8 ms·

I believe this is what you are looking for: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37873749 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37873749 But I also recommend pu

I believe this is what you are looking for: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37873749 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37873749 But I also recommend purchasing YouTube Premium if you watch a decent amount. I find it to be a great value.

giggyhack 3y ago
Also, YT Premium is free with Google Fi phones and other things
- up_o 3y ago
  is it? I've had fi for years and never noticed. I also don't watch much yt so it's not something I'm apt to notice I suppose.
- knappe 3y ago
  I was curious about this and it is true only if you have an unlimited plus plan. https://support.google.com/fi/answer/12999259?hl=en https://support.google.com/fi/answer/12999259?hl=en
- aninteger 3y ago
  This is news to me and I don't think this is true... or it's maybe hidden away somewhere. I am a Fi subscriber using a Google Pixel phone but YouTube premium is still $13.99/month.
- mike_d 3y ago
  Unlimited Plus (the plan with free YouTube Premium) is a dollar more per month than just buying the Unlimited plan and YT Premium separately. You also only get it free for a year.
alwayslikethis 3y ago
At this point, I consider blocking ads to be a moral obligation. By giving in, you enable Youtube to abuse users further
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- gruez 3y ago
  What's the point of blocking ads when they're already not present? Or are you saying that we should block ads and refuse to pay? How is that sustainable in the long term? If you're against ads, shouldn't you support monetization models that don't involve ads?
  - jona-f 3y ago
    We treat google how they treat us, as exploitive as possible.
    - mvdtnz 3y ago
      You're just rationalising. You know it's not a defensible position.
      - Spivak 3y ago
        Sure it is, you're not even involved in the transaction. Just because someone pays Google to show an ad doesn't mean you have to look at it. USPS is funded by ads going through the mail and I throw them straight in the trash without remorse. I bet you do too. Bet you don't feel guilt about going to the bathroom or fast-forwarding your DVR during commercials either. Ad space is sold on the possibility that someone will see it and you don't owe anyone valuable ad real-estate. It's wild how many people unironically think "drink verification can" is in any way acceptable.
        gruez 3y ago
        > Just because someone pays Google to show an ad doesn't mean you have to look at it Just because someone has an internet connection doesn't mean google has to serve them videos, either.
momirlan 3y ago
this comment never fails to appear on any Youtube blocker thread. Good for you that you pay Youtube , but stop rubbing it in our faces. each person has its own standards
- gruez 3y ago
  >each person has its own standards What's your standard then? "It's my right to get whatever content/service I want for free and without ads, and I'll only pay if I feel like it"?
  - argiopetech 3y ago
    "Youtube is a video sharing platform. It's not sharing if I have to pay."
  - tomrod 3y ago
    If I've ever contributed content that YouTube now shows ads on, absolutely. (I have). YouTube is a video sharing platform. It's not sharing if I have to pay in cash or time.
  - momirlan 3y ago
    yes
unshavedyak 3y ago
I'd buy it, but $14/m is way too much for no ads imo. Especially since this is a "free" service where the justification for me paying X$/m is because i have to offset the ads i would have otherwise watched. You're (Youtube, not OP hah) telling me i provided $14/m in ad revenue? Of course not. I'd insta-buy if i could just pay to skip any ads i actually would have watched. Give me a stat showing me how many ads i missed, and how much i owe. Justify the cost you're forcing on me. Instead i'll just drop youtube and give money to some other service that doesn't feel like it's focused on gaming me.
- paulcole 3y ago
  > Instead i'll just drop youtube I’d pay $100 if there was some way to legitimately verify this because it’s nonsense IMO. How is getting you to pay a reasonable subscription or watch ads in exchange for videos you ostensibly enjoy “gaming you”?
  - hkt 3y ago
    The data of rich profiles is enormously valuable to Google. They allow Google unparalleled ability to target ads elsewhere, too. That's the game.
    - paulcole 3y ago
      OK, but they make YouTube. They make the rules of the game. Pay for it with $$$ or by watching Ads, don’t watch YouTube, or pretend there’s some kind of morality in stealing it.
      - hkt 3y ago
        "Stealing". Bless you, not giving up data while accessing something public is not stealing. Defending yourself against surveillance is morally unambiguous. Society as a whole, across the entire world, needs to start talking about how we support these services in a post-ad-revenue-model world. I suspect whatever the answer we settle on, it'll be less awful than what exists now.
kristofferR 3y ago
Youtube Premium is a waste of money, they bundle a crappy $11/m music service with it, for $13/m. It's worse than having to pay for cable or landline telephone to get internet. I'd pay $2/m, or even $4 bucks, for ad-free Youtube, but I'm not buying an additional music service I don't want or need.
- melevittfl 3y ago
  Yup, this is exactly why I don’t subscribe. I already pay for Spotify so I don’t need another music service. I’d happily pay for just no ads.
huytersd 3y ago
It costs too much. I wish they would unbundle it from that music service.
- russh 3y ago
  Exactly, I used to subscribe to premium but it’s not worth the price just to avoid ads and I have no use for the rest of the stuff they bundle into premium to justify the price.

giggyhack 3y ago

Also, YT Premium is free with Google Fi phones and other things

up_o 3y ago
is it? I've had fi for years and never noticed. I also don't watch much yt so it's not something I'm apt to notice I suppose.
knappe 3y ago
I was curious about this and it is true only if you have an unlimited plus plan. https://support.google.com/fi/answer/12999259?hl=en https://support.google.com/fi/answer/12999259?hl=en
aninteger 3y ago
This is news to me and I don't think this is true... or it's maybe hidden away somewhere. I am a Fi subscriber using a Google Pixel phone but YouTube premium is still $13.99/month.
mike_d 3y ago
Unlimited Plus (the plan with free YouTube Premium) is a dollar more per month than just buying the Unlimited plan and YT Premium separately. You also only get it free for a year.

alwayslikethis 3y ago

At this point, I consider blocking ads to be a moral obligation. By giving in, you enable Youtube to abuse users further

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gruez 3y ago
What's the point of blocking ads when they're already not present? Or are you saying that we should block ads and refuse to pay? How is that sustainable in the long term? If you're against ads, shouldn't you support monetization models that don't involve ads?
- jona-f 3y ago
  We treat google how they treat us, as exploitive as possible.
  - mvdtnz 3y ago
    You're just rationalising. You know it's not a defensible position.
    - Spivak 3y ago
      Sure it is, you're not even involved in the transaction. Just because someone pays Google to show an ad doesn't mean you have to look at it. USPS is funded by ads going through the mail and I throw them straight in the trash without remorse. I bet you do too. Bet you don't feel guilt about going to the bathroom or fast-forwarding your DVR during commercials either. Ad space is sold on the possibility that someone will see it and you don't owe anyone valuable ad real-estate. It's wild how many people unironically think "drink verification can" is in any way acceptable.
      - gruez 3y ago
        > Just because someone pays Google to show an ad doesn't mean you have to look at it Just because someone has an internet connection doesn't mean google has to serve them videos, either.

momirlan 3y ago

this comment never fails to appear on any Youtube blocker thread. Good for you that you pay Youtube , but stop rubbing it in our faces. each person has its own standards

gruez 3y ago
>each person has its own standards What's your standard then? "It's my right to get whatever content/service I want for free and without ads, and I'll only pay if I feel like it"?
- argiopetech 3y ago
  "Youtube is a video sharing platform. It's not sharing if I have to pay."
- tomrod 3y ago
  If I've ever contributed content that YouTube now shows ads on, absolutely. (I have). YouTube is a video sharing platform. It's not sharing if I have to pay in cash or time.
- momirlan 3y ago
  yes

unshavedyak 3y ago

I'd buy it, but $14/m is way too much for no ads imo. Especially since this is a "free" service where the justification for me paying X$/m is because i have to offset the ads i would have otherwise watched. You're (Youtube, not OP hah) telling me i provided $14/m in ad revenue? Of course not. I'd insta-buy if i could just pay to skip any ads i actually would have watched. Give me a stat showing me how many ads i missed, and how much i owe. Justify the cost you're forcing on me. Instead i'll just drop youtube and give money to some other service that doesn't feel like it's focused on gaming me.

paulcole 3y ago
> Instead i'll just drop youtube I’d pay $100 if there was some way to legitimately verify this because it’s nonsense IMO. How is getting you to pay a reasonable subscription or watch ads in exchange for videos you ostensibly enjoy “gaming you”?
- hkt 3y ago
  The data of rich profiles is enormously valuable to Google. They allow Google unparalleled ability to target ads elsewhere, too. That's the game.
  - paulcole 3y ago
    OK, but they make YouTube. They make the rules of the game. Pay for it with $$$ or by watching Ads, don’t watch YouTube, or pretend there’s some kind of morality in stealing it.
    - hkt 3y ago
      "Stealing". Bless you, not giving up data while accessing something public is not stealing. Defending yourself against surveillance is morally unambiguous. Society as a whole, across the entire world, needs to start talking about how we support these services in a post-ad-revenue-model world. I suspect whatever the answer we settle on, it'll be less awful than what exists now.

kristofferR 3y ago

Youtube Premium is a waste of money, they bundle a crappy $11/m music service with it, for $13/m. It's worse than having to pay for cable or landline telephone to get internet. I'd pay $2/m, or even $4 bucks, for ad-free Youtube, but I'm not buying an additional music service I don't want or need.

melevittfl 3y ago
Yup, this is exactly why I don’t subscribe. I already pay for Spotify so I don’t need another music service. I’d happily pay for just no ads.

huytersd 3y ago

It costs too much. I wish they would unbundle it from that music service.

russh 3y ago
Exactly, I used to subscribe to premium but it’s not worth the price just to avoid ads and I have no use for the rest of the stuff they bundle into premium to justify the price.