this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
664 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
68864 readers
4400 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
YouTube's argument is the same as Linus' from LTT: if you watch a video without ads, you're failing to comply with your side of the transaction, thus essentially pirating that content and stealing the revenue source.
Regardless if we agree or not with that statement, I'll absolutely side with adblockers always for a deeper issue: it's my screen, so I get the ultimate say on what content gets rendered. Quite literally. It's my network, my cable, my screen, my graphics card, my web browser running JavaScript on my CPU - you do not, ever, get to overreach and decide what pixels show up or not. If I don't want your obnoxious ad for an AI girlfriend to show up, there's no moral argument to be had here.
EDIT: I think some of you are missing the point of this comment. There's no reason to reply to me countering the argument in the first paragraph, as it is not my comment, in fact, I specifically mentioned how it's YouTube (and Linus') argument.
I was happy with an ad at the side of the video. Then they started popping up over my video, then they started appearing before my video, then they started appearing throughout my video. Companies shot themselves in the foot with online advertising, banner ads and such weren't much of a problem, but once ads start disrupting the content we visit a site for, then we look to block them ads. More people blocking ads is less revenue, so they make the ads more aggressive... and the cycle continues.
And on a side note, Linus can fuck off.
That and the large ad networks even on sites like YouTube and Facebook literally are advertising scams. Every time I browse shorts on either I get ads that are obvious scams of the "There's a new $6400 monthly health credit see if you qualify." variety. On one of Meta's apps I got an ad that was for male enhancement that was straight up clips of uncensored hardcore porn. Not just nudity but full on PIV sex. If they can't even do the work to properly screen their ads they can get fucked, I'm blocking all of it that I can.
Yeah I don't mind ads if they're relevant - I scroll through insta reels from time to time, and am always getting ads about concerts I'm interested in, restaurants I haven't tried and sales at shops I go to.
I honestly don't mind so much, and if it's not relevant to me I can scroll past without having to watch.
In order to get relevant ads you have to opt in to give them your data. Do you do that?
In order to use the platform in the EU, you either opt into personalised ads or pay a monthly subscription. So yes, I'm aware they're using my data for the ads.
Google does as well, but they don't seem to be able to offer me even relatively relevant ads based on my interests.
Non disruptive ads were meant to advertise.
Slightly annoying ads were meant to be seen more, since people just ignored banners by default.
Hidden ads (like an ad in an article which you really could tell it was an ad) were meant to increase the image of a company.
Disruptive ads like in YouTube or Spotify aren't meant for advertising. They don't really care about the advertising money, they want to force you to buy premium. The more annoying the ad is the higher the chances you pay 20€ a month for them to go away.
These days maybe, but disruptive ads started way before subscriptions became a thing.
Yeah, the pre-ads (unstoppable) and the massively increased loading times of the basic Youtube page makes it impossible to successfully Rickroll people
By that logic using a VCR to record television and fast-forwarding adverts is piracy.
And you see digital tv providers trying to implement fast forward blockers without chasing away their customers too much
Any time I fast forward and have to wait for a commercial that interrupted my fast forwarding, it's an immediate cancelation of the service and I'm on the phone with customer support to try and get my couple of bucks for that month back.
Fuck your shitty service, I'm grabbing my hat and sword.
That argument was in fact made when VCRs first came out. I don’t remember how exactly it played out but in the end the courts here in the US said that VCRs were fine.
At least a few TV service DVRs stop you from skipping ads.
The agreement isn't that you watch the ad, but that you allow the ad to play on your device. That's it. Whether or not you see it or hear it doesn't matter; the "cost" for this type of content is a few moment of your device's time, not your attention.
TBH I'm just so fucking tired of ads overstepping, back in the day there's be a little banner on the side of a page advertising a truck or whatever, I'm sick of seeing like, enormous length ads.
One day I had a 3 hour minecraft let's play uploaded as an ad, you think I should have to watch all of that youtube?
And the frequency is getting crazy.
I fucking hate billboards man. Get them OUT.
When YouTube Red first dropped they were putting hour-long pilot episodes of their shows as pre-roll ads. Now I notice ads on shorts are full of obvious scams related to "new monthly health credits". Still better than getting an ad on Facebook reels that was uncensored hardcore porn.
I'm almost thinking of breaking down and buying YT premium because god, I watch a lot of youtube (I'd go so far as to say it's my primary entertainment stream at times) but I'm already paying so fucking much for cable that I don't even want.
Cable's 80, Internet's 80, somehow extra fees bring it up to nearly 200, and I can't convince other members of my household (who watch a grand total of four fucking channels, MSNBC, Weather channel, sports, etc) that we should ditch cable, absolutely miserable.
Nvidia Sheild pro + smartTube Next. I see 0 ads. The app also bypasses the self promotion/hit the like and subscribe button crap as well.
Smart Tube Next
For Android on phones and tablets look up Revanced. You have to download the YouTube .apk from somewhere like apkmirror, then use the Revanced manager to apply patches to block ads and change functionality. Then you log into your account with their own version of MicroG/gmscore. It was briefly affected by the issue in the main post but was working again in a few hours.
For Android-based smart TVs and streaming devices there's SmartTube (SmartTubeNext). Not sure how well they'll do if YouTube goes cat and mouse though.
And for a wider variety of devices (including Apple TV and now WebOS) there's also Kodi which has a YouTube addon although logging in with it is kind of a pain as you need to get API keys, etc.
& finally on a desktop browser uBlock Origin alone handles all the ads pretty well, and you can optionally add Sponsorblock.
Oh. And check out some of the over the top TV services and see if there are any cheap ones that might meet your needs to replace cable. Though the way the cable companies do their bundling even that might not save you much as the net might jump up to more than $80 standalone.
You know what, I actually agree with YouTube's argument. Ad blocking is piracy. In fact, no, it's worse than piracy. If I pirate a movie, Disney makes no money, but it costs them nothing at all. If I watch YouTube without an ad blocker, I'm depriving YouTube of its revenue source and I'm costing them money. Morally, ad blocking sits somewhere between piracy and actual theft.
The thing is? I don't care. I ad block YouTube all the time and feel not a lick of guilt. The reason: Google brought this on themselves. I used to happily pay for YouTube Red. But they have continuously, both before and after that point, been actively hostile to the people actually producing the content they make. Their willingness to bow down to copyright trolls and complete inability to properly apply fair use. They extremely harsh policies on acceptable content, stopping people talking about sex education or mediaeval weaponry being able to reliably makes money.
And the straw that broke this camel's back was when they changed the requirements to be in the Partner Program, locking out all the smaller creators from ever being able to make money on YouTube. I never considered myself a "creator", but over the 5 years prior to that I occasionally uploaded stuff I was doing anyway. I had amassed almost $100 over those 5 years. Not an impressive amount, for sure, but having that taken away from me made me feel unwelcome. I don't think I've uploaded anything public since, and I've been blocking ads on the site since then.
Even worse, not long after this change, they decided to start showing ads even on videos from non-partnered videos, so you can get ads on my videos even though I don't see a single cent.
So fuck YouTube. Ad blocking is worse than piracy, and I say good.
Google: You're pirating our content!
Us: Yeah, so what?
I’d agree with that logic if YouTube kept up their end of the bargain and actually vetted their ad buyers. Instead they show ads for fake stimulus scams, fake news, and blatant malware.
I manage a large network and ads are blocked at the edge of the network. Not using an adblocker is a security risk that is not acceptable for my company. I pay for YouTube premium because it’s in my means and I get value from the subscription but I don’t blame anyone who takes the same approach
You must MITM all traffic and do some magic with stripping/injecting JavaScript then? Because every time I've tried with pihole, its just threads and threads of people saying its not possible with DNS blocking because the ads are served from the video servers.
We also deploy a browser extension via GPO/Intune to catch those and protect endpoints when they are off net.
I actually wasn’t in favor of that but the rest of team was so after risk assessing it, we determined that trusting a vendor with the permission to rewrite webpages was less of a risk than drive-by malware or phishing/redirection from a malicious ad
TL;DR: my property rights trump Youtube's business model.
The problem is that there is that ad networks and ad placements are just bad actors in the consumer space. Not only has malware been passed time and time again with ads but also false ads to malware. When that happens suddenly the content creator/website/whatever 'isn't responsible' for it. Then there's the issue of ads being placed everywhere slowing down websites but even worse, getting in the way with auto play audio and video, videos autoscrolling over the content you're trying to read or whatever, etc.
As a consumer, I should not and ethically do not need to worry about another's business model. If the business model fails simply because I don't allow something that model depends on to traverse my network then it is on them to figure it out. If the ads get in the way of the content, then I just want consume the content anyway.
Some news websites use Ad Admiral or whatever it is called and I haven't bothered trying to bypass the adblock wall for them. I just simply consume the content elsewhere.
If ads were ever responsibly used or perhaps could be argued that there is compromise where consumers wouldn't mind, then there'd probably be a lot less ad blocker usage. It's like anything else. When it takes less effort to install an adblocker to have an OK experience, then ad blockers will be popular.
I was around before ad blockers were very popular and even before pop-up blockers were around. Ads kept getting worse which is why ad blockers became more popular and more sophisticated. The Internet had ads for years before ad blockers were the norm.
Yeah I wasn’t using an Adblock on YouTube when this all started. Then the ads got so intrusive it was seriously hindering content. These days I don’t watch much YouTube, but it’s with Adblock
I mean, the argument falls short when YT (or LTT) spew literal garbage. I might have a hint of sympathy if it wasn't a dumpster fire of decaying babies.
The few people I sub do and do yt as a monitory source, I support elsewhere. Fuck YouTube acting as a sleezy middle-man and simultaneously playing the victim.
A sleezy middleman that happens to foot the YT infrastructure bill.
They're hurting real bad lemme tell ya. If only you understood what they're freely extracting from you.
Nobody is forcing YT to exist, so...
Linus Short Sebastian is an asshole. I like his channel and even bought a water bottle, but he is an asshole nontheless. His opinions are always 5 years outdated. He used to hate reddit but now liked Reddit. Probably a contrarian too.
Cool, let's body shame people.
if a content creator doesnt want people to be able to skip the ads/demonetize the content, then they should post on a platform that makes ads mandatory.
problem is that no one will watch crap on that sort of platform
Another argument proving that Linus Media Group is a bunch of morons
My guy, that's why there is DRM. Your screen are loading pixels, because they let you. Those third party apps and frontends work because they let the users have a little freedoms.
If you steal something off the mall and bring it to your home, it doesn't make it yours. People thinking all that code, infrastructure and labour to run something on the internet should be free because they have an internet connection are entitled as the sovcit bunch. Just cringe.
Advertisers, Malwares and Ad blockers are all to blame for the current state of the internet. We're heading for paywalled internet and entitled basement dwellers are going to complain you miss the "old internet"
Seriously, I use adblockers but the rationale people make up for this like countless others are just plain stupid.
Fuck that victim-blaming nonsense. The entire reason ad blockers were invented in the first place were because ads in the 90s and early 2000s were somehow even worse than they are now. You would click on a website, and pop-up ads would literally open new windows under your mouse cursor and immediately load an ad that opened another pop-up ad, and then another, and another, until you had 30 windows open and 29 of them were pop-up ads, all of them hoping to trick you into clicking on them to take you to a website laden with more and more pop-up ads. Banner ads would use bright, flashing, two-tone colors (that were likely seizure-inducing, so have fun epileptics!) to demand your attention while taking up most of your relatively tiny, low-resolution screen.
The worst offenders were the Flash-based ads. On top of all the other dirty tricks that regular ads did, they would do things like disguising themselves as games to trick you into clicking them. ("Punch the monkey and win a prize!" The prize was malware.) They would play sound and video--which were the equivalent of a jump scare back then, because of how rare audio/video was on the Internet in that day. They would exploit the poor security of Flash to try and download malware to your PC without you even interacting with them. And all this while hogging your limited dialup connection (or DSL if you were lucky), and dragging your PC to a crawl with horrible optimization. When Apple refused to support Flash on iOS way back in the day, it was a backdoor ad blocker because of how ubiquitous Flash was for advertising content at the time.
The point of all this is that advertisers have always abused the Internet, practically from day one. Firefox first became popular because it was the first browser to introduce a pop-up blocker, which was another backdoor ad blocker. Half the reason why Google became the company it did is because it started out as a deliberate break from the abuses of everyone else and gave a simple, clean interface with to-the-point, unobtrusive, text-based advertisements.
If advertisers and Google in particular had stuck to that bargain--clean, unobstrusive, simple advertisements that had no risk of malware and no interruption to user workflow, ad blockers would largely be a thing of the past. Instead, they decided to chase the profit dragon, and modern Google is no better than the very companies it originally replaced.
When I ping YouTube's server it provides me with a stream that contains an ad and a video. What I do with that stream is my problem, and if I want to chop it up it's something I can freely decide.
Your server can send any data it wants, but it can't decide what I do with it, are you nuts?
MY hardware and infrastructure was not free either and I and ONLY I get to decide how it is used.
So the thing that blocks the first two is equally to blame?
I remember the day I started using an Ad blocker. I used to not care at all about ads on sites, "it's how they make money. I can live with it." And then I encountered a banner ad that screamed "HELOOOOOOO!" every time my mouse went over it. I couldn't download an ad blocker fast enough.
Advertisers and Malware are to blame for Ad blockers. Advertisers will get more and more annoying and intrusive until people reach the point that they won't put up with them anymore. Seeing as the internet is one big bucket and I can't block some ads, then I will block all ads.
If something allows it then it's morally justified. You can't be naked intentionally and ask me to not look at same time.
I don't see how that's relevant. If you want to engage in the paid YouTube subscription, go for it, it's an entirely different thing though.
My computer requests from YouTube's server a video, the server gives me a stream of data - I didn't steal it, I didn't hack it, the server provided me this because it wanted to - and this stream contains an ad and a video. What I do with this stream is only my concern, you can't force me to watch the ad. That would be like walking in the street and somebody says you're unethical because you didn't look at an outdoor advertisement banner, and that you will be forced to either pay a fee or look at the ad.
The same Linus who can't be arsed to spend $500 of various people's time to properly test a product is now telling us what to do?