←back to thread

Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

(0x44.xyz)
1034 points deryilz | 5 comments | 12 Jul 25 19:06 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
labrador ◴[12 Jul 25 19:53 UTC] No.44544639[source]▶
I'd gladly pay for YouTube without ads if I trusted that it would remain ad free, but the track record from various companies on this is not good.
replies(11): >>44544646 #>>44544655 #>>44544660 #>>44544691 #>>44544696 #>>44544706 #>>44544736 #>>44544799 #>>44545011 #>>44545106 #>>44545121 #
matheusmoreira ◴[12 Jul 25 20:04 UTC] No.44544706[source]▶
Paying to avoid ads just makes your attention even more valuable to them. Always block them unconditionally and without any payment.

Ads are a violation of the sanctity of our minds. They are not entitled to our attention. It's not currency to pay for services with.

replies(5): >>44544753 #>>44544829 #>>44545610 #>>44545702 #>>44548453 #
luoc ◴[12 Jul 25 20:11 UTC] No.44544753[source]▶
Can you elaborate a bit? Why would that make my attention more valuable than other's?
replies(2): >>44544786 #>>44544815 #
1. tyre ◴[12 Jul 25 20:15 UTC] No.44544786[source]▶
If you are a paying subscriber, you are self-identifying as (likely) a higher net-worth. The problem for ad platforms allowing paid opt-out is that the most valuable users leave the network.

Then they have to go to advertisers and say, “advertise on our network where all the wealthier people are not.” A brand like Tiffany’s or Rolex (both huge advertisers) aren’t going to opt into that.

replies(1): >>44545138 #
2. layer8 ◴[12 Jul 25 21:01 UTC] No.44545138[source]▶
A YouTube subscription doesn’t exactly break the bank. Being able to afford it doesn’t make you wealthy.

Apart from that, you can bet that YouTube is pricing it in a way that they aren’t losing out compared to ad revenue.

replies(1): >>44545334 #
3. h2zizzle ◴[12 Jul 25 21:27 UTC] No.44545334[source]▶
It's a decent chunk of change for the sole purpose of avoiding ads on a single platform that barely pays the people actually producing the content. If you're looking to access premium content and YouTube Music, it's a slightly better value proposition (but only slightly, because YTM sucks, especially compared to what GPM used to be). For that ~$120 a year, you could buy a bunch of Steam games to occupy the same amount of time as your YT habit. Or you could buy a sub to services like Nebula which actually pay content creators decently. Or you could buy an external hard drive, install yt-dlp, and embrace Talk Like A Pirate Day, Groundhog Day-style.
replies(1): >>44545481 #
4. layer8 ◴[12 Jul 25 21:48 UTC] No.44545481{3}[source]▶
I mean, yeah, if you don’t actually get much use out of YouTube, then it might not be worth it to you. But that’s the same for all streaming services. And I wasn’t commenting on whether it’s worth it or not, which of course is subjective, but on how big an expense it is in absolute terms. The former doesn’t relate to the “higher net worth ads” argument, the latter does.

Personally I do like YouTube Music, due to all the user-uploaded content that isn’t available on other platforms.

replies(1): >>44545688 #
5. h2zizzle ◴[12 Jul 25 22:22 UTC] No.44545688{4}[source]▶
$12 is a week of chicken thighs, man. It's enough gas to make $60-$80 running UberEats orders. In America. In "absolute terms", it's $100+ dollars a year to turn off ads on a single platform for content the creators are compensated pennies for.

People who choose that without much thought - because it's barely an expense for them - are definitely tending towards "higher net worth" nationally, let alone globally. A lot of those people just don't realize it, because the entire point of seeking that kind of status is so that they can enter a socioeconomic bubble and not have to care about annoyances (like advertising).