←back to thread

SponsorBlock – skip sponsor segments on YouTube

(sponsor.ajay.app)
661 points anotherhue | 3 comments | 12 Aug 24 09:10 UTC | HN request time: 1.748s | source
Show context
voidUpdate ◴[14 Aug 24 07:09 UTC] No.41243350[source]▶
I still don't understand a lot of youtube advertising. Like for me, if I'm being advertised something, I instinctively don't trust it, because they're having to pay people to say good things about it rather than people who have used it telling me it's a good thing. And there are still so many sponsorships from places like BetterHelp, which has been known to be a scam for a while now, and Raid Shadow Legends, which is just a crappy mobile game that is about as "mobile game" as you can get. The only reason I use onshape is because a friend recommended it to me, and I was very skeptical about it initially
replies(13): >>41243362 #>>41243405 #>>41243454 #>>41243484 #>>41243665 #>>41243739 #>>41244350 #>>41244374 #>>41245408 #>>41248980 #>>41249812 #>>41250146 #>>41252361 #
freetonik ◴[14 Aug 24 07:12 UTC] No.41243362[source]▶
I feel the same. The more I hear about a brand in youtube ads (or any ads, for that matter), the more "scammy" feeling I get about it. At this point I feel I won't even consider looking into NordVPN, Betterhelp, or SquareSpace, even though I understand how this feeling is unjustified.
replies(1): >>41243534 #
bugtodiffer ◴[14 Aug 24 07:36 UTC] No.41243534[source]▶
> I understand how this feeling is unjustified

Every company you listed is bad.

NordVPN wasn't caught yet, but it's to good to be true and ALWAYS having 73% off is illegal marketing.

Betterhelp sold data to facebook to retarget you with ads.

SquareSpace had a security issue were entering the email of an old, not yet migrated account, was instant account takeover... how does this slip through security reviews?

Everything that needs my favorite minecraft youtuber to advertise it, is scam. It wouldn't sell without influencer marketing.

replies(1): >>41243651 #
voidUpdate ◴[14 Aug 24 07:51 UTC] No.41243651[source]▶
The thing about nordVPN (and VPN services in general) is they always talk about how funneling all your traffic through them makes it more secure and it means that governments cant spy on you and whatever. But sending all your traffic through a single point of failure seems like a bad idea from a government protection view, and how is it any more secure than https? The only thing that I've seen it be good for is making it look like you're from somewhere else to watch different stuff on streaming services. I think Tom Scott put it well here https://youtu.be/WVDQEoe6ZWY
replies(5): >>41244192 #>>41244206 #>>41244209 #>>41244367 #>>41244442 #
1. wzdd ◴[14 Aug 24 09:21 UTC] No.41244206[source]▶
> how is it any more secure than https?

Using a VPN doesn't expose the domain names you're viewing (via SNI) or the IP addresses you're connecting to to your ISP. It also (therefore) doesn't expose to the ISP the volume of traffic you're sending to a particular site, when you connect to it, or how long you stay there.

Whether your ISP is part of the threat model you're interested in mitigating is up to you personally, but this is how, depending on that model, a VPN can be more secure than HTTPS.

replies(1): >>41244304 #
2. voidUpdate ◴[14 Aug 24 09:38 UTC] No.41244304[source]▶
Instead it exposes them all to the VPN company instead. You've just moved the attack point to another company
replies(1): >>41254862 #
3. saywhanow ◴[15 Aug 24 11:39 UTC] No.41254862[source]▶
If I’m sailing the high seas and my ISP gets irritated, that’s a problem. If my VPN provider does, next.