←back to thread

YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

(iter.ca)
990 points smitop | 1 comments | 20 Jun 25 17:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
akersten ◴[21 Jun 25 01:03 UTC] No.44333609[source]▶
Thank you for your important work fighting this battle, it must be exhausting.

The more Google insists on forcing advertising on us, the more we should look closely at the wildly inappropriate and downright scammy ads they are hosting. If they can't leave well enough alone and look the other way on ad blocking, (which is the only way to avoid exposing myself and family to these dangerous ads), they need to be under a lot more scrutiny for the ads they choose to run.

replies(14): >>44333634 #>>44333715 #>>44333722 #>>44333741 #>>44333772 #>>44333866 #>>44333880 #>>44334127 #>>44334295 #>>44334478 #>>44334895 #>>44336346 #>>44336472 #>>44339901 #
okdood64 ◴[21 Jun 25 02:54 UTC] No.44334127[source]▶
Or just pay for Premium... No one's forcing you to do anything.
replies(2): >>44334199 #>>44334582 #
inetknght ◴[21 Jun 25 03:14 UTC] No.44334199[source]▶
Wait until Google shows ads in premium too. Paid-for cable TV did the same rugpull decades ago.
replies(4): >>44334528 #>>44335048 #>>44335303 #>>44336599 #
jfoster ◴[21 Jun 25 04:32 UTC] No.44334528[source]▶
So what's your argument? That YouTube shouldn't exist, or that it should be a charity? Something else?
replies(3): >>44335043 #>>44335045 #>>44338442 #
1. inetknght ◴[21 Jun 25 15:48 UTC] No.44338442[source]▶
> So what's your argument? That YouTube shouldn't exist, or that it should be a charity? Something else?

I've been thinking about it for a long time (years). I don't really have the right words for my thoughts, and I think charity is probably closest.

But yes, at this point, I think that many "free" services should be charities to prevent them from being corrupted by rugpulls.