9 ms·
Very neat but now I'm sure they'll fix it and close the loophole
by chadlavi 6y ago
Very neat but now I'm sure they'll fix it and close the loophole
- gruez 6y agoor you know... install ublock origin edit: add "origin" qualifier
- Avicebron 6y agoThe amount of people I know who don't use adblocker/ublock etc is ridiculous. Many are non-technical, but it's not any more difficult than installing an app on your phone. Does anyone know if there is some philosophy to this I don't understand?
- scottmcf 6y agoI've had arguments with friends on the topic who see this as stealing content without paying for it.
- munk-a 6y agoOh those poor people who feel bound to supporting the abuse of advertisers - I don't know when that particular motive emerged in users but I agree that I've seen it around quite a bit.
- Avicebron 6y agoI've heard this argument as well especially with regards to youtube content creators. On the one hand I find ads to be so negatively affecting my experience I won't watch content with them. However I still hope the people who make content are rewarded for continuing to do so. It's tricky. I think sponsorship is at least a step in the right direction. EDIT: interesting thought experiment. Adblock is so universally adopted through aggressive marketing that ad supported internet as we know it is forced to adapt...where does it go?
- munk-a 6y agoI think that google gets enough out of Youtube based off of information alone to justify the expense. But if not - we see a shift back toward content hosts charging a fee or rent for the content hosted - storage space and web-traffic is extremely inexpensive but if the host is getting no value other than rent out of the proposition (i.e. if they operate like most CMSes do where the fact that you used a particular CMS is not widely advertised[1]) then you'll see a shift back to content creators paying for distribution. That all said - geocities existed back in the day without getting much out of the proposition except some minor side-loaded ad revenue and network value. So I don't think a content host would ever be in a position where they find no benefit in hosting and, again, hosting is so incredibly cheap to do at scale that only a very marginal value is required to get into the black. 1. So a word-press site is going to have a lot of wp-* styles all over the place - but wordpress doesn't force a giant WP logo in the top-left of everyone's site.
- rajup 6y agoWell it is an argument that has a fair bit of merit. How exactly do you expect YouTube or the creators to pay their bills? Don't feel like watching ads? You can subscribe to YouTube premium if you dislike ads so much.
- icebraining 6y agoPaying to remove ads creates an incentive to make ads more annoying, which punishes people who can't afford to pay. I donate to a few creators. As for YouTube, Google can close it down for all I care, we'll figure it out. We'd probably better off, in fact.
- kalleboo 6y agoYeah I subscribe to YouTube Premium for this reason. I'd also subscribe to "AdWords Premium" or whatever to support general content sites if it was an option.
- icebraining 6y agoThere's something like that: https://contributor.google.com/v/beta https://contributor.google.com/v/beta
- Grimm1 6y agoI subscribe on their Patreon or make direct donations personally.
- Deep-Engineer91 6y agoExactly it helps creators generate more content
- ojnabieoot 6y agoI watch YouTubers who make videos as a full time job and depend on the ads for their room and board. Blocking ads because I think they’re annoying would be inexcusably selfish. It is not as bad as actual theft but it’s a scummy thing to do. I don’t use an adblocker at all these days, but even when I did I made sure to specifically whitelist YouTube ads. People deserve to get paid for their work and running 30 seconds of ads before a 20 minute video is a fair trade.
- EForEndeavour 6y agoWhat about blocking ads but also donating directly to the YouTubers you follow?
- not_zxc 6y agoAdmirable sentiment, but watching ads does not support Youtubers. It supports Youtube - which you hope translates into Youtube giving money to the Youtuber's whose videos you watched. As far as I know, most people who make money from Youtube videos do not have a contract with Youtube. There are plenty of stories of Youtube changes that strongly impact the monetization - most recently: [1]. I believe it's better to support content creators themselves (e.g., directly, or via a Patreon or something similar) than indirectly-no-strings-attached-I-hope-having-my-privacy-violated-gets-you-some-something. Furthermore: the way advertisements work has become so nefarious, that basically your browser is sleeping around with 30-50 random unknown third parties on just about every site you visit. And browser STDs are rampant across the web. Browse safely, use a browser condom, i.e., an ad blocker. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/5/20849752/youtube-creators-ftc-fine-settlement-family-friendly-content-gaming-minecraft-roblox https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/5/20849752/youtube-creators-...
- ojnabieoot 6y ago> but watching ads does not support Youtubers. It supports Youtube - which you hope translates into Youtube giving money to the Youtuber's whose videos you watched. The point is that not watching ads actively screws YouTubers over, although the way you phrased it does establish some safe moral distancing from the implications of your actions. The fact that YouTube takes advantage of content creators is no excuse for denying content creators money, which is precisely what an adblocker does. > I believe it's better to support content creators themselves (e.g., directly, or via a Patreon or something similar) This is true and I do it for people I watch regularly. But I am not going to donate directly if I only watch one video, even if I really enjoy it. Patreon is not an adequate substitute for most YouTubers. Pretending it is just dodges the actual implications of using an adblocker. And adblockers are not adequate malware protection, even against malicious ads. Adblockers should not be giving you a false sense of security about this (let alone be used for such a condescending argument).
- inetknght 6y ago> Does anyone know if there is some philosophy to this I don't understand? 1) it doesn't come installed by default (too difficult) 2) technology should be secure by default (naivete) 3) nothing to hide and do want to support the sites (don't steal)
- mosselman 6y agoWhat is your source for these?
- inetknght 6y agoThese are anecdotes from family. Perhaps asking for source is the reason that these concepts are foreign to many people.
- mosselman 6y agoIt sounds like you are trying to say that when you are asked for a source for your claims, that you see that as confirmation that you are right?
- inetknght 6y ago> when you are asked for a source for your claims, that you see that as confirmation that ... Not at all. I'm willing to be open to and read any scientific study that says otherwise. Bear in mind, I definitely have a critic's heart for it. Please remember the context to which I replied: > The amount of people I know who don't use adblocker/ublock etc is ridiculous. Many are non-technical, but it's not any more difficult than installing an app on your phone. Does anyone know if there is some philosophy to this I don't understand? @Avicebron clearly stated that they don't understand why people don't use adblockers even though it's "not any more difficult than installing an app". I provided three examples from non-technical family, meaning: I do talk to my family and they did explain why they don't or didn't use adblockers. I'm trying to say that asking for source perhaps means that you didn't talk to your own friends and family (or other non-technical acquaintances) and ask why they don't use adblockers. Or if you did talk then you didn't listen, you didn't think about it in their perspective. Perhaps your own people will have different reasons than the ones I presented. Just off the top of my head, a reason that didn't come up would be "work doesn't permit it"; my family aren't encumbered by employers who strictly determine what software is installed.
- creato 6y agoI use an adblocker, but not without major hesitation. Ad blockers see all web browser content and can do basically anything with it. It's scary giving extensions this much access. Telling someone non-technical "go install extension ABC" is pretty risky. They might find and install "uBlock Original BETTER AND FASTER" that comes with a bitcoin miner or something worse. Even as someone "tech literate", I sometimes find it quite hard to verify the authenticity of downloads like this. Also relevant in this case, when there is a reasonable option to pay to remove ads from something I use frequently, I do it. YT is $10/mo, it's worth it to me.
- jacobush 6y agoPaying for YT is paying for having your privacy violated.
- Kiro 6y agoIt's worth it to support the content creators. YT Premium is probably the last thing I would cancel.
- gsk22 6y agoWhat portion of the $10 actually ends up in your favorite content creator's hands? That's why I prefer to support creators via Patreon. Then 80%+ of the money goes directly to the creator, and none to YT.
- Kiro 6y agoI support all creators. My favorite ones I also donate to through Patreon.
- Deep-Engineer91 6y agoI think thats great. I know someone who uses YT as a genuine source of income. They are not the biggest YT out there but they have enough to make some money and they deserve to be compensated for their work providing all of us with content.
- reaperducer 6y agoIs the number or intrusiveness of YouTube ads dependent on the device you use, or the amount of YouTube you watch? I don't watch much YouTube. Before the pandemic, maybe 60 minutes a week. (Now zero.) I saw maybe one 15 second commercial each week, which didn't seem so horrible that I'd need to block it.
- icebraining 6y agoIt depends on multiple factors, including the type of videos you're watching, your country, etc. If you only get one ad for each hour of viewing, you're definitively lucky. 15 seconds ads are the non-skippable ones. The skippable may be 5 minutes long or more - that's fine when you can actually skip them, but it's a pain when you have your hands busy.
- toast0 6y ago> Does anyone know if there is some philosophy to this I don't understand? I've worked for two companies that made most of their money from (online) advertising. While working for those companies it was important for me to experience the web as our users would --- mostly without an adblocker, and trying to avoid overpowered hardware; my users were running mostly low end android phones, so it I've got a GalaxyS or a Pixel, what I experience is nothing like what they experience. I'm not working there anymore, so maybe I'll do an adblocker eventually, but I'm IT support for my family, and it helps if I can se what they see, and I don't want to manage adblockers for them, so....
- recursive 6y agoI think ad-blockers are bad for the web. I have nothing against people running them, but I don't choose to. It incentivizes an arms-race between clients and servers to control the content that gets displayed. The end game of this race is bad for everyone. That's my reason.
- Nextgrid 6y agoThe end game of the race has already been reached and this is why the web without an ad-blocker is so hostile so I'm not sure what value there is in doing this. In both cases (both now without an ad-blocker, and in a hypothetical future where ad-blockers are impossible due to DRM) the experience is terrible.
- recursive 6y ago"The end game of the race has already been reached." I still think there's a lot farther it could still go. The fact that ads can mostly be blocked by using domain filters suggests that the "bad guys" aren't really trying yet. I prefer the internet of today to one where all content is DRM locked.
- omginternets 6y agoSerious question: is there a way to get ublock (or similar) on a iPhone?
- chadlavi 6y agoiOS safari has supported content blockers for a few years now!
- karatestomp 6y agoFirefox Focus also serves as an adblocker for Safari, if you like having all that sweet apple integration but want free adblocking. It’s alright at it.
- ntpeters 6y agoI use AdGuard Pro: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/adguard-pro-adblock-privacy/id1126386264 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/adguard-pro-adblock-privacy/id... There are plenty of other content blockers available in the App Store too though
- gruez 6y agoIf all you need is the safari content blocker functionality, the free version works fine. I think the only real advantage of the pro version is that it has ad blocking VPN functionality for blocking ads in other apps.
- chadlavi 6y agoI already use it! When I say neat, I mean it in the abstract. Or maybe in the "Bender taking a picture" sense.
- thebeefytaco 6y agoOr pay $9.99/mo for YouTube premium and actually support the creators of content you consume.
- reitanqild 6y agoTried. For some reason I cannot remember it didn't feel worth it. PS: I'm not against paying, I am a paying customer of both Spotify and Google Drive.
- thebeefytaco 6y agoTotally worth it if you use it on a regular basis imo. I watch/listen to enough content that the time savings is worth it to me. With premium you can do audio only on the android app as well which I use a lot. Also apparently even demonetized videos/channels still get paid something when you watch.
- inv13 6y agoWhat about all the other paywalls I would have to pay to read an article? I just instantly close the tab when I met with one. I get it they live out of money, but I dont feel like paying to 10+ different websites.
- icebraining 6y agoThat creates an incentive for them to make ads more annoying, which punishes people who can't afford it. I "actually support" the creators by donating directly to them instead.
- Nextgrid 6y agoThis does nothing for a privacy point of view which is also a big reason for blocking ads. It's actually worse for privacy because you're now giving Google validated billing details instead of just the pseudonymous identifiers they use for tracking. There's also no reason to give out 10 bucks to Google where only peanuts of that will go to the creators when you can split it across creators directly through Patreon or even a bulk donation once a year.
- jniedrauer 6y agoPresumably you mean ublock origin? ublock is a commercial product that sells whitelist slots to advertisers.