7 ms·

> I have seen this becoming more and more common on open source projects and totally free services, where people act as if they are entitled to something as if

> I have seen this becoming more and more common on open source projects and totally free services, where people act as if they are entitled to something as if it is their god given right. Do you count YouTube as a "free service" (with ads) in this case? I wonder if there is an overlap with people that expect free stuff and people that use uBO on YouTube. YT does offer most users YT premium, which gives users an ad free experience. Disclosure: I worked at YT in the past, but still pay for premium because I don't want the ads.

ozarker 3y ago
I think he’s referring to the Adblock as the free service here.
- crop_rotation 3y ago
  Correct.
- ysavir 3y ago
  I think deadmutex is pointing at a bit of irony and hypocrisy at how we're saying it's bad for people to feel entitled to free adblock support (and ask for more) but champion people feeling entitled to free videos by blocking the ads or refusing to pay for no ads.
  - ndriscoll 3y ago
    One is free high quality security software, and the author doesn't even accept donations. The other is "free" videos that come with malware.
    - pb7 3y ago
      One is the best, most reliable video serving platform on the planet and the other is a scriptkiddie’s project that evidently doesn’t even work and he’s so salty about it that he had to make a post.
      - ndriscoll 3y ago
        The OP is a post by a random person discussing reddit drama. As far as I can tell, the author of uBO isn't involved in any of it. uBO does work fine, and is easily one of the most valuable pieces of end user software there is. Raymond Hill is very generous and has made a very positive impact on the world.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    Not hypocritical at all. There is no "entitlement" to videos. They are free. YouTube sends them to us for free. They do so hoping we're gonna look at the ads. We're under exactly zero obligation to actually do that though. It is not at all our responsibility to make their business model work. Abusing open source developers is the true entitlement.
    - Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
      Expecting that the videos will be free with no qualifiers (such as an ad playing) is also entitlement. Not that you have said that explicitly but that seems to be a common assumption among many adblock users.
      - matheusmoreira 3y ago
        YouTube switching entirely to a Netflix-like paid model or going bankrupt are entirely acceptable outcomes.
      - 8note 3y ago
        YouTube is free to make windows and Mac apps, and turn off their web views. They're relying on me doing work to run a browser that renders their ads, rather than providing a binary. They're not sending me a page of ads, they're sending me a couple files that I can choose how to show and what to put through a JavaScript interpreter
        Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
        >YouTube is free to make windows and Mac apps, and turn off their web views. I have revanced which edits their binary to remove ads. I don't see what your point has to do with mine though. My point is this: adblock users are grazing from youtube's field. We are eating the grass that youtube has planted and watered. To expect that such a field exists and then to expect that it can be eaten from at will is entitlement. To say "but they put up no fence" (or, more accurately, a weak fence) is not a refutation of this point. In fact it is exactlty what defines it as being a tragedy of the commons.
esrauch 3y ago
I pay for YT premium and Ads are still my #1 complaint about YT. Partly this is by design, where it seems to decide that a creator having a "merch" ad integration doesn't count as an ad. Which might be understandable (but still not what I want) if merch meant creator's face on a mug, but it also includes products where a home fix it channel will have an overlay of products from Home Depot which is literally just an ad with no caveats (an overlay that obscures the video on Chromecast, it's part of YT UI not embedded in the video). Though I guess I'm also unclear how often I see that because Premium is buggy and how often it's intentional. Ever since they made YT on Chromecast an "app" it's been a disaster of account state bugs where it also keeps trying to enforce safe mode (which blocks half of everything, including practically any music video) because it says it's not logged in even though I'm trying to cast from a phone that is logged in.
- perryizgr8 3y ago
  This is the reason I won't pay for youtube red. It doesn't do what it says. It says "ad-free" but only filters some of the ads. It's literally false advertising. It's doubly frustrating because youtube can easily fix it if they want. They would just like the extra money.
- chii 3y ago
  > a creator having a "merch" ad integration doesn't count as an ad. this is why you also install sponsorblock (https://sponsor.ajay.app/ https://sponsor.ajay.app/). Only whitelist the channels you want to "support", if you really want to make sure to eyeball the sponsorship (which doesn't really help unless it happens to be a product you actually are interested in buying).
matheusmoreira 3y ago
You still have ads despite paying YouTube not to show you ads. They're hardcoded into the videos themselves now. You're also tracked and profiled by Google which is an indignity unto itself.
- agos 3y ago
  I wonder if paying for YT premium would disable tracking as well as the ads, and I feel like the answer is obvious
navigate8310 3y ago
Imagine paying to an ad company that profiles, tracks and snoops.
wdb 3y ago
YT Premium costs more than Netflix or Disney+. Quite pricey to get ad free Youtube videos and not as much content than normal streaming sites.
- userinanother 3y ago
  Especially considering that YouTube gets the content for almost free
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > YouTube gets the content for almost free Google pays out about 50% of ad revenue to content creators, that isn't "almost free" that is many billions of dollars.
    - userinanother 3y ago
      Yeah but what percentage of subscription costs go to paying creators?
      - Jensson 3y ago
        This site says 55% since youtube take 45%: > In the end, YouTube takes a 45% cut of a creator’s Premium earnings, just as it does for ad-generated revenue. https://vidiq.com/blog/post/youtube-premium-creator-revenue/ https://vidiq.com/blog/post/youtube-premium-creator-revenue/
    - kerkeslager 3y ago
      If a channel hasn't make any ad/premium revenue yet, Google still has the content for the cost of supporting the upload--i.e. they got it almost for free. The fact is, Google takes on no risk and does none of the work of creating content, and takes a 45% cut for distribution, and is free to continue changing their terms to make things worse for content creators.
- codeTired 3y ago
  You are still served ads in videos. It sucks paying for premium and your content creators use 3 minutes of 15 minute video to promote “nordVpn”.

ozarker 3y ago

I think he’s referring to the Adblock as the free service here.

crop_rotation 3y ago
Correct.
ysavir 3y ago
I think deadmutex is pointing at a bit of irony and hypocrisy at how we're saying it's bad for people to feel entitled to free adblock support (and ask for more) but champion people feeling entitled to free videos by blocking the ads or refusing to pay for no ads.
- ndriscoll 3y ago
  One is free high quality security software, and the author doesn't even accept donations. The other is "free" videos that come with malware.
  - pb7 3y ago
    One is the best, most reliable video serving platform on the planet and the other is a scriptkiddie’s project that evidently doesn’t even work and he’s so salty about it that he had to make a post.
    - ndriscoll 3y ago
      The OP is a post by a random person discussing reddit drama. As far as I can tell, the author of uBO isn't involved in any of it. uBO does work fine, and is easily one of the most valuable pieces of end user software there is. Raymond Hill is very generous and has made a very positive impact on the world.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Not hypocritical at all. There is no "entitlement" to videos. They are free. YouTube sends them to us for free. They do so hoping we're gonna look at the ads. We're under exactly zero obligation to actually do that though. It is not at all our responsibility to make their business model work. Abusing open source developers is the true entitlement.
  - Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
    Expecting that the videos will be free with no qualifiers (such as an ad playing) is also entitlement. Not that you have said that explicitly but that seems to be a common assumption among many adblock users.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      YouTube switching entirely to a Netflix-like paid model or going bankrupt are entirely acceptable outcomes.
    - 8note 3y ago
      YouTube is free to make windows and Mac apps, and turn off their web views. They're relying on me doing work to run a browser that renders their ads, rather than providing a binary. They're not sending me a page of ads, they're sending me a couple files that I can choose how to show and what to put through a JavaScript interpreter
      - Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
        >YouTube is free to make windows and Mac apps, and turn off their web views. I have revanced which edits their binary to remove ads. I don't see what your point has to do with mine though. My point is this: adblock users are grazing from youtube's field. We are eating the grass that youtube has planted and watered. To expect that such a field exists and then to expect that it can be eaten from at will is entitlement. To say "but they put up no fence" (or, more accurately, a weak fence) is not a refutation of this point. In fact it is exactlty what defines it as being a tragedy of the commons.

esrauch 3y ago

I pay for YT premium and Ads are still my #1 complaint about YT. Partly this is by design, where it seems to decide that a creator having a "merch" ad integration doesn't count as an ad. Which might be understandable (but still not what I want) if merch meant creator's face on a mug, but it also includes products where a home fix it channel will have an overlay of products from Home Depot which is literally just an ad with no caveats (an overlay that obscures the video on Chromecast, it's part of YT UI not embedded in the video). Though I guess I'm also unclear how often I see that because Premium is buggy and how often it's intentional. Ever since they made YT on Chromecast an "app" it's been a disaster of account state bugs where it also keeps trying to enforce safe mode (which blocks half of everything, including practically any music video) because it says it's not logged in even though I'm trying to cast from a phone that is logged in.

perryizgr8 3y ago
This is the reason I won't pay for youtube red. It doesn't do what it says. It says "ad-free" but only filters some of the ads. It's literally false advertising. It's doubly frustrating because youtube can easily fix it if they want. They would just like the extra money.
chii 3y ago
> a creator having a "merch" ad integration doesn't count as an ad. this is why you also install sponsorblock (https://sponsor.ajay.app/ https://sponsor.ajay.app/). Only whitelist the channels you want to "support", if you really want to make sure to eyeball the sponsorship (which doesn't really help unless it happens to be a product you actually are interested in buying).

matheusmoreira 3y ago

You still have ads despite paying YouTube not to show you ads. They're hardcoded into the videos themselves now. You're also tracked and profiled by Google which is an indignity unto itself.

agos 3y ago
I wonder if paying for YT premium would disable tracking as well as the ads, and I feel like the answer is obvious

navigate8310 3y ago

Imagine paying to an ad company that profiles, tracks and snoops.

wdb 3y ago

YT Premium costs more than Netflix or Disney+. Quite pricey to get ad free Youtube videos and not as much content than normal streaming sites.

userinanother 3y ago
Especially considering that YouTube gets the content for almost free
- Jensson 3y ago
  > YouTube gets the content for almost free Google pays out about 50% of ad revenue to content creators, that isn't "almost free" that is many billions of dollars.
  - userinanother 3y ago
    Yeah but what percentage of subscription costs go to paying creators?
    - Jensson 3y ago
      This site says 55% since youtube take 45%: > In the end, YouTube takes a 45% cut of a creator’s Premium earnings, just as it does for ad-generated revenue. https://vidiq.com/blog/post/youtube-premium-creator-revenue/ https://vidiq.com/blog/post/youtube-premium-creator-revenue/
  - kerkeslager 3y ago
    If a channel hasn't make any ad/premium revenue yet, Google still has the content for the cost of supporting the upload--i.e. they got it almost for free. The fact is, Google takes on no risk and does none of the work of creating content, and takes a 45% cut for distribution, and is free to continue changing their terms to make things worse for content creators.
codeTired 3y ago
You are still served ads in videos. It sucks paying for premium and your content creators use 3 minutes of 15 minute video to promote “nordVpn”.