←back to thread

192 points bgstry | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
vages ◴[] No.26887003[source]
I get the technical justification for doing this: You own your player, so you should be able to control it in whatever way you want. But as consumers, how do we expect the uploader to get paid for their work if we use both Adblock and Sponsor-skip (for the lack of a better word)?

Pay to watch is, of course, an option, but that leads to discrimination based on income – unequally distributed between parts of the world and individuals in the same part of the world. (Yes, I am aware that the sponsorship system leads the creators to cater to the more well-off within each bubble, so it's still a bit discriminatory.)

Any ideas or objections?

replies(13): >>26887078 #>>26887113 #>>26887116 #>>26887152 #>>26887154 #>>26887171 #>>26887177 #>>26887263 #>>26894852 #>>26895520 #>>26896735 #>>26899505 #>>26904839 #
Mindwipe ◴[] No.26887152[source]
Ultimately there's only one inevitable consequence of this - YouTube will move to using Widevine on all YouTube streams to stop it happening.
replies(2): >>26887163 #>>26896336 #
1. ajayyy ◴[] No.26896336[source]
SponsorBlock would work fine with Widevine. In fact, I am planning on expanding it to some other sites that have DRM.