5 ms·

Here's an easy workaround that's been pretty reliable for me: https://www.youtube.com/premium https://www.youtube.com/premium

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dvngnt_ 2y ago
can i get a referral to google? on a serious note, i can't reproduce with firefox maybe it's not rolled out yet
- rideontime 2y ago
  It doesn't take a Google salary to afford a YouTube Premium subscription, it's actually pretty affordable.
aquova 2y ago
The ole pay off the mafia approach
- rideontime 2y ago
  The ole pay for a product approach?
  - lovethevoid 2y ago
    Slowing down the user's device with malicious ads isn't going to make them pay for the product.
  - desumeku 2y ago
    Nobody for 200,000 years prior had the need to pay off others in order to not be forced to endure crazed, blatantly manipulative, deceptive, and generally poor quality advertisements in order to access content not even made by the people enforcing this advertisement scheme. I'm not going to start now.
    - miloignis 2y ago
      You're right, they didn't - they just didn't have the content at all.
      - consteval 2y ago
        To be fair I'm sure any time after the agricultural revolution had performances or something. Seriously, though, advertisement is a tumor on society. It's psychological manipulation we've allowed for profit purposes. I don't think we take it seriously enough. It's an addiction machine and a life waster, designed to ruin your brain slowly over time. I consider hyper-consumerism an addiction, but even if you look past that into food, tobacco, alcohol, and medicine you'll see "real" addiction. Anyway, my pet theory is that if advertisement was simply banned we'd solve a lot of problems. Ones we don't even intend to solve.
    - rideontime 2y ago
      Cable and satellite TV cost far more than a YouTube Premium subscription, and their advertisements don't even include a "skip" button.
  - lostmsu 2y ago
    The product is the videos. YouTube is just a tool. If your tool breaks and there's no compatible tool anymore, you lose your videos or bother to remake them with another tool. People aren't gonna continue to use a broken tool.
- slowmovintarget 2y ago
  "It'd be a shame if something happened to your nice UX."
matsemann 2y ago
I don't want to pay for Music. Seems anti-competitive to bundle those. Price is also pretty steep, guess it depends on how much you use it.
- inhumantsar 2y ago
  YouTube Music in many ways is an alternative frontend to YouTube with a large supplementary collection of licensed audio. Music videos, DJ mixes, live music streams, 10 hours of _____, classical for studying, etc. all pop up in Music. It's actually kind of nice if you spend any time on things like lofi girl, DJ mixes, "___ Hours of ___ for ___", since Music's interface is more lightweight and those videos can be added to otherwise audio-only playlists.
  - TiredOfLife 2y ago
    None of content i watch on youtube has any presence in youtube music
gryn 2y ago
can't wait for your reaction 5 years in when they downgrade you to youtube premium lite "same advantages but with ads", if you want to keep the same advantages subscribe to premium++. when looking at these thing you gotta ask yourself what would happen if everybody does it ? would the company be satisfied and say yes we got enough money, or would they just try to squeeze more juice out of you because where else would you go ?
- rideontime 2y ago
  I've had my subscription for over 5 years already.
3836293648 2y ago
Come back when I can split up my subscription feed within a single account and don't need to use like three accounts to keep stuff in order. I'm not paying for three subscriptions because their ui is rubbish
- jsnell 2y ago
  Given a single Google account, you can create multiple YT brand accounts / channels. Each of them will have the Premium features enabled, each can have separate subscriptions, and you can switch between them with the account switcher without logging in/out. So you can already do exactly what you want with just the single subscription. I'm sure you're delighted to hear this, and won't react by moving the goalposts.
  - inhumantsar 2y ago
    > I'm sure you're delighted to hear this, and won't react by moving the goalposts I want to say this snark is unjustified, but I also wouldn't be willing to bet on it.
    - 3836293648 2y ago
      I wouldn't be willing to bet on it either, but in this case I was very much delighted and am not gonna move the goalposts (ok, maybe a bit, now I want a migration feature to collect my channels into a single account)
  - 3836293648 2y ago
    Actually, I very much am delighted to hear that. I will stand by their UI being rubbish though
    - jsnell 2y ago
      Sorry! I was channeling frustrations of how multiple past discussions around this subject have gone, and shouldn't have. You were not involved in any of those, and definitely didn't deserve the snark.
poikroequ 2y ago
It's sad that this is the most down voted comment. Do you all seriously expect to get massive amounts of content for free without ads? What is the solution here? Please do tell because I can't figure it out.
- thunky 2y ago
  They're also ignoring the fact that content creators profit from the ads as well, which is obviously a huge incentive for them to produce good content.
  - manuelmoreale 2y ago
    I asked this elsewhere, I’m gonna ask you here again: if I pay for premium am I then going to be served a version of the video without the creator’s built in sponsor ad reads? No? Then most creators are also part of the problem.
    - thunky 2y ago
      Ok then if the creators are bad and the platform is bad then it should be pretty easy for you to stop supporting them (and stop complaining).
      - manuelmoreale 2y ago
        Am I complaining? I support creators directly because it’s a more fair exchange imo. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy in this whole situation when it comes to YouTube and paying for premium.
        thunky 2y ago
        > Am I complaining? Yes. > I support creators directly because it’s a more fair exchange imo Ok that's nice. But what you're doing is an add-on, not a replacement for the original product being sold at the seller's terms (what you're complaining about). If the creators you want to support choose to distribute their content exclusively from an ad-funded system, then you have no choice to but to either (1) watch the ads (2) pay to not watch the ads or 3) stop supporting the creator. If you choose (2) and the creators still sneak ads into their content, then you have still the choice to (2a) watch the ads (2b) fast forward the ads (3) stop supporting the creator. You're choosing (1) and then complaining that you have to watch ads, which doesn't make sense.
soraminazuki 2y ago
A much better idea would be to donate all that money to EFF or similar organizations. They'd fight to protect your privacy and security. Funding megacorps doing the exact opposite hurts everyone. It's also worth mentioning that Youtube Premium will only help Google build better profiles of its subscribers. Subscribers will be required to surrender their contact information and be forced to log in before watching videos.
- rideontime 2y ago
  How would that support the platform that's hosting the videos I'm watching and the creators of the videos?
  - spectre3d 2y ago
    Just like with songwriting, I’m going to keep creating and posting videos, whether or not there is any monetary compensation. People who do things for their own enjoyment will find a way to do it. If it’s on a centralized site like bandcamp or YouTube/Vimeo, that’s fine. If not, I can host the files myself.
- thunky 2y ago
  > A much better idea would be to donate all that money to EFF or similar organizations So how do you suggest we fund content creators? Or should they all just start working for free to entertain you without exposing you to those horrible dangerous ads?
  - soraminazuki 2y ago
    False dilemma. I'm sure there are ways for content creators to make money without us getting spied on or served malware. It's also a poor excuse as most of them can't live off of what Google pays them to begin with. Not to mention that Google's bots can take away that revenue on a whim.
    - thunky 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

dvngnt_ 2y ago

can i get a referral to google? on a serious note, i can't reproduce with firefox maybe it's not rolled out yet

rideontime 2y ago
It doesn't take a Google salary to afford a YouTube Premium subscription, it's actually pretty affordable.

aquova 2y ago

The ole pay off the mafia approach

rideontime 2y ago
The ole pay for a product approach?
- lovethevoid 2y ago
  Slowing down the user's device with malicious ads isn't going to make them pay for the product.
- desumeku 2y ago
  Nobody for 200,000 years prior had the need to pay off others in order to not be forced to endure crazed, blatantly manipulative, deceptive, and generally poor quality advertisements in order to access content not even made by the people enforcing this advertisement scheme. I'm not going to start now.
  - miloignis 2y ago
    You're right, they didn't - they just didn't have the content at all.
    - consteval 2y ago
      To be fair I'm sure any time after the agricultural revolution had performances or something. Seriously, though, advertisement is a tumor on society. It's psychological manipulation we've allowed for profit purposes. I don't think we take it seriously enough. It's an addiction machine and a life waster, designed to ruin your brain slowly over time. I consider hyper-consumerism an addiction, but even if you look past that into food, tobacco, alcohol, and medicine you'll see "real" addiction. Anyway, my pet theory is that if advertisement was simply banned we'd solve a lot of problems. Ones we don't even intend to solve.
  - rideontime 2y ago
    Cable and satellite TV cost far more than a YouTube Premium subscription, and their advertisements don't even include a "skip" button.
- lostmsu 2y ago
  The product is the videos. YouTube is just a tool. If your tool breaks and there's no compatible tool anymore, you lose your videos or bother to remake them with another tool. People aren't gonna continue to use a broken tool.
slowmovintarget 2y ago
"It'd be a shame if something happened to your nice UX."

matsemann 2y ago

I don't want to pay for Music. Seems anti-competitive to bundle those. Price is also pretty steep, guess it depends on how much you use it.

inhumantsar 2y ago
YouTube Music in many ways is an alternative frontend to YouTube with a large supplementary collection of licensed audio. Music videos, DJ mixes, live music streams, 10 hours of _____, classical for studying, etc. all pop up in Music. It's actually kind of nice if you spend any time on things like lofi girl, DJ mixes, "___ Hours of ___ for ___", since Music's interface is more lightweight and those videos can be added to otherwise audio-only playlists.
- TiredOfLife 2y ago
  None of content i watch on youtube has any presence in youtube music

gryn 2y ago

can't wait for your reaction 5 years in when they downgrade you to youtube premium lite "same advantages but with ads", if you want to keep the same advantages subscribe to premium++. when looking at these thing you gotta ask yourself what would happen if everybody does it ? would the company be satisfied and say yes we got enough money, or would they just try to squeeze more juice out of you because where else would you go ?

rideontime 2y ago
I've had my subscription for over 5 years already.

3836293648 2y ago

Come back when I can split up my subscription feed within a single account and don't need to use like three accounts to keep stuff in order. I'm not paying for three subscriptions because their ui is rubbish

jsnell 2y ago
Given a single Google account, you can create multiple YT brand accounts / channels. Each of them will have the Premium features enabled, each can have separate subscriptions, and you can switch between them with the account switcher without logging in/out. So you can already do exactly what you want with just the single subscription. I'm sure you're delighted to hear this, and won't react by moving the goalposts.
- inhumantsar 2y ago
  > I'm sure you're delighted to hear this, and won't react by moving the goalposts I want to say this snark is unjustified, but I also wouldn't be willing to bet on it.
  - 3836293648 2y ago
    I wouldn't be willing to bet on it either, but in this case I was very much delighted and am not gonna move the goalposts (ok, maybe a bit, now I want a migration feature to collect my channels into a single account)
- 3836293648 2y ago
  Actually, I very much am delighted to hear that. I will stand by their UI being rubbish though
  - jsnell 2y ago
    Sorry! I was channeling frustrations of how multiple past discussions around this subject have gone, and shouldn't have. You were not involved in any of those, and definitely didn't deserve the snark.

poikroequ 2y ago

It's sad that this is the most down voted comment. Do you all seriously expect to get massive amounts of content for free without ads? What is the solution here? Please do tell because I can't figure it out.

thunky 2y ago
They're also ignoring the fact that content creators profit from the ads as well, which is obviously a huge incentive for them to produce good content.
- manuelmoreale 2y ago
  I asked this elsewhere, I’m gonna ask you here again: if I pay for premium am I then going to be served a version of the video without the creator’s built in sponsor ad reads? No? Then most creators are also part of the problem.
  - thunky 2y ago
    Ok then if the creators are bad and the platform is bad then it should be pretty easy for you to stop supporting them (and stop complaining).
    - manuelmoreale 2y ago
      Am I complaining? I support creators directly because it’s a more fair exchange imo. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy in this whole situation when it comes to YouTube and paying for premium.
      - thunky 2y ago
        > Am I complaining? Yes. > I support creators directly because it’s a more fair exchange imo Ok that's nice. But what you're doing is an add-on, not a replacement for the original product being sold at the seller's terms (what you're complaining about). If the creators you want to support choose to distribute their content exclusively from an ad-funded system, then you have no choice to but to either (1) watch the ads (2) pay to not watch the ads or 3) stop supporting the creator. If you choose (2) and the creators still sneak ads into their content, then you have still the choice to (2a) watch the ads (2b) fast forward the ads (3) stop supporting the creator. You're choosing (1) and then complaining that you have to watch ads, which doesn't make sense.

soraminazuki 2y ago

A much better idea would be to donate all that money to EFF or similar organizations. They'd fight to protect your privacy and security. Funding megacorps doing the exact opposite hurts everyone. It's also worth mentioning that Youtube Premium will only help Google build better profiles of its subscribers. Subscribers will be required to surrender their contact information and be forced to log in before watching videos.

rideontime 2y ago
How would that support the platform that's hosting the videos I'm watching and the creators of the videos?
- spectre3d 2y ago
  Just like with songwriting, I’m going to keep creating and posting videos, whether or not there is any monetary compensation. People who do things for their own enjoyment will find a way to do it. If it’s on a centralized site like bandcamp or YouTube/Vimeo, that’s fine. If not, I can host the files myself.
thunky 2y ago
> A much better idea would be to donate all that money to EFF or similar organizations So how do you suggest we fund content creators? Or should they all just start working for free to entertain you without exposing you to those horrible dangerous ads?
- soraminazuki 2y ago
  False dilemma. I'm sure there are ways for content creators to make money without us getting spied on or served malware. It's also a poor excuse as most of them can't live off of what Google pays them to begin with. Not to mention that Google's bots can take away that revenue on a whim.
  - thunky 2y ago