9 ms·

YouTube stops working for millions as war against ad blockers intensifies

25 points by keploy 2y ago

keploy 2y ago
Chilled on YouTube for like 40 mins the other day. My ad blocker zapped nearly 1,400 ads. Yeah, no thanks, that ad blocker's stayin' on for sure.
cebert 2y ago
[flagged]
- antisthenes 2y ago
  Google's been siphoning value out of people's data (the entire North American continent and beyond) through dark patterns for the better part of 2 decades now. Adblockers are a form of civil protest against that practice. Maybe infra isn't free, but how much does the average person consume in terms of bandwidth compared to how much value Google gets out of their data?
  - legitster 2y ago
    > Google's been siphoning value out of people's data (the entire North American continent and beyond) through dark patterns for the better part of 2 decades now. ... but if users start paying for the services they use, they reverse the business incentives. "If the product is free, you are the product" > how much value Google gets out of their data The value of your data is in serving you ads. If they don't serve you ads, you have no value to Youtube.
    - ndriscoll 2y ago
      They don't stop the incentive though. e.g. TVs that cost several thousand dollars have ads (and almost certainly tracking) built in now. Cars that cost 10s of thousands of dollars track your location and sell it. The advertising industry is a cancer and should be blocked without a second thought. Especially if you have kids; it is a moral imperative to keep ads away from them. The reality is flipped: block all ads and tracking from your life and help others to do the same. Then companies like Google/Facebook that dump free services onto the market and make it impossible for ethical companies to exist in the space will have to start charging money.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
      > "If the product is free, you are the product" And if you give them money, you are also the product, and also a sucker.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    Google monetizes that data by serving ads. If you block ads that data is pretty much worthless to Google.
    - techdragon 2y ago
      Good. That’s kind of the point.
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    Proper civil protest would be not to use any site that has google analytics. And when you find one that has that you have to use spam the owning company until they remove it.
    - kelseyfrog 2y ago
      How many successes have you had using this method?
- jerojero 2y ago
  It's not so simple. Even if you pay for YouTube premium you might still want to have adblocker on simply due to privacy concerns. Tracking is pervasive. Infrastructure might not be free, but for many, many years these companies built their hegemonic position by pretending it was free. Now they pull the rug under people. Tell me though, what alternatives there are for people who want to watch long form videos there are? Yes, you have nebula and a couple more; but YouTube is still king. In many cases watchers don't get to choose the platform. So yes, they could simply stop watching. But it's not an ideal situation and all because you don't agree with the way the platform earns money. I think people should use adblocker. The way these platforms monetise our data is not something most of us chose, and the option to circumvent their practices is out there. It's a cat and mouse game, and we'll see who comes out on top.
  - mecsred 2y ago
    Those options aren't mutually exclusive though. You can use an ad blocker and pay for the service at the same time.
  - AndrewDucker 2y ago
    I use an adblocker on YouTube. And pay for premium. No issues so far.
  - legitster 2y ago
    > Even if you pay for YouTube premium you might still want to have adblocker on simply due to privacy concerns. I use adblockers and Youtube Premium. Youtube Premium doesn't care about adblockers. But that's still not a great argument because Youtube as a first-party is still going to collect all of your data even with adblockers. All you are doing is impacting their ability to make money.
- thunderbong 2y ago
  Infrastructure wasn't free when they started, was it? Why did they offer everything for free then, even without ads? It was to get a lock in, isn't it? They could've easily offered a premium service even then. The reason most people don't want to pay and want to use ad blockers is because that is what they promised. You go back on your word, there's going to be consequences.
  - jsnell 2y ago
    YouTube has existed for 19 years, and started showing ads within 9 months of the initial launch. The premium service for no ads has existed for 10 years. There was never any explicit or implicit promise of "everything for free, with no ads", and you using a technical measure to avoid the ads that have been there for almost two decades doesn't create a promise either. Like, if you shoplifted for a week and didn't get caught, do you feel entitled to never pay at the store again?
    - samatman 2y ago
      Comparing my control over my own computer with shoplifting is grotesque. I hit a Google endpoint and it sends me data. Google has no control over what my browser does with that data, nor should it. They do have the right to refuse to send me that data if they decide I'm doing something with it they don't like, such as blocking the ads. As arms races go, I like my odds.
      - jsnell 2y ago
        The original claim was that there was some kind of a "everything for free without ads" promise and that blocking adblockers was "going back on a promise". The first claim is demonstrably untrue. The second seems pretty inconsistent with your view that they're "free to not send you data". It seems pretty clear the OP was saying that YouTube had no right to try to prevent adblocking, and that the reason was that since there was a time they didn't prevent adblocking, it created some kind of implicit promise to allow it for ever. In that context, I think the analogy to shoplifting is pretty fair. I'm not saying that you're a thief. I'm sure you're not. I'm saying that you taking something for no compensation doesn't create an obligation for the target to continue allowing you to do continue taking it for free, forever.
- smarm52 2y ago
  Ads are intrusive, and in some cases, overtly harmful [1]; Especially YouTube. YouTube does have stated guidelines about these things (as well as scams, malware-advertisements, etc.), but these aren't effective, as seen in the article; They're just words. AdBlockPlus (ABP), famously has criteria for "Acceptable Ads" [2], which provide some commonsense criteria for what ads should be acceptable. Some discussion indicates that ABP is blocking many ads on YouTube [3]. QED It is not reasonable to assume Youtube is adhering to this reasonable guideline for ads. And so, if ads can be harmful, and the platform ignores reasonable steps to address objections to advertising, all we're left with is forcing a behaviour that works for us. [1] Profiting from Hate: Platforms’ Ad Placement Problem https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/profiting-hate-platforms-ad-placement-problem https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/profiting-hate-platforms-... [2] https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads [3] https://blog.adblockplus.org/blog/whats-happening-with-youtube-ads https://blog.adblockplus.org/blog/whats-happening-with-youtu...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
legitster 2y ago
I am not saying you should have to give Google your money, but do you think the people who make content on Youtube deserve to get paid for it? Even if they make money on Patreon or Floatplane, Youtube is not a cheap service to run and you are still using it. Pay for the stuff you use or don't use it. But you don't get to complain about companies treating you like the product. A Youtube family plan is a fairly cheap way to access a lot of content. You also get access to Youtube Music which is... fine. That's less than $5 per user per month. If you are already there a few hours a week, it's a steal. What's funny is that creators and Youtube get much more than 2x the amount of earnings from $5 than from all the ads you were being served. If more people paid, creators would probably resort to fewer of the much, much worse VPN or game ads that get hard-baked right into the vids.
- hulitu 2y ago
  > but do you think the people who make content on Youtube deserve to get paid for it but do you think the people who make content on Youtube get paid for it ? The vast majority of them, no. Remember how Youtube came to life ?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jareklupinski 2y ago
  > the people who make content on Youtube deserve to get paid for it? if Youtube Premium included SponsorBlock, I might pay for it
  - adamomada 2y ago
    I agree with you but if YouTube proper included sponsor block, sponsors would no longer sponsor
- SebastianKra 2y ago
  I pay for Kagi and Nebula because these services actually give me a good experience for my money. The last time I tried YouTube Premium, I found out that the iOS app will frequently loose your last viewed video in the background, because I turned off the playback history. I would turn it on, except it is the only way of stopping Google from using your views for, you guessed it, targeted advertising. This makes sense, because Premium users are more attractive advertising targets. The only way to be truly safe is with an adblocker.
bediger4000 2y ago
Ad blocking is personal infosec. We've seen malware get delivered by ads, and people getting tracked by ads. This is a losing battle for YouTube. I suggest that YouTube should work on proving to the users that advertisers are trustworthy. You know, that unlike LiveIntent, an advertiser will allow and acknowledge a complaint, has a contact address, is not arrogant as hell.
CynicusRex 2y ago
Don't use ads and I'll start paying.
- dingaling 2y ago
  As in paywall all access?
raspyberr 2y ago
To the people saying it's your fault just pay for it. You do know they'll end up putting ads in to the paid versions too right? Why wouldn't they? It's free money for them.
- juice_bus 2y ago
  You still get ads embedded in the videos anyway without Sponserblock, why bother?
- jsnell 2y ago
  We don't know that. In fact, the product has existed for almost 10 years, and they still haven't added ads. The obvious reason they haven't added in ads is that the subscription model is more profitable, and the lack of ads is the only reason anyone is actually subscribing. The moment that stops being the case and they start showing ads on videos again, even at a lower frequency, is the moment they burn a $10 billion / year business to the ground. So I don't think it'll happen. But if it does, so what? I'll just cancel my subscription for the future, and likely stop using YouTube entirely. It won't erase the benefits I had from the subscription until then. Like, they can't make me retroactively watch ads.
mmh0000 2y ago
I am so confused by these Google anti-ad articles. I run Firefox + ublock origin + decenteraleyes + sponserblock + privacy-badger. I never see ads anywhere. Since these Google article started coming out, I fear youtube is going to stop working... And yet, through the last few months, I haven't noticed any changes. All videos play instantly and with no ads.
sciencesama 2y ago
Revanced still works

25 points by keploy 2y ago

Chilled on YouTube for like 40 mins the other day. My ad blocker zapped nearly 1,400 ads. Yeah, no thanks, that ad blocker's stayin' on for sure.

cebert 2y ago

[flagged]

antisthenes 2y ago
Google's been siphoning value out of people's data (the entire North American continent and beyond) through dark patterns for the better part of 2 decades now. Adblockers are a form of civil protest against that practice. Maybe infra isn't free, but how much does the average person consume in terms of bandwidth compared to how much value Google gets out of their data?
- legitster 2y ago
  > Google's been siphoning value out of people's data (the entire North American continent and beyond) through dark patterns for the better part of 2 decades now. ... but if users start paying for the services they use, they reverse the business incentives. "If the product is free, you are the product" > how much value Google gets out of their data The value of your data is in serving you ads. If they don't serve you ads, you have no value to Youtube.
  - ndriscoll 2y ago
    They don't stop the incentive though. e.g. TVs that cost several thousand dollars have ads (and almost certainly tracking) built in now. Cars that cost 10s of thousands of dollars track your location and sell it. The advertising industry is a cancer and should be blocked without a second thought. Especially if you have kids; it is a moral imperative to keep ads away from them. The reality is flipped: block all ads and tracking from your life and help others to do the same. Then companies like Google/Facebook that dump free services onto the market and make it impossible for ethical companies to exist in the space will have to start charging money.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
    > "If the product is free, you are the product" And if you give them money, you are also the product, and also a sucker.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Google monetizes that data by serving ads. If you block ads that data is pretty much worthless to Google.
  - techdragon 2y ago
    Good. That’s kind of the point.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  Proper civil protest would be not to use any site that has google analytics. And when you find one that has that you have to use spam the owning company until they remove it.
  - kelseyfrog 2y ago
    How many successes have you had using this method?
jerojero 2y ago
It's not so simple. Even if you pay for YouTube premium you might still want to have adblocker on simply due to privacy concerns. Tracking is pervasive. Infrastructure might not be free, but for many, many years these companies built their hegemonic position by pretending it was free. Now they pull the rug under people. Tell me though, what alternatives there are for people who want to watch long form videos there are? Yes, you have nebula and a couple more; but YouTube is still king. In many cases watchers don't get to choose the platform. So yes, they could simply stop watching. But it's not an ideal situation and all because you don't agree with the way the platform earns money. I think people should use adblocker. The way these platforms monetise our data is not something most of us chose, and the option to circumvent their practices is out there. It's a cat and mouse game, and we'll see who comes out on top.
- mecsred 2y ago
  Those options aren't mutually exclusive though. You can use an ad blocker and pay for the service at the same time.
- AndrewDucker 2y ago
  I use an adblocker on YouTube. And pay for premium. No issues so far.
- legitster 2y ago
  > Even if you pay for YouTube premium you might still want to have adblocker on simply due to privacy concerns. I use adblockers and Youtube Premium. Youtube Premium doesn't care about adblockers. But that's still not a great argument because Youtube as a first-party is still going to collect all of your data even with adblockers. All you are doing is impacting their ability to make money.
thunderbong 2y ago
Infrastructure wasn't free when they started, was it? Why did they offer everything for free then, even without ads? It was to get a lock in, isn't it? They could've easily offered a premium service even then. The reason most people don't want to pay and want to use ad blockers is because that is what they promised. You go back on your word, there's going to be consequences.
- jsnell 2y ago
  YouTube has existed for 19 years, and started showing ads within 9 months of the initial launch. The premium service for no ads has existed for 10 years. There was never any explicit or implicit promise of "everything for free, with no ads", and you using a technical measure to avoid the ads that have been there for almost two decades doesn't create a promise either. Like, if you shoplifted for a week and didn't get caught, do you feel entitled to never pay at the store again?
  - samatman 2y ago
    Comparing my control over my own computer with shoplifting is grotesque. I hit a Google endpoint and it sends me data. Google has no control over what my browser does with that data, nor should it. They do have the right to refuse to send me that data if they decide I'm doing something with it they don't like, such as blocking the ads. As arms races go, I like my odds.
    - jsnell 2y ago
      The original claim was that there was some kind of a "everything for free without ads" promise and that blocking adblockers was "going back on a promise". The first claim is demonstrably untrue. The second seems pretty inconsistent with your view that they're "free to not send you data". It seems pretty clear the OP was saying that YouTube had no right to try to prevent adblocking, and that the reason was that since there was a time they didn't prevent adblocking, it created some kind of implicit promise to allow it for ever. In that context, I think the analogy to shoplifting is pretty fair. I'm not saying that you're a thief. I'm sure you're not. I'm saying that you taking something for no compensation doesn't create an obligation for the target to continue allowing you to do continue taking it for free, forever.
smarm52 2y ago
Ads are intrusive, and in some cases, overtly harmful [1]; Especially YouTube. YouTube does have stated guidelines about these things (as well as scams, malware-advertisements, etc.), but these aren't effective, as seen in the article; They're just words. AdBlockPlus (ABP), famously has criteria for "Acceptable Ads" [2], which provide some commonsense criteria for what ads should be acceptable. Some discussion indicates that ABP is blocking many ads on YouTube [3]. QED It is not reasonable to assume Youtube is adhering to this reasonable guideline for ads. And so, if ads can be harmful, and the platform ignores reasonable steps to address objections to advertising, all we're left with is forcing a behaviour that works for us. [1] Profiting from Hate: Platforms’ Ad Placement Problem https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/profiting-hate-platforms-ad-placement-problem https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/profiting-hate-platforms-... [2] https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads [3] https://blog.adblockplus.org/blog/whats-happening-with-youtube-ads https://blog.adblockplus.org/blog/whats-happening-with-youtu...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

legitster 2y ago

I am not saying you should have to give Google your money, but do you think the people who make content on Youtube deserve to get paid for it? Even if they make money on Patreon or Floatplane, Youtube is not a cheap service to run and you are still using it. Pay for the stuff you use or don't use it. But you don't get to complain about companies treating you like the product. A Youtube family plan is a fairly cheap way to access a lot of content. You also get access to Youtube Music which is... fine. That's less than $5 per user per month. If you are already there a few hours a week, it's a steal. What's funny is that creators and Youtube get much more than 2x the amount of earnings from $5 than from all the ads you were being served. If more people paid, creators would probably resort to fewer of the much, much worse VPN or game ads that get hard-baked right into the vids.

hulitu 2y ago
> but do you think the people who make content on Youtube deserve to get paid for it but do you think the people who make content on Youtube get paid for it ? The vast majority of them, no. Remember how Youtube came to life ?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jareklupinski 2y ago
> the people who make content on Youtube deserve to get paid for it? if Youtube Premium included SponsorBlock, I might pay for it
- adamomada 2y ago
  I agree with you but if YouTube proper included sponsor block, sponsors would no longer sponsor
SebastianKra 2y ago
I pay for Kagi and Nebula because these services actually give me a good experience for my money. The last time I tried YouTube Premium, I found out that the iOS app will frequently loose your last viewed video in the background, because I turned off the playback history. I would turn it on, except it is the only way of stopping Google from using your views for, you guessed it, targeted advertising. This makes sense, because Premium users are more attractive advertising targets. The only way to be truly safe is with an adblocker.

bediger4000 2y ago

Ad blocking is personal infosec. We've seen malware get delivered by ads, and people getting tracked by ads. This is a losing battle for YouTube. I suggest that YouTube should work on proving to the users that advertisers are trustworthy. You know, that unlike LiveIntent, an advertiser will allow and acknowledge a complaint, has a contact address, is not arrogant as hell.

CynicusRex 2y ago

Don't use ads and I'll start paying.

dingaling 2y ago
As in paywall all access?

raspyberr 2y ago

To the people saying it's your fault just pay for it. You do know they'll end up putting ads in to the paid versions too right? Why wouldn't they? It's free money for them.

juice_bus 2y ago
You still get ads embedded in the videos anyway without Sponserblock, why bother?
jsnell 2y ago
We don't know that. In fact, the product has existed for almost 10 years, and they still haven't added ads. The obvious reason they haven't added in ads is that the subscription model is more profitable, and the lack of ads is the only reason anyone is actually subscribing. The moment that stops being the case and they start showing ads on videos again, even at a lower frequency, is the moment they burn a $10 billion / year business to the ground. So I don't think it'll happen. But if it does, so what? I'll just cancel my subscription for the future, and likely stop using YouTube entirely. It won't erase the benefits I had from the subscription until then. Like, they can't make me retroactively watch ads.

mmh0000 2y ago

I am so confused by these Google anti-ad articles. I run Firefox + ublock origin + decenteraleyes + sponserblock + privacy-badger. I never see ads anywhere. Since these Google article started coming out, I fear youtube is going to stop working... And yet, through the last few months, I haven't noticed any changes. All videos play instantly and with no ads.

sciencesama 2y ago

Revanced still works