14 ms·

Mobile Ad Blocker Will No Longer Stop YouTube's Ads

34 points by Hary06 2y ago

latexr 2y ago
> We want to emphasize that our terms don’t allow third-party apps to turn off ads because that prevents the creator from being rewarded for viewership, and Ads on YouTube help support creators and let billions of people around the world use the streaming service. Ah yes, it’s all about the creators, you see. The money Google makes from it has nothing to do with it, no siree. As we all know, Google’s magnanimity always puts the creators first, and that is why every creator is so thankful to YouTube and no one has ever complained or criticised the platform. Hooray!
- michelsedgh 2y ago
  Why can’t it be both? You don’t expect them to provide Youtube for free do you? Also if they don’t profit how do you want them to monetize the creators? Don’t get me wrong I hate the ads, but the problem is there has to be some kind of profits for them or for anyone else to run a platform and not just youtube no?
  - fsckboy 2y ago
    > You don’t expect them to provide Youtube for free do you? I don't expect for monopolists (of search, of ad, and also of video markets) to be given free rein to impose whatever terms they want. They provide me nothing for free, they are selling me
    - michelsedgh 2y ago
      Which free rein? They enforce the one thing that pays them by forcing us to watch ads on their platform is not free rein. Also which monopolies? For ads theres bing, DDG, Kagi and many others same as Youtube, I think, they have become so big because they historically provided a better service and people chose them as the main one. I don’t get much of what you are saying.
  - kayodelycaon 2y ago
    > You don’t expect them to provide Youtube for free do you? Most people I know do expect that. They don't care about the economics of it.
  - latexr 2y ago
    My objection isn’t that YouTube makes a profit for Google, but that in their statement they skirt around that truth. They only mention the creators and word it as if that’s the reason they crack down on adblockers, when we all know that’s not the whole story. Own up to it! What I’m objecting to is them being disingenuous.
- nkozyra 2y ago
  I think Youtube got caught offguard a bit by creators making in-video ads and sponsorships a few years ago. They don't get a cut of that, and it softens the blow of people who do use Adblock.
  - cactusplant7374 2y ago
    I use SponsorBlock for those. The issue I have is that YouTube and sponsored creators want to take up so much of my time. YouTube videos are already too long and filled with boilerplate nonsense.
euix 2y ago
I think between Invidious and Freetube there are enough alternative feeds to to Youtube these days.
- oliveshell 2y ago
  Sadly Youtube has been actively blocking Invidious instances for a while now. These days it only works for me ~50% of the time.
  - nkozyra 2y ago
    Freetube is getting 400 responses, too, and attempting to fallback on the Invidious API. They're cracking down pretty hard.
Havoc 2y ago
> mobile ad-blocking apps may result in buffering issues That seems like a rather gaslighting passive aggressive approach.
- danpalmer 2y ago
  If the video content is loaded from the same place as the ads, and the blockers are blocking the source, that statement would make sense. I'm not sure it's gaslighting. Passive aggressive? Maybe but the point is to tell you not to do this so perhaps that's justified?
  - wtallis 2y ago
    "Buffering issues" implies the video would take longer to load, or have to pause during playback to load more of the video. Blocking the servers providing the video content would mainly result in a complete inability to play the video.
- huppeldepup 2y ago
  This is called “throttling”, no?
fdgjgbdfhgb 2y ago
It's one of those things - they are totally in their right to do it, but I still think it sucks. At the end of the day, both parties benefit: Youtube won't have to serve me videos for free and I'll gain back a bunch of free time.
- alsetmusic 2y ago
  At this point, I download all videos (Downie.app on Mac; it's awesome) and play them locally. The day I no longer have a workaround I will stop watching. I have enough other content to keep me going. Too much, really.
BadHumans 2y ago
Just use NewPipe. It's just a better Youtube client even if it had ads. https://newpipe.net/ https://newpipe.net/
- avtolik 2y ago
  Does it show the same video adds as YouTube?
  - S0y 2y ago
    There are no ads.
  - cmeacham98 2y ago
    No, but this is entirely YouTube's fault as they don't offer any sort of API or method for third party apps to display ads.
    - extraduder_ire 2y ago
      I'm sure they don't out of concern about ad-fraud, but it would be funny if they had such an API, demanded third-parties used it, and didn't charge for/track those ad views.
- S0y 2y ago
  I'm also quite a big fan of NewPipe. I just wish you could sort videos by views.
- CornCobs 2y ago
  Seconding NewPipe. Though recently it's been unable to load comments and the error banner keeps popping up as a result (no comments may actually be a plus?) I still use the regular Youtube app for shorts but NewPipe is definitely a better experience overall. My main gripes with the official Android Youtube client: - They made it so annoying to choose your video resolution (Seriously, who tested this and found it better than the old method?) - I can accept not being able to play in the background, but if you lock your screen while in fullscreen mode and then unlock it, there is a very noticeable lag before the app exits fullscreen mode, and in this period you cannot resume playback.
998244353 2y ago
> In October, YouTube made it nearly impossible to watch its website while using an ad blocker. Did they revert that? I saw those for maybe a week. After that, I assume uBlock Origin had already worked around that. Probably the same will happen with mobile clients.
- bambax 2y ago
  Same here. I don't know about mobile, but on desktop with uBlock Origin I see absolutely zero ads.
  - _dark_matter_ 2y ago
    Firefox on Android has uBlock, and I see no ads. Just change the setting to ask to open in an external app.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    I've never seen ads either, though I did see a total of one message saying I wasn't allowed to watch a video because I had an ad blocker. Lately I've been seeing videos suddenly skip four or five seconds forward occasionally; it's possible that's related to an anti-adblocking effort of some kind.
- Akronymus 2y ago
  It mostly impacted ABP users, because UBO just has a much faster turnaround on bypassing adblocker-blockers.
- themoonisachees 2y ago
  Ubo has been working hard to make sure you don't see it. YouTube keeps tweaking it's stuff so that the filters break, presumably on purpose.
brink 2y ago
Eh, if I have issues watching Youtube, I'll just watch less Youtube. My time would be much better spent in other places anyway.
bigtex 2y ago
Brave on iOS still have no issue with YT ads.
zinekeller 2y ago
Extremely misleading title, made worse with the HN autotrim. This is simply about YouTube de jure telling that ad-blocking is forbidden, which is just putting this previously-de facto policy in the legal realm. It's not even specifically for mobile devices: I'm not sure why the author of this article have linked it with mobile devices.
throwaway5959 2y ago
YouTube Premium (which avoids ads and still pays creators, plus offers downloads) is $14/month. Put another way, let’s say the average Hacker News commentator makes $150k/year or $75/hour, that’s less than 15 minutes of work. Just reeks of “I don’t believe tipping is fair to workers, that’s why I don’t tip.” Edit: downvoted in less than a minute, haha
- mmastrac 2y ago
  Why are you conflating the extremely broken tipping culture/minimum wage system in the US and a multi-billion-dollar company's revenue strategy?
  - throwaway5959 2y ago
    Why are people unwilling to pay creators (in attention or dollars) for making the content they watch? It’s the same with piracy. It was one thing when the content was simply unavailable, now most content is available via a streaming service for an incredibly cheap per monthly cost.
    - zootboy 2y ago
      I pay the creators I care about, but I do it through Patreon, not Youtube. Of those $14 of Youtube subscription fees, approximately $0 would go to the creators I care about. If Youtube made some guarantee that the money I spent would only go to the creators I watch, I'd subscribe instantly.
      - throwaway5959 2y ago
        https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6306276?hl=en#:~:text=Revenue%20from%20YouTube%20Premium%20membership,will%20go%20to%20our%20partners https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6306276?hl=en#:~:t.... “Revenue from YouTube Premium membership fees is distributed to video creators based on how much members watch your content. As with our advertising business, the majority of the revenue will go to our partners.“
moistness 2y ago
[flagged]
PlutoIsAPlanet 2y ago
Adblocking on YouTube is a security requirement given how much fraud and malware is advertised on YouTube. I'll disable my AdBlocker when YouTube stops trying to sell me crypto currencies from supposedly Elon Musk.
mikkom 2y ago
But uBlock with browser that supports it still does :-) (If you have android, try kiwi browser if you haven't - it's chrome based and you can use regular extensions with it)
- hagbard_c 2y ago
  If you have Android use Firefox, you can use extensions with it and get real uBlock Origin which does what it is supposed to. Add something like Privacy Redirect pointed at a number of service proxies (Youtube->Invidious, Reddit->libreddit, TwiXXer->Nitter (need a private instance for now), Search->SearxNG, etc) and you're close to ad-free.
  - mikkom 2y ago
    Yes, I also use "real" uBlock origin with kiwi browser. It's exactly the same addon as the computer one installed via chrome store.
    - hagbard_c 2y ago
      https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
rpmisms 2y ago
Revanced is absolutely amazing, just saying.
_fat_santa 2y ago
Personally I just pay for Youtube Premium. Yes it's $10/month but I found that if you watch alot of Youtube, it's well worth it. Now anytime I'm at friends house and an ad comes up before a video I'm always like "oh right Youtube has ads"
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  I'll never understand why people don't think twice paying for the array of streaming services (netflix, hulu, disney, apple, etc.) but the thought of paying for a service with creator profit sharing (and a majority share at that) is unthinkable.
  - Akronymus 2y ago
    I personally don't pay for any streaming service. Too damn expensive for the few shows I'd have any interest in, most of which aren't even available here, or would require me to subscribe to 5 different services. Along with that, I prefer having the highest bitrate versions possible available to me. Which I can't with a legit service, as I don't usde HDMI.
  - thiht 2y ago
    I won't pay for Youtube, ever, because even if I pay, I still get sponsored segments in videos. To skip these, I have to get SponsorBlock so I might as well block ads too. Maybe if Youtube Premium also gave access to the same videos without sponsored segments I would reconsider. The thing is Youtube screwed themselves years ago: they were dicks to content creators (by being overly agressive with demonetizing, even giving creators money to DMCA trolls and completely ignoring fair use laws) so they couldn't rely on ad money and had to fallback to sponsoring instead. The shit situation we're in today il all Youtube's fault. On the other hand, I pay for Crunchyroll because it has a huge catalog for 5 bucks a month, and for Netflix because they never pissed me yet. However if they increase their subscription price one more time (>13.49€ per month), I'm out for good. I already unsubscribed from Disney+ because they pissed me off by removing shows without any warning, and from Prime Video because I got tired of finding movies just to realize they weren't actually included in the subscription.
pixxel 2y ago
If YT implemented a p2p option then I wouldn’t need to use their bandwidth and block ads. The world’s video library belongs to all. If you want to act as gatekeeper to all the knowledge so you can profit then we’ll work around it. But that’s just my opinion, man. I watch hobbyists who upload interesting things just to share information, like how YT used to be. You can gatekeep ‘content creators’ like Jake Paul behind a paywall for all I give a shit.
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  You are delusional if you think ISP's will just lay down and take it when every one of their subscribers becomes a video CDN.
  - zb1plus 2y ago
    ISPs got a ton of free money from the government to set up internet infrastructure and have been milking taxpayer money without improving access significantly or reducing costs. They can accept it or get nationalized imo
  - NohatCoder 2y ago
    They might complain, because that is what ISPs do, but they won't necessarily be that bad off. Popular content can be mostly circulated within their own network, saving peering bandwidth. This will be somewhat offset by less popular content that generates a bit extra outgoing traffic. The scale of YouTube would make the advantage much more pronounced than it has ever been for torrents.
randcraw 2y ago
MONOPOLY. If Youtube officially offers no public service anymore, it's time to vigorously prosecute them for this and their insane number of copyright violations.
stalfosknight 2y ago
If you're on Safari, use Vinegar¹ to substitute the YouTube player with a simple <video> tag. Ad-free and much more battery efficient. The companion app Baking Soda² does the same for non-YouTube sites. 1. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/vinegar-tube-cleaner/id1591303229 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/vinegar-tube-cleaner/id1591303... 2. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/baking-soda-tube-cleaner/id1601151613 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/baking-soda-tube-cleaner/id160...
hagbard_c 2y ago
Don't use Youtube without going through a proxy like Invidious [1] or Newpipe Don't use {site} Search without going through a proxy like SearxNG [2] Don't use TwiXXer without going through a proxy like Nitter - this has gotten more difficult lately but it still works as long as you feed the daemon some registered accounts. Video does not work at the moment but that seems to be fixable. Don't use Reddit without going through a proxy like libreddit [4] Start noticing the pattern? Maybe it is time to start producing promotional posters: The only thing to come between you and ADS could be a proxy / ADS. I'ts just not worth the risk ADS / New rules for a sane net / Sane net protects you, your partner and your community A proxy here and a filter there, ADS nowhere The more you tighten your grip, ${site}, the more viewers will slip through your fingers [1] https://github.com/iv-org/invidious https://github.com/iv-org/invidious [2] https://github.com/searxng/searxng https://github.com/searxng/searxng [3] https://github.com/zedeus/nitter https://github.com/zedeus/nitter [4] https://github.com/libreddit/libreddit https://github.com/libreddit/libreddit

34 points by Hary06 2y ago

> We want to emphasize that our terms don’t allow third-party apps to turn off ads because that prevents the creator from being rewarded for viewership, and Ads on YouTube help support creators and let billions of people around the world use the streaming service. Ah yes, it’s all about the creators, you see. The money Google makes from it has nothing to do with it, no siree. As we all know, Google’s magnanimity always puts the creators first, and that is why every creator is so thankful to YouTube and no one has ever complained or criticised the platform. Hooray!

michelsedgh 2y ago
Why can’t it be both? You don’t expect them to provide Youtube for free do you? Also if they don’t profit how do you want them to monetize the creators? Don’t get me wrong I hate the ads, but the problem is there has to be some kind of profits for them or for anyone else to run a platform and not just youtube no?
- fsckboy 2y ago
  > You don’t expect them to provide Youtube for free do you? I don't expect for monopolists (of search, of ad, and also of video markets) to be given free rein to impose whatever terms they want. They provide me nothing for free, they are selling me
  - michelsedgh 2y ago
    Which free rein? They enforce the one thing that pays them by forcing us to watch ads on their platform is not free rein. Also which monopolies? For ads theres bing, DDG, Kagi and many others same as Youtube, I think, they have become so big because they historically provided a better service and people chose them as the main one. I don’t get much of what you are saying.
- kayodelycaon 2y ago
  > You don’t expect them to provide Youtube for free do you? Most people I know do expect that. They don't care about the economics of it.
- latexr 2y ago
  My objection isn’t that YouTube makes a profit for Google, but that in their statement they skirt around that truth. They only mention the creators and word it as if that’s the reason they crack down on adblockers, when we all know that’s not the whole story. Own up to it! What I’m objecting to is them being disingenuous.
nkozyra 2y ago
I think Youtube got caught offguard a bit by creators making in-video ads and sponsorships a few years ago. They don't get a cut of that, and it softens the blow of people who do use Adblock.
- cactusplant7374 2y ago
  I use SponsorBlock for those. The issue I have is that YouTube and sponsored creators want to take up so much of my time. YouTube videos are already too long and filled with boilerplate nonsense.

euix 2y ago

I think between Invidious and Freetube there are enough alternative feeds to to Youtube these days.

oliveshell 2y ago
Sadly Youtube has been actively blocking Invidious instances for a while now. These days it only works for me ~50% of the time.
- nkozyra 2y ago
  Freetube is getting 400 responses, too, and attempting to fallback on the Invidious API. They're cracking down pretty hard.

Havoc 2y ago

> mobile ad-blocking apps may result in buffering issues That seems like a rather gaslighting passive aggressive approach.

danpalmer 2y ago
If the video content is loaded from the same place as the ads, and the blockers are blocking the source, that statement would make sense. I'm not sure it's gaslighting. Passive aggressive? Maybe but the point is to tell you not to do this so perhaps that's justified?
- wtallis 2y ago
  "Buffering issues" implies the video would take longer to load, or have to pause during playback to load more of the video. Blocking the servers providing the video content would mainly result in a complete inability to play the video.
huppeldepup 2y ago
This is called “throttling”, no?

fdgjgbdfhgb 2y ago

It's one of those things - they are totally in their right to do it, but I still think it sucks. At the end of the day, both parties benefit: Youtube won't have to serve me videos for free and I'll gain back a bunch of free time.

alsetmusic 2y ago
At this point, I download all videos (Downie.app on Mac; it's awesome) and play them locally. The day I no longer have a workaround I will stop watching. I have enough other content to keep me going. Too much, really.

BadHumans 2y ago

Just use NewPipe. It's just a better Youtube client even if it had ads. https://newpipe.net/ https://newpipe.net/

avtolik 2y ago
Does it show the same video adds as YouTube?
- S0y 2y ago
  There are no ads.
- cmeacham98 2y ago
  No, but this is entirely YouTube's fault as they don't offer any sort of API or method for third party apps to display ads.
  - extraduder_ire 2y ago
    I'm sure they don't out of concern about ad-fraud, but it would be funny if they had such an API, demanded third-parties used it, and didn't charge for/track those ad views.
S0y 2y ago
I'm also quite a big fan of NewPipe. I just wish you could sort videos by views.
CornCobs 2y ago
Seconding NewPipe. Though recently it's been unable to load comments and the error banner keeps popping up as a result (no comments may actually be a plus?) I still use the regular Youtube app for shorts but NewPipe is definitely a better experience overall. My main gripes with the official Android Youtube client: - They made it so annoying to choose your video resolution (Seriously, who tested this and found it better than the old method?) - I can accept not being able to play in the background, but if you lock your screen while in fullscreen mode and then unlock it, there is a very noticeable lag before the app exits fullscreen mode, and in this period you cannot resume playback.

998244353 2y ago

> In October, YouTube made it nearly impossible to watch its website while using an ad blocker. Did they revert that? I saw those for maybe a week. After that, I assume uBlock Origin had already worked around that. Probably the same will happen with mobile clients.

bambax 2y ago
Same here. I don't know about mobile, but on desktop with uBlock Origin I see absolutely zero ads.
- _dark_matter_ 2y ago
  Firefox on Android has uBlock, and I see no ads. Just change the setting to ask to open in an external app.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  I've never seen ads either, though I did see a total of one message saying I wasn't allowed to watch a video because I had an ad blocker. Lately I've been seeing videos suddenly skip four or five seconds forward occasionally; it's possible that's related to an anti-adblocking effort of some kind.
Akronymus 2y ago
It mostly impacted ABP users, because UBO just has a much faster turnaround on bypassing adblocker-blockers.
themoonisachees 2y ago
Ubo has been working hard to make sure you don't see it. YouTube keeps tweaking it's stuff so that the filters break, presumably on purpose.

brink 2y ago

Eh, if I have issues watching Youtube, I'll just watch less Youtube. My time would be much better spent in other places anyway.

bigtex 2y ago

Brave on iOS still have no issue with YT ads.

zinekeller 2y ago

Extremely misleading title, made worse with the HN autotrim. This is simply about YouTube de jure telling that ad-blocking is forbidden, which is just putting this previously-de facto policy in the legal realm. It's not even specifically for mobile devices: I'm not sure why the author of this article have linked it with mobile devices.

throwaway5959 2y ago

YouTube Premium (which avoids ads and still pays creators, plus offers downloads) is $14/month. Put another way, let’s say the average Hacker News commentator makes $150k/year or $75/hour, that’s less than 15 minutes of work. Just reeks of “I don’t believe tipping is fair to workers, that’s why I don’t tip.” Edit: downvoted in less than a minute, haha

mmastrac 2y ago
Why are you conflating the extremely broken tipping culture/minimum wage system in the US and a multi-billion-dollar company's revenue strategy?
- throwaway5959 2y ago
  Why are people unwilling to pay creators (in attention or dollars) for making the content they watch? It’s the same with piracy. It was one thing when the content was simply unavailable, now most content is available via a streaming service for an incredibly cheap per monthly cost.
  - zootboy 2y ago
    I pay the creators I care about, but I do it through Patreon, not Youtube. Of those $14 of Youtube subscription fees, approximately $0 would go to the creators I care about. If Youtube made some guarantee that the money I spent would only go to the creators I watch, I'd subscribe instantly.
    - throwaway5959 2y ago
      https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6306276?hl=en#:~:text=Revenue%20from%20YouTube%20Premium%20membership,will%20go%20to%20our%20partners https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6306276?hl=en#:~:t.... “Revenue from YouTube Premium membership fees is distributed to video creators based on how much members watch your content. As with our advertising business, the majority of the revenue will go to our partners.“

moistness 2y ago

[flagged]

PlutoIsAPlanet 2y ago

Adblocking on YouTube is a security requirement given how much fraud and malware is advertised on YouTube. I'll disable my AdBlocker when YouTube stops trying to sell me crypto currencies from supposedly Elon Musk.

mikkom 2y ago

But uBlock with browser that supports it still does :-) (If you have android, try kiwi browser if you haven't - it's chrome based and you can use regular extensions with it)

hagbard_c 2y ago
If you have Android use Firefox, you can use extensions with it and get real uBlock Origin which does what it is supposed to. Add something like Privacy Redirect pointed at a number of service proxies (Youtube->Invidious, Reddit->libreddit, TwiXXer->Nitter (need a private instance for now), Search->SearxNG, etc) and you're close to ad-free.
- mikkom 2y ago
  Yes, I also use "real" uBlock origin with kiwi browser. It's exactly the same addon as the computer one installed via chrome store.
  - hagbard_c 2y ago
    https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...

rpmisms 2y ago

Revanced is absolutely amazing, just saying.

_fat_santa 2y ago

Personally I just pay for Youtube Premium. Yes it's $10/month but I found that if you watch alot of Youtube, it's well worth it. Now anytime I'm at friends house and an ad comes up before a video I'm always like "oh right Youtube has ads"

Workaccount2 2y ago
I'll never understand why people don't think twice paying for the array of streaming services (netflix, hulu, disney, apple, etc.) but the thought of paying for a service with creator profit sharing (and a majority share at that) is unthinkable.
- Akronymus 2y ago
  I personally don't pay for any streaming service. Too damn expensive for the few shows I'd have any interest in, most of which aren't even available here, or would require me to subscribe to 5 different services. Along with that, I prefer having the highest bitrate versions possible available to me. Which I can't with a legit service, as I don't usde HDMI.
- thiht 2y ago
  I won't pay for Youtube, ever, because even if I pay, I still get sponsored segments in videos. To skip these, I have to get SponsorBlock so I might as well block ads too. Maybe if Youtube Premium also gave access to the same videos without sponsored segments I would reconsider. The thing is Youtube screwed themselves years ago: they were dicks to content creators (by being overly agressive with demonetizing, even giving creators money to DMCA trolls and completely ignoring fair use laws) so they couldn't rely on ad money and had to fallback to sponsoring instead. The shit situation we're in today il all Youtube's fault. On the other hand, I pay for Crunchyroll because it has a huge catalog for 5 bucks a month, and for Netflix because they never pissed me yet. However if they increase their subscription price one more time (>13.49€ per month), I'm out for good. I already unsubscribed from Disney+ because they pissed me off by removing shows without any warning, and from Prime Video because I got tired of finding movies just to realize they weren't actually included in the subscription.

pixxel 2y ago

If YT implemented a p2p option then I wouldn’t need to use their bandwidth and block ads. The world’s video library belongs to all. If you want to act as gatekeeper to all the knowledge so you can profit then we’ll work around it. But that’s just my opinion, man. I watch hobbyists who upload interesting things just to share information, like how YT used to be. You can gatekeep ‘content creators’ like Jake Paul behind a paywall for all I give a shit.

Workaccount2 2y ago
You are delusional if you think ISP's will just lay down and take it when every one of their subscribers becomes a video CDN.
- zb1plus 2y ago
  ISPs got a ton of free money from the government to set up internet infrastructure and have been milking taxpayer money without improving access significantly or reducing costs. They can accept it or get nationalized imo
- NohatCoder 2y ago
  They might complain, because that is what ISPs do, but they won't necessarily be that bad off. Popular content can be mostly circulated within their own network, saving peering bandwidth. This will be somewhat offset by less popular content that generates a bit extra outgoing traffic. The scale of YouTube would make the advantage much more pronounced than it has ever been for torrents.

randcraw 2y ago

MONOPOLY. If Youtube officially offers no public service anymore, it's time to vigorously prosecute them for this and their insane number of copyright violations.

stalfosknight 2y ago

If you're on Safari, use Vinegar¹ to substitute the YouTube player with a simple <video> tag. Ad-free and much more battery efficient. The companion app Baking Soda² does the same for non-YouTube sites. 1. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/vinegar-tube-cleaner/id1591303229 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/vinegar-tube-cleaner/id1591303... 2. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/baking-soda-tube-cleaner/id1601151613 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/baking-soda-tube-cleaner/id160...

hagbard_c 2y ago

Don't use Youtube without going through a proxy like Invidious [1] or Newpipe Don't use {site} Search without going through a proxy like SearxNG [2] Don't use TwiXXer without going through a proxy like Nitter - this has gotten more difficult lately but it still works as long as you feed the daemon some registered accounts. Video does not work at the moment but that seems to be fixable. Don't use Reddit without going through a proxy like libreddit [4] Start noticing the pattern? Maybe it is time to start producing promotional posters: The only thing to come between you and ADS could be a proxy / ADS. I'ts just not worth the risk ADS / New rules for a sane net / Sane net protects you, your partner and your community A proxy here and a filter there, ADS nowhere The more you tighten your grip, ${site}, the more viewers will slip through your fingers [1] https://github.com/iv-org/invidious https://github.com/iv-org/invidious [2] https://github.com/searxng/searxng https://github.com/searxng/searxng [3] https://github.com/zedeus/nitter https://github.com/zedeus/nitter [4] https://github.com/libreddit/libreddit https://github.com/libreddit/libreddit