10 ms·

"About 11% of YouTube users openly say they use ad blockers. Some communities report 40-60% of viewers use ad blockers. Overall global ad blocker usage is aroun

by roscas 1y ago

"About 11% of YouTube users openly say they use ad blockers. Some communities report 40-60% of viewers use ad blockers. Overall global ad blocker usage is around 42.7% for all internet users." So, almost half of people online use adblockers. I know some use adblockers that have white lists. Everyone should use uBlock Origin as it does not have white lists to allow "some" ads and it is the best adblocker and protection to be online on every site. First we have to close every company that depend on ads to survive. All of them. If your business is ads, you need to close. That simple. A company that depends on ads, lives by using you. Your data. Your information. Your privacy. Remember that first thing to do before open any site is to install uBlock Origin and then spend some time learning how to install a Pi-Hole for a network block on network level.

sanswork 1y ago
Why should you have the right to dictate that no one is allowed to pay for their services by watching ads? You're suggesting cutting off services for the majority of the planet because you are in a financial position to pay for what you want.
- bjourne 1y ago
  Google has exploited network effects and the essentially free labor of millions of content creators to create a video platform no one can compete with. I don't find it the least immoral for me to block ads, while I watch someone play a game I like on a channel with less than 2k views/video. It's like running a farm at a huge deficit until everyone else goes out of business and then jacking up prices.
  - sanswork 1y ago
    Google has offered free hosting for millions of content creators and once they are profitable offers them a revenue source. It further helps those creators by trying to stop freeloaders. You talk about Google exploiting creators while at the same time talking about removing their income. Google offers an easy way to support creators and avoid as. If you were really concerned with creator well being you could go that route or Subscribe to the patron or similar of every creator you enjoy and bypass YouTube entirely.
    - inferiorhuman 1y ago
      You talk about Google exploiting creators while at the same time talking about removing their income. You talk about Google as if that's their primary source of income. Most of the folks I watch on Youtube hype up the other platforms e.g. Patreon they use for income. Judging by the outro credits it looks like there are plenty of people happy to throw money at these folks via other platform as well. Clear your cookies and check out youtube sometime. Perhaps once they stop pushing vile right wing nonsense, anti-vax conspiracy theories, and assorted brain rot I'd consider tossing money at Google.
      - sanswork 1y ago
        It's a lot of creators only income from creating. Once you get some scale there are certainly better ways depending on your niche. Again justification for why your free loading is actually a moral act.
        inferiorhuman 1y ago
        "a lot" If you're small time Google won't pay out enough to make it your sole source of income so you'll probably seek out other ways of monetizing your videos (e.g. Patreon, merch). If you're large enough you're gonna seek out more stable source of income that won't threaten to demonetize you at the drop of a hat (e.g. Patreon, merch). Me? I think it's immoral to run 30 minute ads hyping up hate churches and 15 minute ads hawking missile launchers. e.g. https://old.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/17lcv5e/what_is_the_point_of_ridiculously_long_ads_on/ https://old.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/17lcv5e/...
    - estimator7292 1y ago
      Google has made untold thousands of dollars by spying on me and stealing my personal and private information to sell to other ad companies. Why don't I have a right to that money? Why should I then have to pay google even more either directly with cash or indirectly through more advertising and spying? Google has made FAR more than enough money by spying on me than it actually costs them for me to use adblock. Bonus, I don't have to watch AI generated ads for boner pills with a celebrity's fake face on it
- dontlaugh 1y ago
  That many using ad blockers would suggest there is something like a democratic mandate for disallowing ads as a business model.
  - sanswork 1y ago
    Those are just people who expect things for free. Free loaders will always exist and they will always try to come up with justifications for why their free loading is actually noble and not just selfish.
    - ndriscoll 1y ago
      If the "price" to load a webpage were that you run a crypto miner or give a site access to upload whatever files it feels from your computer, would you do it? Or would blocking such malware make you a free loader?
      - sanswork 1y ago
        I wouldn't use the site but yes using the site and not doing that would make you a free loader.
        ndriscoll 1y ago
        So I presume you browse with a vulnerable webp library or something in case sites you do browse would like to use that functionality? You can't know whether they wanted to use it if your browser silently blocks their attempts.
        sanswork 1y ago
        Yes, that sounds exactly like what I'm suggesting and not a bad faith argument at all.
        ndriscoll 1y ago
- scotty79 1y ago
  Same reason they shouldn't be able to pay with gambling, scamming, prostitution or their organs. Advertisement industry is all a scam. It's a privately levied tax that lets sellers win competition with themselves and ultimately the customer pays, both in price of products and in their attention as well.
  - sanswork 1y ago
    Without advertising how does anyone get visibility into new products? You are proposing winner take all markets when you propose banning advertising.
    - ndriscoll 1y ago
      Retailers could always highlight high value products they are offering within their storefront (without being compensated by manufacturers to do so; that would be a scam ad).
      - sanswork 1y ago
        How do retailers find new products? Why would they bother highlighting new products if there is no pull demand from community awareness. You'd just pick one vendor and agree to only sell their products for better rates
        ndriscoll 1y ago
        They publish contact information for vendors? They reach out to vendors through their published sales channels? Go to industry trade events or follow industry periodicals where that's the purpose? They'd highlight new products because they believe they're good. The solution to your last problem is to make exclusive dealing contracts always illegal and actually enforce antitrust law.
        sanswork 1y ago
        All your solutions are forms of advertising.
- estimator7292 1y ago
  Why should private corporations have unlimitied license to propagandize and intentionally psychologically manipulate the entire populace? Why should private corporations with no oversight or meaningful consequences have the unlimited and unchallenged right to market drugs to kids? Why should they be allowed to post enormous flashing billboards on our roads? Why do these corporations have more right to common public spaces than the people do?
  - sanswork 1y ago
    I haven't arguing they have a right to any of those things. When you resort to straw manning it's generally a good time to step back and reconsider your stance.
    - soraminazuki 1y ago
      Calling out your euphemisms is not straw manning. It's the logical conclusion. When you're bending over backwards to defend surveillance capitalism, it's a good time to reconsider your moral principles. Sorry, "but the public wants to get screwed" is a complete joke of an argument.
bitpush 1y ago
> First we have to close every company that depend on ads to survive. All of them. Spoken like someone who has never built anything of value in the world. Even Apple, who famously "hates advertising and adtech companies" makes ads to promote their products. Ads exist for a reason. Your statement is no better than "if your company emits carbon, you need to close". Sounds nice. Doesn't work
- prinny_ 1y ago
  “Depends on ads to survive” is wildly different from “uses ads to promote the product it depends on to survive”. Apple doesn’t generate revenue from running ads. Google does because you can pay google to promote your ads and google makes money even when your product doesn’t sell.
  - bitpush 1y ago
    > Apple doesn’t generate revenue from running ads. Oh, how mistaken you are. Apple runs a profitable ads business. Not as cute as meta or Google, but still meaningful. Earn revenue with advertising on Apple News - Apple Support https://support.apple.com/guide/news-publisher/earn-revenue-with-advertising-apdd44eeeeeb/icloud https://support.apple.com/guide/news-publisher/earn-revenue-... Apple doesn't report Ad business numbers in quarterly earnings report, so we have to rely on third party analyst reports. > Last year, Apple’s U.S. ad business totaled $6.47 billion, but only accounted for 2.1% of total digital ad spending, according to eMarketer’s March 2025 forecast https://digiday.com/marketing/when-it-comes-to-ads-apple-isnt-playing-coy-anymore/ https://digiday.com/marketing/when-it-comes-to-ads-apple-isn...
- roscas 1y ago
  This talk will never end. But let me make something clear. I bought products and software before. Because I wanted them and the software was good. I used it. I even payed for apps that we 99% free and the pro version almost had anything more than the free version but I still payed, to thank the programmer. And not even use anything from the pro version. My statements were radical. It has to be, to wake up people, because everyone seems to think ads are normal. And ads on the web are not normal. It's a cancer. They are abusive. You can see that when companies like Facebook and Google make money. Marketing is the cancer. If your business is to trick people and make them stay on your anti-social-plataform because they know how to mess with your mind and you don't even have a clue of what is going on... oh Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, others... There will always be someone who says oh I don't mind ads, there might be something I need...
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
Sounds didactic What about uMatrix; some might argue it is even better than uBlock Origin, at least one can use both at the same time; if "security issues" are a concern, the so-called "modern" browser is a gigantic target that sources and runs Javascript from the internet automatically; there is also the choice of not using one (hence no need for uBlock or other extensions); Javascript isn't required for downloading or watching YouTube videos but YouTube of course wants everyone to use their "Javascript player" so they can monitor people's behaviour at the computer with telemetry and other unsolicited connections "A company that depends on ads, lives by using you." Ad services. The company acts as an intermediary (middleman), sitting between two parties, e.g., a video producer and a video consumer, conducting surveillance, collecting data, serving ads, relying on other people to produce and upload video, for free, then targeting the people consuming it with ads; parasitic Mozilla is the company's business partner, sending data about www users to the company As such, their software seems compromised; they continually promote an "internet advertising ecocsystem" There are other ways to avoid ads that do not require a so-called "modern" browser that runs Javascript; usually the so-called "modern" browser are distributed by the company and its partners or competitors; optimised for serving ads In fact, usually internet ads rely on Javascript, so the "ad blocker" solution is using Javascript to counter Javascript Some users might prefer to just not choose the so-called "modern" browser as their client, and not run Javascript Also, not sure whether it is still true but Pi-Hole used to suggest the company's DNS service as "upstream", provide it as a choice, maybe even set it as a default Nothing hands the company more control than using its public DNS service; the company's DNS cache is filled with IP addresses of tracking and ad servers; users will actually pay third parties like NextDNS to filter these addresses out while the company's hardware products hardcode their public DNS service into the products to allow phoning home to the mothership and free flow of telemetry, tracking and advertising
- pabs3 1y ago
  BTW uMatrix isn't maintained and has had security issues before, so it might not be the best choice.
  - roscas 1y ago

by roscas 1y ago

sanswork 1y ago

Why should you have the right to dictate that no one is allowed to pay for their services by watching ads? You're suggesting cutting off services for the majority of the planet because you are in a financial position to pay for what you want.

bjourne 1y ago
Google has exploited network effects and the essentially free labor of millions of content creators to create a video platform no one can compete with. I don't find it the least immoral for me to block ads, while I watch someone play a game I like on a channel with less than 2k views/video. It's like running a farm at a huge deficit until everyone else goes out of business and then jacking up prices.
- sanswork 1y ago
  Google has offered free hosting for millions of content creators and once they are profitable offers them a revenue source. It further helps those creators by trying to stop freeloaders. You talk about Google exploiting creators while at the same time talking about removing their income. Google offers an easy way to support creators and avoid as. If you were really concerned with creator well being you could go that route or Subscribe to the patron or similar of every creator you enjoy and bypass YouTube entirely.
  - inferiorhuman 1y ago
    You talk about Google exploiting creators while at the same time talking about removing their income. You talk about Google as if that's their primary source of income. Most of the folks I watch on Youtube hype up the other platforms e.g. Patreon they use for income. Judging by the outro credits it looks like there are plenty of people happy to throw money at these folks via other platform as well. Clear your cookies and check out youtube sometime. Perhaps once they stop pushing vile right wing nonsense, anti-vax conspiracy theories, and assorted brain rot I'd consider tossing money at Google.
    - sanswork 1y ago
      It's a lot of creators only income from creating. Once you get some scale there are certainly better ways depending on your niche. Again justification for why your free loading is actually a moral act.
      - inferiorhuman 1y ago
        "a lot" If you're small time Google won't pay out enough to make it your sole source of income so you'll probably seek out other ways of monetizing your videos (e.g. Patreon, merch). If you're large enough you're gonna seek out more stable source of income that won't threaten to demonetize you at the drop of a hat (e.g. Patreon, merch). Me? I think it's immoral to run 30 minute ads hyping up hate churches and 15 minute ads hawking missile launchers. e.g. https://old.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/17lcv5e/what_is_the_point_of_ridiculously_long_ads_on/ https://old.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/17lcv5e/...
  - estimator7292 1y ago
    Google has made untold thousands of dollars by spying on me and stealing my personal and private information to sell to other ad companies. Why don't I have a right to that money? Why should I then have to pay google even more either directly with cash or indirectly through more advertising and spying? Google has made FAR more than enough money by spying on me than it actually costs them for me to use adblock. Bonus, I don't have to watch AI generated ads for boner pills with a celebrity's fake face on it
dontlaugh 1y ago
That many using ad blockers would suggest there is something like a democratic mandate for disallowing ads as a business model.
- sanswork 1y ago
  Those are just people who expect things for free. Free loaders will always exist and they will always try to come up with justifications for why their free loading is actually noble and not just selfish.
  - ndriscoll 1y ago
    If the "price" to load a webpage were that you run a crypto miner or give a site access to upload whatever files it feels from your computer, would you do it? Or would blocking such malware make you a free loader?
    - sanswork 1y ago
      I wouldn't use the site but yes using the site and not doing that would make you a free loader.
      - ndriscoll 1y ago
        So I presume you browse with a vulnerable webp library or something in case sites you do browse would like to use that functionality? You can't know whether they wanted to use it if your browser silently blocks their attempts.
        sanswork 1y ago
        Yes, that sounds exactly like what I'm suggesting and not a bad faith argument at all.
        ndriscoll 1y ago
scotty79 1y ago
Same reason they shouldn't be able to pay with gambling, scamming, prostitution or their organs. Advertisement industry is all a scam. It's a privately levied tax that lets sellers win competition with themselves and ultimately the customer pays, both in price of products and in their attention as well.
- sanswork 1y ago
  Without advertising how does anyone get visibility into new products? You are proposing winner take all markets when you propose banning advertising.
  - ndriscoll 1y ago
    Retailers could always highlight high value products they are offering within their storefront (without being compensated by manufacturers to do so; that would be a scam ad).
    - sanswork 1y ago
      How do retailers find new products? Why would they bother highlighting new products if there is no pull demand from community awareness. You'd just pick one vendor and agree to only sell their products for better rates
      - ndriscoll 1y ago
        They publish contact information for vendors? They reach out to vendors through their published sales channels? Go to industry trade events or follow industry periodicals where that's the purpose? They'd highlight new products because they believe they're good. The solution to your last problem is to make exclusive dealing contracts always illegal and actually enforce antitrust law.
        sanswork 1y ago
        All your solutions are forms of advertising.
estimator7292 1y ago
Why should private corporations have unlimitied license to propagandize and intentionally psychologically manipulate the entire populace? Why should private corporations with no oversight or meaningful consequences have the unlimited and unchallenged right to market drugs to kids? Why should they be allowed to post enormous flashing billboards on our roads? Why do these corporations have more right to common public spaces than the people do?
- sanswork 1y ago
  I haven't arguing they have a right to any of those things. When you resort to straw manning it's generally a good time to step back and reconsider your stance.
  - soraminazuki 1y ago
    Calling out your euphemisms is not straw manning. It's the logical conclusion. When you're bending over backwards to defend surveillance capitalism, it's a good time to reconsider your moral principles. Sorry, "but the public wants to get screwed" is a complete joke of an argument.

bitpush 1y ago

> First we have to close every company that depend on ads to survive. All of them. Spoken like someone who has never built anything of value in the world. Even Apple, who famously "hates advertising and adtech companies" makes ads to promote their products. Ads exist for a reason. Your statement is no better than "if your company emits carbon, you need to close". Sounds nice. Doesn't work

prinny_ 1y ago
“Depends on ads to survive” is wildly different from “uses ads to promote the product it depends on to survive”. Apple doesn’t generate revenue from running ads. Google does because you can pay google to promote your ads and google makes money even when your product doesn’t sell.
- bitpush 1y ago
  > Apple doesn’t generate revenue from running ads. Oh, how mistaken you are. Apple runs a profitable ads business. Not as cute as meta or Google, but still meaningful. Earn revenue with advertising on Apple News - Apple Support https://support.apple.com/guide/news-publisher/earn-revenue-with-advertising-apdd44eeeeeb/icloud https://support.apple.com/guide/news-publisher/earn-revenue-... Apple doesn't report Ad business numbers in quarterly earnings report, so we have to rely on third party analyst reports. > Last year, Apple’s U.S. ad business totaled $6.47 billion, but only accounted for 2.1% of total digital ad spending, according to eMarketer’s March 2025 forecast https://digiday.com/marketing/when-it-comes-to-ads-apple-isnt-playing-coy-anymore/ https://digiday.com/marketing/when-it-comes-to-ads-apple-isn...
roscas 1y ago
This talk will never end. But let me make something clear. I bought products and software before. Because I wanted them and the software was good. I used it. I even payed for apps that we 99% free and the pro version almost had anything more than the free version but I still payed, to thank the programmer. And not even use anything from the pro version. My statements were radical. It has to be, to wake up people, because everyone seems to think ads are normal. And ads on the web are not normal. It's a cancer. They are abusive. You can see that when companies like Facebook and Google make money. Marketing is the cancer. If your business is to trick people and make them stay on your anti-social-plataform because they know how to mess with your mind and you don't even have a clue of what is going on... oh Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, others... There will always be someone who says oh I don't mind ads, there might be something I need...

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago

Sounds didactic What about uMatrix; some might argue it is even better than uBlock Origin, at least one can use both at the same time; if "security issues" are a concern, the so-called "modern" browser is a gigantic target that sources and runs Javascript from the internet automatically; there is also the choice of not using one (hence no need for uBlock or other extensions); Javascript isn't required for downloading or watching YouTube videos but YouTube of course wants everyone to use their "Javascript player" so they can monitor people's behaviour at the computer with telemetry and other unsolicited connections "A company that depends on ads, lives by using you." Ad services. The company acts as an intermediary (middleman), sitting between two parties, e.g., a video producer and a video consumer, conducting surveillance, collecting data, serving ads, relying on other people to produce and upload video, for free, then targeting the people consuming it with ads; parasitic Mozilla is the company's business partner, sending data about www users to the company As such, their software seems compromised; they continually promote an "internet advertising ecocsystem" There are other ways to avoid ads that do not require a so-called "modern" browser that runs Javascript; usually the so-called "modern" browser are distributed by the company and its partners or competitors; optimised for serving ads In fact, usually internet ads rely on Javascript, so the "ad blocker" solution is using Javascript to counter Javascript Some users might prefer to just not choose the so-called "modern" browser as their client, and not run Javascript Also, not sure whether it is still true but Pi-Hole used to suggest the company's DNS service as "upstream", provide it as a choice, maybe even set it as a default Nothing hands the company more control than using its public DNS service; the company's DNS cache is filled with IP addresses of tracking and ad servers; users will actually pay third parties like NextDNS to filter these addresses out while the company's hardware products hardcode their public DNS service into the products to allow phoning home to the mothership and free flow of telemetry, tracking and advertising

pabs3 1y ago
BTW uMatrix isn't maintained and has had security issues before, so it might not be the best choice.
- roscas 1y ago