But I thought Cromite just used ABP filters? Maybe some other patch is interacting with it, as the other day I noticed YouTube ads trying to load, and just failing with a long pause before playing the actual video.
I find this interesting because there will undoubtedly be a cat-and-mouse game between YT and adblockers now.
I feel like I need a hotkey for "Purge all caches && Update now" for uBlock Origin to keep up with this game of cat and mouse. YouTube has definitely already given me the "Use will be blocked after 3/2/1 videos" warning but it still keeps working time to time with ad-blocking.
I don't understand how adblock on a service like youtube work, without cooperation of youtube itself. I get it that you could easily blank the output when there is an add, and/or auto-close an add after the countdown, but how do you convince the service to continue streaming before the minimal advertisement time has past ?
I don't know how it is done for certain, but with absolute control of the client you could send any information back to Youtube that you wanted. So if all Youtube was requesting was that the minimal amount of time of ads be watched before playing the video you just tell them that you have. I'm sure it is getting far more complicated than this, but I suspect this is the basic idea of this back and forth arms race of ad blocking and adblock blocking and so forth.
If YouTube wants full control over the ads experience, they will have to splice the ad into the video stream itself, and block seeking requests until:
1. The entirety of the ad portion of the video stream has been successfully sent to the client
2. A length of time equivalent to the ad duration has passed
A sufficiently advanced ad blocker would be able to block the ad, but you would still be forced to sit through several seconds of nothing before continuing with the video.
They could also have some sort of "skip ahead by giving information about the ad you just partially watched" feature, although seems vulnerable to a sufficiently good bot. (Unless they make it so complicated that it only works for very engaged native speakers of a particular language.)
If youtube did that then they would no longer be able to accurately measure the number of ad views... which probably would make both the advertisers and the video-creators mad sooner or later.
That is my point, it's rather easy for youtube to only stream the data at 1x speed minus the ads duration. So it must be that YouTube allows/allowed ad blockers (and also tools like youtubedl) explicitly. At some point they must have thought: let's not allow things to go too far.
As I understand it, the streams are served on their own. All the control is in the client. That's how downloaders can just download the streams if they can pass as a legitimate client.
I feel like I'm in the minority that has zero problem paying for an ad-free experience. I get tremendous value out of YouTube in both professional and personal ways. I have a daughter who watches it often. Suppressing ads while supporting the service my family enjoys regularly seems like a no-brainer to me. And I never have to worry about them circumventing my ad blocker.
I'm probably also in the minority, but I think Youtube having a near monopoly in this space is bad for consumers and would prefer to see some alternatives. If by merely executing control over my own hardware to see only what I want is enough to actively harm them then so be it.
I also have been subscribed to NebulaTV and Curiosity Stream for years.
I think the nature of the service lends itself to monopoly. The part that is bad for consumers is the profit/growth requirements that put consumers and producers second. The USPS is a prime example of a non profit-driven operation that leaves customers satisfied and operates self-sufficiently (ignoring the relatively recent laws enacted to kneecap the operation by requiring onerous pension funding requirements).
Same. And I support several of my favorite creators on Patreon and Ko-fi. And I try to watch their videos on Nebula. If I could find any of them on PeerTube I'd do that instead.
Unfortunately it feels like spitting into a hurricane. I can say I'm fighting the good fight, but am I making a difference? I doubt it, I doubt it very much.
Yeah but I have a problem with being bullied into paying them. It will just make me want to make their engineers life a pain by working on work-arounds.
I agree with all of that, and I sincerely was planning to become a paid subscriber. But I have some irrational resentment around being a statistic validating their increased pressure campaign. I don’t like feeling forced to spend the money! Which is weird because I get significantly more value from it than any streaming service.
Why does your mindset go to being "bullied", though? Aren't you the bully for circumventing their revenue model with the expectation that you should get it for free?
I did not say bullied. I would never have said bullied. I think my original post serves as a sufficient answer and I don’t feel the need to say anything more to disprove your framing.
I've posted this a few times recently, but I used to pay for youtube premium, but it started showing me ads while using chromecast. The third time it happened I cancelled and went back to using ublock. I don't use the chromecast much because the ads are unbearable but I see exactly 0 ads ever on my pc. In short, I block ads because not only is it free, it also actually works. My guess is as soon as(if?) they manage to totally stop ad blockers, they will pull a cable company move and start showing ads to paying users as well. They'll say it's to help creators or something or course.
Yeah, if I start seeing ads on anything while signed into my active Premium account, I'm going to start asking questions or considering other options as well. Hoping it doesn't come down to that.
I have zero problem paying for ad-free... but what I do have a problem with is that I have no ad-free only option. You have no choice but to also pay for their music streaming service for $14 per month when other, subjectively better music services are only $11 per month. They should have an ad-free a la carte option for something like $6 per month.
I paid for Premium for years. But then I started asking myself if wanted to give money to a company that pushed things like FLoC, Manifest v3, and WEI.
And the answer was no. We used to pay them $284/year for our household services.
Now we pay them nothing. Maybe they'll have a change of heart someday, but until then, not a dime.
YouTube is the only Google service that I still use, and I've been paying for premium. But, mostly for the reasons you list, I'm cancelling that subscription and abandoning YouTube altogether.
So that's at least two of us.
I'll have to give Nebula another try. I hope their app is better now. Last time, it was so bad that I cancelled that subscription.
I've had no issues with either Chrome or Firefox in Incognito with uBlock Origin. But I do kinda wonder if the fact I have YouTube Premium on one of my accounts in Chrome means Google isn't trying too hard to block my IP/detect adblockers on it.
It is not like you can’t get rid of ads, you can just pay subscription fee.
It is a monopoly doesn’t mean it is a public utility. PG&G has a monopoly in electricity in my region, does it mean I can steal the electricity because I don’t like PG&E and I don’t have other options?
All tv channels have either ads or you need to pay, how is this different than what YouTube is trying to do?
If you pick up a free newspaper on a commmute, or, say, a community "What's on" sponsored by ads, does someone look over your shoulder and insist you read every ad before they let you turn the page?
A lot of ad people would say that's unethical. Of course, a lot also say it's unethical to go to the bathroom during TV ads instead of sitting there and watching them like a good little consumer.
It's not ever illegal, as long as it's your physical copy. Is it unethical? Well if you're censoring your copy, clearly not: you still saw the ads.
But are you asking in good faith? Or are you asking because you want to get to a point where you use a service that costs money to maintain and yet you don't spend money or view ads but you still feel ethical?
"Hey, AI, connect to YT using my browser and account with adblockers turned off, then check the usual channels grabbing new videos, then strip out all advertising content and make them available to me and my friends over this p2p encrypted connection."
Isn't it a little optimistic though to think that the AI itself will be free from advertising/grubby-monetization in the scheme of things? Sure, it feels great now, and maybe even you can pay for the GPU and run it on your own, but not everyone will, and either way the future is long! It just feels inevitable that somebody or something will come to collect one day, in one form or the other.
yt-dl with a batch file running in task scheduler every night is a great way to make sure you keep up with all your favorite channels. Or at least so I've heard. It might take a person an hour or two to get it running, with spot checks to make sure it's still running, but it could be a great solution. Further, if one were so inclined, one could download the subtitle files as well, and throw them into a database by episode. Then, one could easily find a video they remember watching a while back by searching the database for a phrase.
This marks the moment Google officially decided it didn’t know how to innovate any longer, and that it’s time to grab all they can to increase the bottom line.
Most technology companies follow this same cycle. When they’re in the innovation/disruption phase, there are less rules, they just focus on giving people the best experience. When they start stagnating, suddenly every cent matters.
The irony is that the profile type most likely to have an AdBlocker is the Silicon Valley engineer. They spend so much time online, that it would be really annoying to have ads.
I already found a fix: I use another YouTube client that displays the stream directly without showing the ads. My guess is more people will do that - unless the adblockers get better. If YouTube goes as far as protecting the streaming servers themselves with greater authentication, people will likely go elsewhere… TikTok… Insta… or the many other video platforms that have been popping up as a result of censorship.
But I am skeptical everyday people are willing to wait for ads - or pay for social media.
I’ve been blocking ads for a long time but I’m not going to cry about mistreatment when somebody shuts the back door that I’ve been using to get free lunch.
The ads are annoying, I might just use nebula more.
I find myself using Nebula more and more because most of the creators I watch are there and their app, while imperfect, is miles better than YouTube on the Apple TV. I'm currently subbed to YouTube Premium so I don't get ads either way, but if Google ever changes that, you can bet I'm unsubbing immediately. I only tolerate how expensive it is because of the sheer amount of content I watch from there, and because I watch the majority through Apple TV's where adblocking is a lot more complicated than I'm willing to deal with.
Put simply, the end user is not the customer. The shareholders are. As in "we need a product that harvests money from people" instead of "let's solve a problem for people while adding value".
Solving a problem is harvesting money when it’s well done.
It’s when they stop solving new problems that they have to optimize their existing revenue streams at the cost of user satisfaction.
> This marks the moment Google officially decided it didn’t know how to innovate any longer
What? THIS marks that moment? I haven't seen google innovate since they built google search. Literally every other successful thing they have was bought.
Google has plenty of interesting and successful things in their stable, and there’s plenty of innovation in their 25 year history. The argument being put forth is that little of it is the result of recent innovative activity.
Every innovation they have tried themselves has failed and they just discontinued it. Other good things they have done are actually by buying other startups and then using their tech .
I'm not even convinced they'll make more money clamping down on ad blocking this way. I'd happily pay £1 or £2 a month for no ads, which is still infinitely more than they make out of me now (given I never willingly click on, engage with or otherwise view their or anyone else's ads), but I know a rip-off when I see one and £12.99/month definitely is.
YouTube has been a thorn in the side of Google for a long time. Think about it, what has YouTube brought to Alphabet other than brand recognition? YouTube has already peaked.
It's not profitable. It's a source of a lot of drama, and ill-will toward the company, it doesn't generate much ad revenue, it's no longer a "feat of engineering" that so many people talked about in the mid-2000s - and it seems like the general populace whom generate a lot of revenue by being targeted on the platform (eg US, North America, Western Europe, Australia) are beginning to shift from adblockers is the exception, to adblockers is the default.
I've worked at F500's where uBlock Origin is part of the Chrome Enterprise profile. Why? It brings security, and performance, to the majority of users. Yes there's occasional issues, but it's worth it.
I suspect we'll see YouTube clients built into AdBlocking software (eg I'm pretty sure SponsorBlock has already begun this). AdBlock and uBlock Origin likely won't implement this, at least initially - but I can definitely see this taking off. At that point, what can Google do?
They'll enforce their walled garden and kill off all Google-ToS breaching extensions.
I was using Brave on my iPad the other day and got a notice about this. It didn't seem to affect functionality though. Perhaps they will clamp down in the future, and this is just a warning.
And not just browsers. I'm sure other clients exist. I'd be surprised if VLC doesn't already have an extension that allows you to play YouTube.
They'll have to interpolate the ads into the stream. Then people will code clients that detects the ads and black them and mute them. Then YouTube will learn how that works and will change their ads not to trigger detection. Etc. This is called an arms race.
For me, it was the ads more than the tracking. But after a while, I couldn't in good conscience pay Google any longer. They're not a good netizen, and if they luckily go bankrupt, I won't shed a tear.
> When you block YouTube ads, you violate YouTube’s Terms of Service.
I wish these corporate goons would drop their moronic drivel about a Terms of Service that means nothing and nobody reads and just write in the following style:
"When you block YouTube ads, we don't like it and will take technological steps to retaliate, which are within our right."
I have such mixed feelings about this. I can't stand to waste the time on ads so I started using an alternative client that doesn't have any ads.
However, I do recognize that I've been using youtube for 15+ years without paying a cent or watching any ads - which is pretty unreasonable. No streaming service or television channel has ever been free with no ads. I can't really justify it.
And yet, I'm not willing to pay for youtube. It having been free all these years makes that a hard pill to swallow, somehow it just feels wrong now.
I'm even willing to pay but with sponsor messages being baked in even paying for Premium means having to take extra steps to avoid ads. I'm also not sure if I pay for Premium if YT will still shut me down for running uBlock origin? I guess I could allowlist it at that point...
I'm almost certain that the bandwidth cost is much higher than what they gain for recommendation algorithms. It's like saying "Yeah, that guy steals from your store, but at least now you know what's in demand!" (Not equating ad-block to stealing, just trying to show the value difference)
Just let me pay for youtube premium without bundling a music streaming subscription please. $14 per month for no ads is not worth it when I already pay $11 per month for my preferred music streaming service.
i use ublock and i got a popup on youtube telling me turn off adblock. i refuse to do so because i hate seeing ads and popups everywhere on the page of the youtube video. i use adblock software because it makes youtube easier to navigate and it looks cleaner
TLDR: Thread where people earning software engineering salaries express frustration that they aren't entitled to services for free and must pay a reasonable fee for an ad-free experience.
115 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 168 ms ] threadI find this interesting because there will undoubtedly be a cat-and-mouse game between YT and adblockers now.
1. The entirety of the ad portion of the video stream has been successfully sent to the client
2. A length of time equivalent to the ad duration has passed
A sufficiently advanced ad blocker would be able to block the ad, but you would still be forced to sit through several seconds of nothing before continuing with the video.
Third-party clients can read and display the requested video parts though.
I also have been subscribed to NebulaTV and Curiosity Stream for years.
Unfortunately it feels like spitting into a hurricane. I can say I'm fighting the good fight, but am I making a difference? I doubt it, I doubt it very much.
this is fine until enough people pay
at which point they add ads for paying customers too
see: cable TV, netflix, disney plus, hulu, ...
And the answer was no. We used to pay them $284/year for our household services.
Now we pay them nothing. Maybe they'll have a change of heart someday, but until then, not a dime.
So that's at least two of us.
I'll have to give Nebula another try. I hope their app is better now. Last time, it was so bad that I cancelled that subscription.
I can't find that option. Where's it at?
> I can't find that option. Where's it at?
For Firefox...
1. about:addons (type into url bar and go)
2. click on the uBlock Origin Name
3. Where is says "Run in Private Windows", click on the *allow* radio button
All done.
It is a monopoly doesn’t mean it is a public utility. PG&G has a monopoly in electricity in my region, does it mean I can steal the electricity because I don’t like PG&E and I don’t have other options?
All tv channels have either ads or you need to pay, how is this different than what YouTube is trying to do?
If you pick up a free newspaper on a commmute, or, say, a community "What's on" sponsored by ads, does someone look over your shoulder and insist you read every ad before they let you turn the page?
But are you asking in good faith? Or are you asking because you want to get to a point where you use a service that costs money to maintain and yet you don't spend money or view ads but you still feel ethical?
Most technology companies follow this same cycle. When they’re in the innovation/disruption phase, there are less rules, they just focus on giving people the best experience. When they start stagnating, suddenly every cent matters.
The irony is that the profile type most likely to have an AdBlocker is the Silicon Valley engineer. They spend so much time online, that it would be really annoying to have ads.
I already found a fix: I use another YouTube client that displays the stream directly without showing the ads. My guess is more people will do that - unless the adblockers get better. If YouTube goes as far as protecting the streaming servers themselves with greater authentication, people will likely go elsewhere… TikTok… Insta… or the many other video platforms that have been popping up as a result of censorship.
But I am skeptical everyday people are willing to wait for ads - or pay for social media.
The ads are annoying, I might just use nebula more.
What? THIS marks that moment? I haven't seen google innovate since they built google search. Literally every other successful thing they have was bought.
(Yes, some of these involved acquisitions, but there is a difference between acquiring YouTube and acquiring Android Inc.)
Google is in a bad place, but I think it's silly to pretend like they didn't have anything else interesting or successful.
It's not profitable. It's a source of a lot of drama, and ill-will toward the company, it doesn't generate much ad revenue, it's no longer a "feat of engineering" that so many people talked about in the mid-2000s - and it seems like the general populace whom generate a lot of revenue by being targeted on the platform (eg US, North America, Western Europe, Australia) are beginning to shift from adblockers is the exception, to adblockers is the default.
I've worked at F500's where uBlock Origin is part of the Chrome Enterprise profile. Why? It brings security, and performance, to the majority of users. Yes there's occasional issues, but it's worth it.
I suspect we'll see YouTube clients built into AdBlocking software (eg I'm pretty sure SponsorBlock has already begun this). AdBlock and uBlock Origin likely won't implement this, at least initially - but I can definitely see this taking off. At that point, what can Google do?
They'll enforce their walled garden and kill off all Google-ToS breaching extensions.
I hope Brave can give me the option to make Google think I'm watching the ad by downloading the ad but somehow not showing it to me.
Or, failing that, show it but auto-mute the audio during the ad (I spent lots of time on Youtube listening to my playlist).
They'll have to interpolate the ads into the stream. Then people will code clients that detects the ads and black them and mute them. Then YouTube will learn how that works and will change their ads not to trigger detection. Etc. This is called an arms race.
There are apps for this, and dozens of similar ones for all sorts of video players. I personally use SVP's because I already own it.
I think they mostly use youtube-dl under the hood to fetch the video URL, so that is a significant point of failure.
Paying for Youtube premium doesn't stop them spying on you.
I wish these corporate goons would drop their moronic drivel about a Terms of Service that means nothing and nobody reads and just write in the following style:
"When you block YouTube ads, we don't like it and will take technological steps to retaliate, which are within our right."
However, I do recognize that I've been using youtube for 15+ years without paying a cent or watching any ads - which is pretty unreasonable. No streaming service or television channel has ever been free with no ads. I can't really justify it.
And yet, I'm not willing to pay for youtube. It having been free all these years makes that a hard pill to swallow, somehow it just feels wrong now.
i don't want to pay for a worst experience.
You mean, YouTube has not paid you a cent for your attention.
Youtube needs to die and get replaced by something more democratic anyway.
Video hosting is at this day, almost a universal money losing scheme. YouTube is barely profitable, they need to make money, it is not even an option
It's not even that they try to sell you a product. They're straight up scamming you.
I'll use an Adblocker.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35892512
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37793375
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35883457
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37782171
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37106802
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37798150
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36277079
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37825887
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37866601
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35916592
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37869315
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37883228
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37989682
"You have 2 videos remaining, if you continue to use ad block the video player will be blocked"
Previously users simply had a timer to wait through, this is a much stronger action