see how long it was
I simply stopped watching YouTube.
Those of you defending youtube on this, have you actually tried watching anything on the site without ad blockers? It's not just that they serve you occasional, only moderately annoying ads as a subsidy for not paying, they do it in such an intrusively pervasive manner that it seems intentionally designed to make it nearly unusable. The sheer quantity of garbage interrupting your music or anything else you care to watch goes way beyond reasonable and right into the land of "fuck you until you pay".
It's downright shitty from a highly profitable company whose content volume is entirely created by other users themselves who in any case regularly get demonetized from the ads in their own content for all sorts of arbitrary X and Y bullshit reasons, to the point that those running most of my favorite channels don't even make anything from the very same ads that youtube crams down everyone elses throats.
It's downright shitty from a highly profitable company whose content volume is entirely created by other users themselves who in any case regularly get demonetized from the ads in their own content for all sorts of arbitrary X and Y bullshit reasons, to the point that those running most of my favorite channels don't even make anything from the very same ads that youtube crams down everyone elses throats.
> Those of you defending youtube on this, have you actually tried watching anything on the site without ad blockers?
That's how I normally watch YouTube. It's fine? The ads are mostly skippable after a few seconds.
If I was more into YouTube I'd probably pay to remove ads, but I probably average 15min a day.
That's how I normally watch YouTube. It's fine? The ads are mostly skippable after a few seconds.
If I was more into YouTube I'd probably pay to remove ads, but I probably average 15min a day.
My YouTube with premium subscription works just fine across all platforms with no ads.
They give me service, I give them money, sounds fair.
They give me service, I give them money, sounds fair.
Well good for you, would you like a pat on the back? You completely missed the main points I'm making, that the very body of content you enjoy was started and created by users themselves and at one point with much of it being in violation of copyright rules with YT fully benefiting from that, only to now get morally righteous about ad blockers being used to block a deliberately, grossly enshittified viewing experience.
Even content creators themselves barely benefit from these ads, because an incredible percentage of them are constantly demonetized for endless arbitrary algorithmic reasons.
Even content creators themselves barely benefit from these ads, because an incredible percentage of them are constantly demonetized for endless arbitrary algorithmic reasons.
Because the tech and finance industry is kinda stupid like that, we pretty much only know how much revenue YouTube have, not the profit. I think it's fairly safe to assume that YouTube is generating a substantial profit for Alphabet, has they have no qualms about shutting down a service if the profit isn't large enough (Google Domains comes to mind).
So there's a level of greed at YouTube as there certainly could be fewer ads, and lower margins. I also don't think it's unreasonable to question if there is a "quality" ad market large enough to support YouTube at it's current profit level. They show a lot of ads, and they are pretty terrible, they also can't be worth much.
For $23 you get YouTube Music and YouTube Premium, for six people. The largest chunk of that money is actually for YouTube Music (I believe it's $11 for Music and $4 for Premium, for a single person). I'd be surprised if YouTube isn't making money on both the single and family plan. YouTube channels like Linus Tech Tips have pointed out publicly that YouTube Premium contributes a fair chunk of money in their revenue, so not all of the cost of the subscription goes to YouTube. That means that either the ads are subsidizing Premium or the ads bring in just a few dollars per month per user.
While I have no insights and I'm just speculating, it's currently my belief that online video ads are close to worthless, meaning that they are also cheap enough that the shittiest companies can afford to buy them. So you need to show more and more, and accept increasingly intrusive ads to generate the same profit as earlier.
So there's a level of greed at YouTube as there certainly could be fewer ads, and lower margins. I also don't think it's unreasonable to question if there is a "quality" ad market large enough to support YouTube at it's current profit level. They show a lot of ads, and they are pretty terrible, they also can't be worth much.
For $23 you get YouTube Music and YouTube Premium, for six people. The largest chunk of that money is actually for YouTube Music (I believe it's $11 for Music and $4 for Premium, for a single person). I'd be surprised if YouTube isn't making money on both the single and family plan. YouTube channels like Linus Tech Tips have pointed out publicly that YouTube Premium contributes a fair chunk of money in their revenue, so not all of the cost of the subscription goes to YouTube. That means that either the ads are subsidizing Premium or the ads bring in just a few dollars per month per user.
While I have no insights and I'm just speculating, it's currently my belief that online video ads are close to worthless, meaning that they are also cheap enough that the shittiest companies can afford to buy them. So you need to show more and more, and accept increasingly intrusive ads to generate the same profit as earlier.
Yes. I haven't used adblockers anywhere for a good decade. Ads in articles my brain now skips, and unskippable video ads I usually mute and do something else.
I wouldn't use Youtube to listen to music any more than I'd use my toaster to cook bacon. It could do it, but I have better tools for purpose.
I wouldn't use Youtube to listen to music any more than I'd use my toaster to cook bacon. It could do it, but I have better tools for purpose.
I just use Brave and no ads or warnings.
Why did this get flagged?
> https://github.com/0x48piraj/fadblock
I'm trying out alternatives fadblock seems to work well enough so far, but this is enshitification.
If it comes to it I'll migrate over to using yt-dlp or disregard YT entirely and find somewhere else. I believe others feel similarly. Ads are not acceptable to me.
I'm trying out alternatives fadblock seems to work well enough so far, but this is enshitification.
If it comes to it I'll migrate over to using yt-dlp or disregard YT entirely and find somewhere else. I believe others feel similarly. Ads are not acceptable to me.
Frankly, in the past years, nothing makes me more sick that the pure greed of tech companies doing things just because they can, and Google and its employees are at the top of that list of those who make me wretch.