YouTube’s ad blocker crackdown now includes third-party apps
YouTube’s ad blocker crackdown now includes third-party apps
www.theverge.com YouTube’s ad blocker crackdown now includes third-party apps
YouTube’s ad blocking battle continues.
您正在查看单个对话串。
332 评论
-
YouTube's argument is the same as Linus' from LTT: if you watch a video without ads, you're failing to comply with your side of the transaction, thus essentially pirating that content and stealing the revenue source.
Regardless if we agree or not with that statement, I'll absolutely side with adblockers always for a deeper issue: it's my screen, so I get the ultimate say on what content gets rendered. Quite literally. It's my network, my cable, my screen, my graphics card, my web browser running JavaScript on my CPU - you do not, ever, get to overreach and decide what pixels show up or not. If I don't want your obnoxious ad for an AI girlfriend to show up, there's no moral argument to be had here.
EDIT: I think some of you are missing the point of this comment. There's no reason to reply to me countering the argument in the first paragraph, as it is not my comment, in fact, I specifically mentioned how it's YouTube (and Linus') argument.
-
I was happy with an ad at the side of the video. Then they started popping up over my video, then they started appearing before my video, then they started appearing throughout my video. Companies shot themselves in the foot with online advertising, banner ads and such weren't much of a problem, but once ads start disrupting the content we visit a site for, then we look to block them ads. More people blocking ads is less revenue, so they make the ads more aggressive... and the cycle continues.
And on a side note, Linus can fuck off.
-
That and the large ad networks even on sites like YouTube and Facebook literally are advertising scams. Every time I browse shorts on either I get ads that are obvious scams of the "There's a new $6400 monthly health credit see if you qualify." variety. On one of Meta's apps I got an ad that was for male enhancement that was straight up clips of uncensored hardcore porn. Not just nudity but full on PIV sex. If they can't even do the work to properly screen their ads they can get fucked, I'm blocking all of it that I can.
-
Yeah I don't mind ads if they're relevant - I scroll through insta reels from time to time, and am always getting ads about concerts I'm interested in, restaurants I haven't tried and sales at shops I go to.
I honestly don't mind so much, and if it's not relevant to me I can scroll past without having to watch.
-
In order to get relevant ads you have to opt in to give them your data. Do you do that?
-
In order to use the platform in the EU, you either opt into personalised ads or pay a monthly subscription. So yes, I'm aware they're using my data for the ads.
Google does as well, but they don't seem to be able to offer me even relatively relevant ads based on my interests.
-
-
-
-
Non disruptive ads were meant to advertise.
Slightly annoying ads were meant to be seen more, since people just ignored banners by default.
Hidden ads (like an ad in an article which you really could tell it was an ad) were meant to increase the image of a company.
Disruptive ads like in YouTube or Spotify aren't meant for advertising. They don't really care about the advertising money, they want to force you to buy premium. The more annoying the ad is the higher the chances you pay 20€ a month for them to go away.
-
These days maybe, but disruptive ads started way before subscriptions became a thing.
-
-
Yeah, the pre-ads (unstoppable) and the massively increased loading times of the basic Youtube page makes it impossible to successfully Rickroll people
-
-
By that logic using a VCR to record television and fast-forwarding adverts is piracy.
-
And you see digital tv providers trying to implement fast forward blockers without chasing away their customers too much
-
Any time I fast forward and have to wait for a commercial that interrupted my fast forwarding, it's an immediate cancelation of the service and I'm on the phone with customer support to try and get my couple of bucks for that month back.
Fuck your shitty service, I'm grabbing my hat and sword.
-
-
That argument was in fact made when VCRs first came out. I don’t remember how exactly it played out but in the end the courts here in the US said that VCRs were fine.
-
At least a few TV service DVRs stop you from skipping ads.
-
Some even from forwarding at all through the actual content...
-
-
-
The agreement isn't that you watch the ad, but that you allow the ad to play on your device. That's it. Whether or not you see it or hear it doesn't matter; the "cost" for this type of content is a few moment of your device's time, not your attention.
-
-
TBH I'm just so fucking tired of ads overstepping, back in the day there's be a little banner on the side of a page advertising a truck or whatever, I'm sick of seeing like, enormous length ads.
One day I had a 3 hour minecraft let's play uploaded as an ad, you think I should have to watch all of that youtube?
And the frequency is getting crazy.
-
-
I fucking hate billboards man. Get them OUT.
-
First off, I couldn't care less about ad blocking and I'm not here to moralise what anyone else does.
I do however think your point is somewhat undermined by the fact YouTube have an ad free option. You can legitimately make the ads disappear and YouTube have no issue with it.
-
-
-
When YouTube Red first dropped they were putting hour-long pilot episodes of their shows as pre-roll ads. Now I notice ads on shorts are full of obvious scams related to "new monthly health credits". Still better than getting an ad on Facebook reels that was uncensored hardcore porn.
-
I'm almost thinking of breaking down and buying YT premium because god, I watch a lot of youtube (I'd go so far as to say it's my primary entertainment stream at times) but I'm already paying so fucking much for cable that I don't even want.
Cable's 80, Internet's 80, somehow extra fees bring it up to nearly 200, and I can't convince other members of my household (who watch a grand total of four fucking channels, MSNBC, Weather channel, sports, etc) that we should ditch cable, absolutely miserable.
-
Nvidia Sheild pro + smartTube Next. I see 0 ads. The app also bypasses the self promotion/hit the like and subscribe button crap as well.
-
You can put custom apps on the Shield pro? neat.
-
-
For Android on phones and tablets look up Revanced. You have to download the YouTube .apk from somewhere like apkmirror, then use the Revanced manager to apply patches to block ads and change functionality. Then you log into your account with their own version of MicroG/gmscore. It was briefly affected by the issue in the main post but was working again in a few hours.
For Android-based smart TVs and streaming devices there's SmartTube (SmartTubeNext). Not sure how well they'll do if YouTube goes cat and mouse though.
And for a wider variety of devices (including Apple TV and now WebOS) there's also Kodi which has a YouTube addon although logging in with it is kind of a pain as you need to get API keys, etc.
& finally on a desktop browser uBlock Origin alone handles all the ads pretty well, and you can optionally add Sponsorblock.
Oh. And check out some of the over the top TV services and see if there are any cheap ones that might meet your needs to replace cable. Though the way the cable companies do their bundling even that might not save you much as the net might jump up to more than $80 standalone.
-
-
-
-
You know what, I actually agree with YouTube's argument. Ad blocking is piracy. In fact, no, it's worse than piracy. If I pirate a movie, Disney makes no money, but it costs them nothing at all. If I watch YouTube without an ad blocker, I'm depriving YouTube of its revenue source and I'm costing them money. Morally, ad blocking sits somewhere between piracy and actual theft.
The thing is? I don't care. I ad block YouTube all the time and feel not a lick of guilt. The reason: Google brought this on themselves. I used to happily pay for YouTube Red. But they have continuously, both before and after that point, been actively hostile to the people actually producing the content they make. Their willingness to bow down to copyright trolls and complete inability to properly apply fair use. They extremely harsh policies on acceptable content, stopping people talking about sex education or mediaeval weaponry being able to reliably makes money.
And the straw that broke this camel's back was when they changed the requirements to be in the Partner Program, locking out all the smaller creators from ever being able to make money on YouTube. I never considered myself a "creator", but over the 5 years prior to that I occasionally uploaded stuff I was doing anyway. I had amassed almost $100 over those 5 years. Not an impressive amount, for sure, but having that taken away from me made me feel unwelcome. I don't think I've uploaded anything public since, and I've been blocking ads on the site since then.
Even worse, not long after this change, they decided to start showing ads even on videos from non-partnered videos, so you can get ads on my videos even though I don't see a single cent.
So fuck YouTube. Ad blocking is worse than piracy, and I say good.
-
Google: You're pirating our content!
Us: Yeah, so what?
-
Google: You're pirating our content!
Us: AND THE BEATINGS SHALL CONTINUE UNTIL YOU LEARN YOUR FUCKING LESSON.
-
-
My god… are you… me? Same exact shit. Created my YT account 14 years ago. Made some vids… some got some views… eventually I got a few dollars deposited like for 3 years. Probably totaled the same $100 you mentioned then boom. Shut down.
-
I uploaded what I think was the first tutorial on how to use Photoshop's then-new "Content-Aware Fill" to help create panoramas, and also a tutorial about...something, I forget what, to do with the music engraving software Sibelius. They were things I was doing all the time, but there didn't seem to be any guide on how to do it, so I thought I'd help out. And I got rewarded with a little cash and a few tens of thousands of views. Felt good.
There are much better, higher-polish videos that deal with those subjects now, I'm sure. But still, it didn't feel good getting that ripped out from under me, and being told I was no longer welcome.
-
-
-
I’d agree with that logic if YouTube kept up their end of the bargain and actually vetted their ad buyers. Instead they show ads for fake stimulus scams, fake news, and blatant malware.
I manage a large network and ads are blocked at the edge of the network. Not using an adblocker is a security risk that is not acceptable for my company. I pay for YouTube premium because it’s in my means and I get value from the subscription but I don’t blame anyone who takes the same approach
-
I manage a large network and ads are blocked at the edge of the network.
You must MITM all traffic and do some magic with stripping/injecting JavaScript then? Because every time I've tried with pihole, its just threads and threads of people saying its not possible with DNS blocking because the ads are served from the video servers.
-
We also deploy a browser extension via GPO/Intune to catch those and protect endpoints when they are off net.
I actually wasn’t in favor of that but the rest of team was so after risk assessing it, we determined that trusting a vendor with the permission to rewrite webpages was less of a risk than drive-by malware or phishing/redirection from a malicious ad
-
They said they pay for YouTube premium so they might not have to block YouTube ads
-
-
-
TL;DR: my property rights trump Youtube's business model.
-
The problem is that there is that ad networks and ad placements are just bad actors in the consumer space. Not only has malware been passed time and time again with ads but also false ads to malware. When that happens suddenly the content creator/website/whatever 'isn't responsible' for it. Then there's the issue of ads being placed everywhere slowing down websites but even worse, getting in the way with auto play audio and video, videos autoscrolling over the content you're trying to read or whatever, etc.
As a consumer, I should not and ethically do not need to worry about another's business model. If the business model fails simply because I don't allow something that model depends on to traverse my network then it is on them to figure it out. If the ads get in the way of the content, then I just want consume the content anyway.
Some news websites use Ad Admiral or whatever it is called and I haven't bothered trying to bypass the adblock wall for them. I just simply consume the content elsewhere.
If ads were ever responsibly used or perhaps could be argued that there is compromise where consumers wouldn't mind, then there'd probably be a lot less ad blocker usage. It's like anything else. When it takes less effort to install an adblocker to have an OK experience, then ad blockers will be popular.
I was around before ad blockers were very popular and even before pop-up blockers were around. Ads kept getting worse which is why ad blockers became more popular and more sophisticated. The Internet had ads for years before ad blockers were the norm.
-
Yeah I wasn’t using an Adblock on YouTube when this all started. Then the ads got so intrusive it was seriously hindering content. These days I don’t watch much YouTube, but it’s with Adblock
-
-
I mean, the argument falls short when YT (or LTT) spew literal garbage. I might have a hint of sympathy if it wasn't a dumpster fire of decaying babies.
The few people I sub do and do yt as a monitory source, I support elsewhere. Fuck YouTube acting as a sleezy middle-man and simultaneously playing the victim.
-
I mean, the argument falls short when YT (or LTT) spew literal garbage.
The fact that you don't like the product doesn't really change that their expected transaction is "watch an ad to receive it". Every argument against the idea of not watching the ads being piracy seems to be, essentially, either "the product isn't good" or "the price is too high", neither of which is relevant to the fact that they've put a "price" on it and you're skipping the part where you "pay".
Quality of the videos is irrelevant. Intrusiveness of the ads is irrelevant. The ads are the price, the videos are the product. You're getting the videos without seeing the ads.
I agree that the "price" is too high, the ads are awful, and the videos are frequently bad. I will continue to block those ads as long as I am able, but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that I'm not skipping out on the cheque, as it were, when I do so.
I might have a hint of sympathy if it wasn’t a dumpster fire of decaying babies.
Literally no one is asking you to have any sympathy. Why get so defensive when it's pointed out that skipping ads is skipping on your side of the transaction when using an ad supported service?
-
I liked the service up until ~2016 and was a yt red family subscriber. Then they upped the prices, then they started pushing more ads + more frequently, then they got butthurt about third-party apps, then they raised prices again...
My "expected transaction" is to host decent-or-better content (not shovel clickbait disinformation nonsense) in a fashion that is palatable to me, and they are failing miserably on the first and are fighting to fail miserably on the second. If you go to a restaurant expecting decent food but are served actual shit, are you going to be like 'thank you sir may I have some more'? We have been the frog in the pot of boiling water for the last 15+ years of bullshit like this, where a company makes a compelling product, then makes it shit but incrementally so 'it's not so bad compared to the last update' but compared to a few years ago it's completely garbage. And they want more money for a worse experience? Are for fucking shitting me?
Quality of the content is relevant. I guarantee you aren't going to the movies to watch something that scored a 4% on RT. Everyone wants to be like' poor yt/alphabet, they only got 63 billion this quarter 'but if it was a real issue they'd be doing stuff like charging fees to upload content (goodbye 9 year-olds screaming about fortnite skins) or something else to curb the amount of content they host. Google knew what they were getting into when they bought yt - at least they sure as fuck should. Nobody has ever made a profitable video service afaik. There's what, yt, vimeo, and... liveleak is dead, uh... crickets.
I'm not even pretending to skip out on the bill. I'm screaming from my table "this is fucking terrible and you should all feel awful about it" before proudly walking out.
Also I'm not asking for sympathy? I'm saying "this service has turned to shit". Also none of my above comment, or this, is defensive; it's being pissed off that a company is fucking people on both sides of the transaction and still complaining that they don't get enough of a cut, while actively making their service worse for their customers and doing nothing to save it themselves. They are a sinking ship complaining that they need more help chucking buckets of water overboard, while they simultaneously poke additional holes in it.
-
I don't really disagree with any of that, and it's all a great argument in favour of just not using YouTube. Hell, it might even be a good argument in favour of using it as much as possible while blocking ads just to consume bandwidth on their dime while denying them ad revenue.
None of it really counters the idea that using it without viewing ads is skipping out on "paying" for that usage, which is the entire "argument" being presented, which you claimed falls short. The content being bad doesn't change the fact that they expect you to view ads (or pay) to see that content, and we're not paying.
-
-
-
Fuck YouTube acting as a sleezy middle-man
A sleezy middleman that happens to foot the YT infrastructure bill.
-
They're hurting real bad lemme tell ya. If only you understood what they're freely extracting from you.
-
Nobody is forcing YT to exist, so...
-
-
-
if a content creator doesnt want people to be able to skip the ads/demonetize the content, then they should post on a platform that makes ads mandatory.
problem is that no one will watch crap on that sort of platform
-
Linus Short Sebastian is an asshole. I like his channel and even bought a water bottle, but he is an asshole nontheless. His opinions are always 5 years outdated. He used to hate reddit but now liked Reddit. Probably a contrarian too.
-
Cool, let's body shame people.
-
-
Another argument proving that Linus Media Group is a bunch of morons
-
-
The same Linus who can't be arsed to spend $500 of various people's time to properly test a product is now telling us what to do?
-
-
I don't see how that's relevant. If you want to engage in the paid YouTube subscription, go for it, it's an entirely different thing though.
My computer requests from YouTube's server a video, the server gives me a stream of data - I didn't steal it, I didn't hack it, the server provided me this because it wanted to - and this stream contains an ad and a video. What I do with this stream is only my concern, you can't force me to watch the ad. That would be like walking in the street and somebody says you're unethical because you didn't look at an outdoor advertisement banner, and that you will be forced to either pay a fee or look at the ad.
-
-
I have no social contract with YouTube. The whole "if you access this site, you agree with this ToS" isn't even legally valid here.
-
-
-
-
My guy, that's why there is DRM. Your screen are loading pixels, because they let you. Those third party apps and frontends work because they let the users have a little freedoms.
If you steal something off the mall and bring it to your home, it doesn't make it yours. People thinking all that code, infrastructure and labour to run something on the internet should be free because they have an internet connection are entitled as the sovcit bunch. Just cringe.
Advertisers, Malwares and Ad blockers are all to blame for the current state of the internet. We're heading for paywalled internet and entitled basement dwellers are going to complain you miss the "old internet"
Seriously, I use adblockers but the rationale people make up for this like countless others are just plain stupid.
-
Fuck that victim-blaming nonsense. The entire reason ad blockers were invented in the first place were because ads in the 90s and early 2000s were somehow even worse than they are now. You would click on a website, and pop-up ads would literally open new windows under your mouse cursor and immediately load an ad that opened another pop-up ad, and then another, and another, until you had 30 windows open and 29 of them were pop-up ads, all of them hoping to trick you into clicking on them to take you to a website laden with more and more pop-up ads. Banner ads would use bright, flashing, two-tone colors (that were likely seizure-inducing, so have fun epileptics!) to demand your attention while taking up most of your relatively tiny, low-resolution screen.
The worst offenders were the Flash-based ads. On top of all the other dirty tricks that regular ads did, they would do things like disguising themselves as games to trick you into clicking them. ("Punch the monkey and win a prize!" The prize was malware.) They would play sound and video--which were the equivalent of a jump scare back then, because of how rare audio/video was on the Internet in that day. They would exploit the poor security of Flash to try and download malware to your PC without you even interacting with them. And all this while hogging your limited dialup connection (or DSL if you were lucky), and dragging your PC to a crawl with horrible optimization. When Apple refused to support Flash on iOS way back in the day, it was a backdoor ad blocker because of how ubiquitous Flash was for advertising content at the time.
The point of all this is that advertisers have always abused the Internet, practically from day one. Firefox first became popular because it was the first browser to introduce a pop-up blocker, which was another backdoor ad blocker. Half the reason why Google became the company it did is because it started out as a deliberate break from the abuses of everyone else and gave a simple, clean interface with to-the-point, unobtrusive, text-based advertisements.
If advertisers and Google in particular had stuck to that bargain--clean, unobstrusive, simple advertisements that had no risk of malware and no interruption to user workflow, ad blockers would largely be a thing of the past. Instead, they decided to chase the profit dragon, and modern Google is no better than the very companies it originally replaced.
-
My guy, that’s why there is DRM. Your screen are loading pixels, because they let you.
When I ping YouTube's server it provides me with a stream that contains an ad and a video. What I do with that stream is my problem, and if I want to chop it up it's something I can freely decide.
Your server can send any data it wants, but it can't decide what I do with it, are you nuts?
-
MY hardware and infrastructure was not free either and I and ONLY I get to decide how it is used.
-
Advertisers, Malwares and Ad blockers are all to blame for the current state of the internet.
So the thing that blocks the first two is equally to blame?
I remember the day I started using an Ad blocker. I used to not care at all about ads on sites, "it's how they make money. I can live with it." And then I encountered a banner ad that screamed "HELOOOOOOO!" every time my mouse went over it. I couldn't download an ad blocker fast enough.
Advertisers and Malware are to blame for Ad blockers. Advertisers will get more and more annoying and intrusive until people reach the point that they won't put up with them anymore. Seeing as the internet is one big bucket and I can't block some ads, then I will block all ads.
-
If something allows it then it's morally justified. You can't be naked intentionally and ask me to not look at same time.
-
-
332 评论