3 ms·

The best way is an uBlock Origin and SponsorBlock. Why would you get that result AND pay. That's irrational.

SllX 4y ago
Because YouTube is fundamentally a good business with excellent entertainment value that has brought me joy for 17 years and I can afford to pay, and YouTubers who make it their job to upload videos still end up getting paid if I watch a video with Premium. I think it would be irrational and immoral to use the service as much as I do, for music, hobbies, education and business and not pay for it. Then I’m not stuck using only one browser with one set of extensions; all of which I have to keep updated, and engaged in an arms race–but in fact have full access on my phone, iPad, computer and TV without ads. I’ve been in that arms race back when I had more time than money, and I don’t want to be in it again.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  They don't need you, or anyone's help. You're just screwing yourself. I think it's irrational and immoral for YouTube not to be commons at this point. The rest of what you said doesn't exist as a problem, no end-user cares about any of that because it involves no actual work or activity of any kind.
  - SllX 4y ago
    Agree to disagree. I think you have a much more mercenary attitude than I do in just taking what you want and our POVs are not reconcilable.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      That was a dismissive and disrespectful comment. I told you what my attitude is, so don't just ignore that and then proceed to tell me what my attitude is. No, using Wikipedia as we all do is not a "much more mercenary attitude", it's just commons, as all globally shared infrastructure should be. Your morality is just inconsistent.
      - SllX 4y ago
        You don’t build a business with real infrastructure without money and a value proposition. YouTube isn’t a non-profit, and society isn’t entitled to take what they want from it without acknowledging and respecting the terms YouTube makes its infrastructure available. There are other outlets for more “commons”-like tube experiences, notably PeerTube. The value is in YouTube though, and I know that bothers some people, but it doesn’t bother me. I’m not screwing myself by paying them for a subscription: it’s called trade. They have stuff I want, I have stuff they want. If I value something, I pay for it or trade for it (e.g. Wikipedia, the Internet Archive, all private property by the way, somebody owns their servers too, they’re just a different type of corporation). I think it is fairly mercenary to take a moral stance against paying money for something that you like. I know that there are people I watch who make their livings through YouTube, some of whom are buying houses or getting married because they’re able to with this income; and for others, it’s just a side gig or a hobby. They’re not getting paid when you Adblock, but they are getting paid for the aggregate views that I and others give them. If you think our views aren’t un-reconcilable, don’t tell me that I’m being irrational or that I’m “screwing myself” by paying for something I want to see continue to exist simply because I’m not bothered by the idea of people taking profits. If you can’t do that, then take my offer to agree to disagree. I’m not bothered by your outlook, but I don’t share it in common with you.
        guerrilla 4y ago
        Wikipedia itself is commons, regardless of what private property it's served on (which is 100% fungible.) This isn't the case with YouTube, which is the problem. When you pay someone running Wikipedia or IA, that's what you're paying for. When you pay for YouTube, you're just paying stockholders and executives, their costs are more than covered, and on top of that you have no rights and no control. I'm sorry that you can't see the difference and why that's wrong and makes your behavior irrational.
        SllX 4y ago
        Yeah, and donations go towards sustaining the Executives and Staff of Wikipedia more than they do the servers, but without any staff Wikipedia as we know it would cease existing. A like project could replace it and its data, but that wouldn’t be Wikipedia anymore, that would be something else. Maybe better, maybe worse? Dunno, and I’m not sure I want to find out. Getting back to YouTube: when I pay for a service, it’s called a trade. $11.99/month or $143.88/year nets me a service I rely on. I don’t particularly care where the money goes to after I pay it, but the correct answer is probably a revenue account owned by YouTube. Where that money goes after it lands on their Balance Sheet isn’t my business, because money that has left my hands is not mine anymore. I walk away feeling like I’ve gotten a good deal, and I never have my time wasted by Google Ads anywhere in the service on any device I control and some that I don’t, and I’m not limited to a specific browser setup. Your inability to see the benefits to my life does not make it irrational, nor wrong to do so. That’s true for every service or product that you or anyone pays for: you got a product or service. You didn’t maintain any equity in the dollars or euros or yen that you paid in exchange. Nor do you possess equity in any items you barter away.

SllX 4y ago

Because YouTube is fundamentally a good business with excellent entertainment value that has brought me joy for 17 years and I can afford to pay, and YouTubers who make it their job to upload videos still end up getting paid if I watch a video with Premium. I think it would be irrational and immoral to use the service as much as I do, for music, hobbies, education and business and not pay for it. Then I’m not stuck using only one browser with one set of extensions; all of which I have to keep updated, and engaged in an arms race–but in fact have full access on my phone, iPad, computer and TV without ads. I’ve been in that arms race back when I had more time than money, and I don’t want to be in it again.

guerrilla 4y ago
They don't need you, or anyone's help. You're just screwing yourself. I think it's irrational and immoral for YouTube not to be commons at this point. The rest of what you said doesn't exist as a problem, no end-user cares about any of that because it involves no actual work or activity of any kind.
- SllX 4y ago
  Agree to disagree. I think you have a much more mercenary attitude than I do in just taking what you want and our POVs are not reconcilable.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    That was a dismissive and disrespectful comment. I told you what my attitude is, so don't just ignore that and then proceed to tell me what my attitude is. No, using Wikipedia as we all do is not a "much more mercenary attitude", it's just commons, as all globally shared infrastructure should be. Your morality is just inconsistent.
    - SllX 4y ago
      You don’t build a business with real infrastructure without money and a value proposition. YouTube isn’t a non-profit, and society isn’t entitled to take what they want from it without acknowledging and respecting the terms YouTube makes its infrastructure available. There are other outlets for more “commons”-like tube experiences, notably PeerTube. The value is in YouTube though, and I know that bothers some people, but it doesn’t bother me. I’m not screwing myself by paying them for a subscription: it’s called trade. They have stuff I want, I have stuff they want. If I value something, I pay for it or trade for it (e.g. Wikipedia, the Internet Archive, all private property by the way, somebody owns their servers too, they’re just a different type of corporation). I think it is fairly mercenary to take a moral stance against paying money for something that you like. I know that there are people I watch who make their livings through YouTube, some of whom are buying houses or getting married because they’re able to with this income; and for others, it’s just a side gig or a hobby. They’re not getting paid when you Adblock, but they are getting paid for the aggregate views that I and others give them. If you think our views aren’t un-reconcilable, don’t tell me that I’m being irrational or that I’m “screwing myself” by paying for something I want to see continue to exist simply because I’m not bothered by the idea of people taking profits. If you can’t do that, then take my offer to agree to disagree. I’m not bothered by your outlook, but I don’t share it in common with you.
      - guerrilla 4y ago
        Wikipedia itself is commons, regardless of what private property it's served on (which is 100% fungible.) This isn't the case with YouTube, which is the problem. When you pay someone running Wikipedia or IA, that's what you're paying for. When you pay for YouTube, you're just paying stockholders and executives, their costs are more than covered, and on top of that you have no rights and no control. I'm sorry that you can't see the difference and why that's wrong and makes your behavior irrational.
        SllX 4y ago
        Yeah, and donations go towards sustaining the Executives and Staff of Wikipedia more than they do the servers, but without any staff Wikipedia as we know it would cease existing. A like project could replace it and its data, but that wouldn’t be Wikipedia anymore, that would be something else. Maybe better, maybe worse? Dunno, and I’m not sure I want to find out. Getting back to YouTube: when I pay for a service, it’s called a trade. $11.99/month or $143.88/year nets me a service I rely on. I don’t particularly care where the money goes to after I pay it, but the correct answer is probably a revenue account owned by YouTube. Where that money goes after it lands on their Balance Sheet isn’t my business, because money that has left my hands is not mine anymore. I walk away feeling like I’ve gotten a good deal, and I never have my time wasted by Google Ads anywhere in the service on any device I control and some that I don’t, and I’m not limited to a specific browser setup. Your inability to see the benefits to my life does not make it irrational, nor wrong to do so. That’s true for every service or product that you or anyone pays for: you got a product or service. You didn’t maintain any equity in the dollars or euros or yen that you paid in exchange. Nor do you possess equity in any items you barter away.