Most active commenters
  • myself248(3)

←back to thread

YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

(iter.ca)
990 points smitop | 11 comments | 20 Jun 25 17:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.407s | source | bottom
Show context
pier25 ◴[21 Jun 25 00:53 UTC] No.44333561[source]▶
I'm more than happy to pay for Youtube Premium to remove ads for all the family and ensure content creators can monetize their work.
replies(7): >>44333596 #>>44333662 #>>44335342 #>>44335434 #>>44336489 #>>44338972 #>>44348128 #
2OEH8eoCRo0 ◴[21 Jun 25 01:00 UTC] No.44333596[source]▶
Fuck that.

My household uses Newpipe we don't pay for shit.

replies(2): >>44333720 #>>44333749 #
1. yugioh3 ◴[21 Jun 25 01:28 UTC] No.44333749[source]▶
Stealing from creators shouldn't be celebrated.
replies(5): >>44333830 #>>44333882 #>>44334761 #>>44337284 #>>44348137 #
2. myself248 ◴[21 Jun 25 01:53 UTC] No.44333830[source]▶
I support a _shitpile_ of creators on Patreon and Kofi and more. I subscribe to Nebula, and I get as much as I can from the creators' own pages on those services.

I'm doing my best to move my viewing off of YouTube, and move the money off of YouTube, in hopes that it eases the creators moving off of YouTube.

replies(1): >>44334297 #
3. inversetelecine ◴[21 Jun 25 02:04 UTC] No.44333882[source]▶
Ah, the old "stealing" line.
4. eviks ◴[21 Jun 25 03:42 UTC] No.44334297[source]▶
But you'll invariably watch from a way way bigger shitpile of creators, so without some more efficient mechanism you won't be able to spread your support properly
replies(2): >>44337436 #>>44339007 #
5. asadotzler ◴[21 Jun 25 05:26 UTC] No.44334761[source]▶
It's not stealing from creators. The creators have an agreement with Google not with me. If they feel they have been shorted, they can take it up with Google.
6. gblargg ◴[21 Jun 25 13:04 UTC] No.44337284[source]▶
If watching with an adblocker is stealing because the video creator doesn't get ad revenue, is not watching also stealing, since they also don't get revenue? If not, how is one taking from them and the other not? What have they lost in the first case but not in the second?
replies(1): >>44337325 #
7. bobsmooth ◴[21 Jun 25 13:09 UTC] No.44337325[source]▶
It costs money to serve video. In exchange for being served the video, you watch the ad. By not watching the ad, you're stealing from YouTube and creators.
replies(1): >>44338049 #
8. myself248 ◴[21 Jun 25 13:26 UTC] No.44337436{3}[source]▶
This is a problem itching for a solution. I'm determined to find a solution other than Youtube.
9. wao0uuno ◴[21 Jun 25 16:56 UTC] No.44339007{3}[source]▶
Google’s way of spreading that support is truly the most efficient (10s to 100s of millions per year right to the CEOs pocket).
replies(1): >>44339474 #
10. myself248 ◴[21 Jun 25 18:06 UTC] No.44339474{4}[source]▶
Had me in the first half...
11. BeFlatXIII ◴[22 Jun 25 16:20 UTC] No.44348137[source]▶
The alternative is not watching them, not paying. Revenue is unchanged.