YouTube cracks down on ad blockers

[thecheapseats]

So does paying for yt mean buying your way out of streaming serfdom?

whether you're paying or not, you're still getting punked...

 

[thecheapseats]

Well I still think it’s a paid service. The more one has to pay, in whichever way, the clearer this seems to get.

As for the theft, I like the legality arguments put forward by @Mart68 and @JSmith. What remains is the hypocrisy pointed out by @Axo1989.

If it were actually a "theft" - btw, that's an/your opinion only, and is absent any adjudicated conclusion to date - where are ANY responsible actions of alphabet/goog on behalf of their shareholders to mitigate the damage to their brand as well as their revenue stream? Their inaction in this regard - which could take many forms - is conspicuously absent. Why?...

I know bull***t when I hear it / see it.

 

[Rednaxela]

that's an/your opinion only

Did you actually get the words you quoted? Not sure you read the arguments I refer to, or maybe you didn’t follow that part of the discussion?

I know bull***t when I hear it / see it.

So does everybody.

Note that you are posting in a thread about one of the mitigations you feel are missing. Or am I now misunderstanding you?

 

[Talisman]

Another petty policy is to include skippable commercials, but reduce creators' income if users skip them. In short, they really don't want to lose a cent.
A YouTuber I follow who makes very good content I remember him telling us "please look at the adverts to help me".
Google is a huge company with the aim of making money, ok, I don't expect it to want to give anything away, however this way of doing things is commercially and in terms of "corporate image" harmful. What they are doing is making themselves look like evil ogres who steal money from small creators and who want to force you to pay a subscription with every system.

 

[computer-audiophile]

Vivaldi has some eye candy I'd say. It has some features for grouping tabs which is handy and better thought out than other attempts I've seen. It is chromium based with privacy and ad-block capacity built in. Has a handful of other little features I rather like though nothing transformative for browsing. Works just fine streaming classical music.

Thanks for the feedback. Vivaldi seems to differ from other browsers on the market in terms of its many convenient functions and numerous customisation options. The browser can be customised relatively extensively to suit your own needs. However, this also means that you have to make a new effort to customise it. Maybe I'll give it a try.

BTW I have read the following in a computer magazine which again speaks against unfair practices by Google. I'm slowly starting to hate it.

"By modifying the so-called user agent, the browser no longer pretends to be a Vivaldi browser to websites since then, but a Chrome browser. According to the manufacturer, the reason for this unusual measure is not a technical necessity, but a self-defence reaction to avoid discrimination by large companies such as Google.

For example, if the Vivaldi browser reports itself as Vivaldi, the search entry on google.com is displayed incorrectly. Google Docs, on the other hand, displays a warning and advises users to use Chrome. Access to the web version of Facebook's WhatsApp is blocked, as is access to Microsoft Teams. Netflix also does not stream films and series, citing a missing DRM extension (Silverlight). If Vivaldi puts on the cloak of invisibility and pretends to be a Chrome browser, everything works perfectly."

 

[Blumlein 88]

Thanks for the feedback. Vivaldi seems to differ from other browsers on the market in terms of its many convenient functions and numerous customisation options. The browser can be customised relatively extensively to suit your own needs. However, this also means that you have to make a new effort to customise it. Maybe I'll give it a try.

BTW I have read the following in a computer magazine which again speaks against unfair practices by Google. I'm slowly starting to hate it.

"By modifying the so-called user agent, the browser no longer pretends to be a Vivaldi browser to websites since then, but a Chrome browser. According to the manufacturer, the reason for this unusual measure is not a technical necessity, but a self-defence reaction to avoid discrimination by large companies such as Google.

For example, if the Vivaldi browser reports itself as Vivaldi, the search entry on google.com is displayed incorrectly. Google Docs, on the other hand, displays a warning and advises users to use Chrome. Access to the web version of Facebook's WhatsApp is blocked, as is access to Microsoft Teams. Netflix also does not stream films and series, citing a missing DRM extension (Silverlight). If Vivaldi puts on the cloak of invisibility and pretends to be a Chrome browser, everything works perfectly."

Yes, it can be customized extensively. I'm of two minds about such things. If you do radical customizing, and you need to use someone else's machine it is drag on the experience. So I only do such changing if it is a large beneficial increase in how something works for me. As a result I don't make such custom changes rapidly. If I use Vivaldi enough, I'll slowly work in some of that.

I've used Brave as my alternate browser for awhile because it helps with tracking, ads and shows itself as chrome. So when some odd site doesn't quite work nicely with Firefox I use Brave (as I don't wish to use Chrome). Right now I think I'll mostly replace Brave with Vivaldi. I do now and again find Brave's easily accessed private window with Tor useful. I'll keep it around just for that.

Google gives the feeling in the last couple of years that it is a service or company you have to use more than want to use. Or at a minimum one you would rather not use if anything from anyone else is even close to as useful. From a company who had the motto Don't do Evil, they now seem to be do anything legal we can get away with if it makes us money. Along with the idea no one's information should be kept from them. They have zero ethical issue with relentlessly vacuuming up any info on anyone anyway they can no matter what those people prefer. As long as its legal they'll continue. While it has always been true I suppose, the whole customer is the real product way of doing business sure is rubbing those customers the wrong way.

 

[computer-audiophile]

I do now and again find Brave's easily accessed private window with Tor useful. I'll keep it around just for that.

I had the same thought. And that's why I also kept Brave on my system.

 

[Mart68]

Adding on, when i ask Google what it knows about me, it is fairly close to reality. So it must be an issue of inventory that it throws the above garbage at me. They are accepting far more lousy ads than legitimate ones.

Sorry this is really ignorant of me but how do you do this? I would like to know what they have on me.

I spend a lot of time at work or asleep, otherwise I am watching a bit of telly or listening to some music. That's it. So never seen the issue with the whole data gathering lark as there's just no data to gather - as far as I can see anyway.

 

[computer-audiophile]

Google gives the feeling in the last couple of years that it is a service or company you have to use more than want to use. Or at a minimum one you would rather not use if anything from anyone else is even close to as useful.

Yes indeed!

 

[Liya]

That is what I called transportation cost. We provide the content. They move it around. In a fair market, we would get 90% of the ad revenue, they would get the 10%. Current rates are 45% for google and 55% for content creators. This is not remotely the split for example if you sell music online. Content owners get a much larger chuck.

Do you know what is the current split for selling music online?

 

[Koeitje]

Canadian ~$13.64 per month for me is reasonable because I use YouTube so much everyday and the reason I can stomach paying it is because the content creators are getting a share of that expense. If it all was going to YouTube I would not pay.

But what does Youtube actually provide? Just a platform and bandwidth. Netflix costs the same for me as Youtube premium. Youtube premium provides no content of their own, and if I want to support creators just use Patreon. Youtube takes 45% of ad revenue. Patreon takes 5-12%. Twitch wanted to go to 50/50 and that caused a huge shitstorm. I think currently there are programs in which Twitch takes 30%. So in terms of creators seeing money, Youtube is pretty shit.

Furthermore Youtube still allows scams and hateful content. I don't want to actively support that.

 

[renaudrenaud]

I don't have any tv and listen only to radio without adds (France Culture, FIP...) and don't use any operating system with adds.

I am stupid and don't have enough neurons to store important information, so adds could be something like an overflow...

I was ignorant there was adds on YouTube because all countermeasures I use (and Linux).

With Brave browser, I can continue to see YouTube without adds.

I guess if people change the browser, from chrome to brave, Google will think twice.

Anyway, fuck them all. I am not impolite, the impolite one is Google.

 

[computer-audiophile]

I guess if people change the browser, from chrome to brave, Google will think twice.

In principle, this could be a counterstroke measure that has an effect - theoretically.
But if it's like the Vivaldi browser pretending to be Chrome, it won't work. From the perspective of Google statistics, Vivaldi is simply another Chrome user that is counted. That's the perfidious thing about it.

 

[mhardy6647]

Watching the messages pop up and then later disappear on YT as the ad blockers catch up, I feel like it's The Battle of Evermore come to ridiculous digital life.

I'd put a link to a YT video of the song, but... well... you know...

 

[coonmanx]

I use Vivaldi and also an ad blocker. Have not had a single issue with YouTube.

If I do run into sites that try to make me watch an ad, then I simply scroll down and mute so that I don't have to see it. What are they going to do? Come to my house and put a gun to my ad to demand that I get indoctrinated with their nonsense?

 

[coonmanx]

Same as if I were watching TV. If I am watching a commercial station on TV I can guarantee that the mute button gets hit when a commercial comes on. I don't need boner pills or better car insurance...

 

[Bleib]

Same as if I were watching TV. If I am watching a commercial station on TV I can guarantee that the mute button gets hit when a commercial comes on. I don't need boner pills or better car insurance...

I remember some time ago TVs where supposed to get new technology to make sure TV ads weren't higher volume than regular programming. Obviously this never became a thing..

 

[thecheapseats]

Did you actually get the words you quoted? Not sure you read the arguments I refer to, or maybe you didn’t follow that part of the discussion?

"get"? - Do you mean (1) 'get' as in, "to acquire something" ? - or (2) 'get' as a slang colloquialism that implies "to understand"? Please be specific.

I was very exacting in my words - and endless metaphorical market comparisons of retail commerce, strawberries, cost of goods and channel distribution models do NOT specifically and factually define how alphabet/google conducts their businesses - they are meaningless red herrings in the dialog.

Additionally, you imply a legal conclusion - a theft - absent any adjudicated instance of an application of facts, rule of law and conclusion - it serves no purpose.

Using an ad-blocker is either a theft or it isn't - so specifically I'll ask you, "Which one is it?"...

Landing on a youtube page does NOT impose google's terms of use upon my actions - and my manipulation of any layer of the OSI model to filter all - or any part of the data stream as it enters my network is my choice.

If google/youtube doesn't agree - get my ip address and sue my ass.

But they won't/don't do so - because it's simply not worth the trouble.

Their inaction alone in this regard is the big 'poker-tell' in their idiot game. What youtube cares about and hopes to preserve is not interrupting the passive apathy of the largess of their users. As well, additionally asking users for a paid subscription is laughable on its face.

So does everybody.

Note that you are posting in a thread about one of the mitigations you feel are missing. Or am I now misunderstanding you?

I'm posting this dialog so others will understand - I consider your stance spurious nonsense with no basis in the facts and actions demonstrated by alphabet/google/youtube, to date... nothing personal, btw...

 

[amirm]

Sorry this is really ignorant of me but how do you do this? I would like to know what they have on me.

Make sure you are logged into your google account. Then go to: https://myadcenter.google.com/controls

On the left, click on "Manage Privacy."

While there you can also opt-in to tell Google what you like or don't like as far as advertising.

Just looked and it thinks I am in Health Care industry! I guess taking care of this forum makes me one.

 

[Pancreas]

They should a subscription just to block ads for $5. I couldn't care less about the other stuff they offer.

People pay for premium mainly to block ads, ain't nobody cares about the other stuff.

For example. I only pay $6 for my Apple Music because of my student email, even though I'm an alumni. Apple doesn't care and they don't use any service to check you're actually in school. All you need is an edu email confirmation every year. Apple much rather you pay $6 than zero.

By doing this they win you over Spotify who charges $10 and requires actual verification to get the student discount