Most active commenters
  • fakedang(4)
  • j45(4)
  • cbeley(3)
  • lucb1e(3)

←back to thread

Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

(0x44.xyz)
1034 points deryilz | 19 comments | 12 Jul 25 19:06 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
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 #
j45 ◴[12 Jul 25 20:02 UTC] No.44544696[source]▶
Youtube premium has remained adfree as far as I know.

Best to try it out yourself. I can't watch Youtube with Ads ever anymore.

If a 100% Ad-free youtube premium at the current price point ever went away, something would have to change about the ads.

replies(2): >>44544739 #>>44544839 #
1. theoreticalmal ◴[12 Jul 25 20:22 UTC] No.44544839[source]▶
I get an ad-free YouTube experience for $0 with software. Why do you pay for it?
replies(2): >>44544968 #>>44545008 #
2. dandellion ◴[12 Jul 25 20:38 UTC] No.44544968[source]▶
Plus you can block shorts. You can't do that with premium.

I got fed up and stopped paying for premium, now I get no shorts and no ads, it's a win-win.

3. cbeley ◴[12 Jul 25 20:43 UTC] No.44545008[source]▶
Because I want to actually support content creators. I also want it to be more normalized to pay for things vs having ad supported content.
replies(4): >>44545031 #>>44545211 #>>44546000 #>>44546552 #
4. card_zero ◴[12 Jul 25 20:47 UTC] No.44545031[source]▶
Do you think giving money to the world's largest ad agency will encourage them to change their business model?
replies(2): >>44545534 #>>44547281 #
5. fakedang ◴[12 Jul 25 21:13 UTC] No.44545211[source]▶
Folks be adopting all sorts of irrational arguments just so they can defend their habits. Do you also prefer having middlemen in other areas such as healthcare and education?

Creators can just as easily pop a Patreon or BuyMeACoffee these days in a few clicks. In fact, most creators constantly admit that Google pays them peanuts for their view counts. But support the leviathan for reasons unknown I guess.

replies(3): >>44545453 #>>44545764 #>>44547290 #
6. cbeley ◴[12 Jul 25 21:44 UTC] No.44545453{3}[source]▶
I also back people on patreon. Isn't it irrational to expect something for free? If you don't like the service or it doesn't align with your values, simply don't use it.

Also, isn't patreon also a middleman by your definition?

replies(1): >>44547673 #
7. cbeley ◴[12 Jul 25 21:57 UTC] No.44545534{3}[source]▶
Their business model is already in line with my values. I give them money and in exchange I get an ad-free experience. They don't need to change.
replies(2): >>44545804 #>>44546558 #
8. WrongAssumption ◴[12 Jul 25 22:35 UTC] No.44545764{3}[source]▶
Patreon and BuyMeACoffee are middlemen...
replies(1): >>44547675 #
9. card_zero ◴[12 Jul 25 22:40 UTC] No.44545804{4}[source]▶
If you care about whether content is ad supported or not, then Google are behind most of the world's ad supported content, and need to change, irrespective of your own transaction, unless you think transactions like that will change them. That's why I asked. It would be nice if it worked.
10. matheusmoreira ◴[12 Jul 25 23:10 UTC] No.44546000[source]▶
Then subscribe to their Patreon instead of paying YouTube.
replies(1): >>44546578 #
11. lucb1e ◴[13 Jul 25 00:57 UTC] No.44546552[source]▶
I don't think you're normalizing ad-supported content when running an ad blocker

As for paying for the content you consume, most of the costs aren't on Google's side. I can understand paying for Youtube as a shortcut to hopefully giving some pennies to each person you watch, though, at least for those with no moral objection to making Google's/Youtube's monopoly in online video stronger

12. lucb1e ◴[13 Jul 25 00:58 UTC] No.44546558{4}[source]▶
I'm not aware that you can pay for Google Search. That they have a paid tier for Youtube is probably to cater to another group of people rather than to "align with your values" and encourage people to actually pay for things online
13. lucb1e ◴[13 Jul 25 01:01 UTC] No.44546578{3}[source]▶
I was a bit surprised to find that Patreon also keeps a pretty large commission. But, yeah, at least it's not owned by Google and what else are you going to do when most creators list this as their only option. I'm just confused when there's easy options like sending cash directly to their IBAN or using a nonprofit like Liberapay (they just have their own donation page and, instead of taking a cut, make money that way: https://liberapay.com/Liberapay)
14. j45 ◴[13 Jul 25 03:37 UTC] No.44547281{3}[source]▶
It’s an opt out fee from Ads.
15. j45 ◴[13 Jul 25 03:40 UTC] No.44547290{3}[source]▶
It’s a personal choice.

Once someone reaches a level of individual support that’s fine.

YouTube remains a place for discovering channels and people and some people especially the majority who are not technical, can outwit a simple family fee.

I use YouTube premium more than I ever used for paying Netflix for far longer. Value (and proven convenience) is in the eyes of the user.

replies(1): >>44547694 #
16. fakedang ◴[13 Jul 25 05:04 UTC] No.44547673{4}[source]▶
There's a difference between a middleman that simply ensures that you're paid for your work on a fixed commission-based model, and a middleman who basically controls the entire platform you use to reach your audience. A better analogy would be OnlyFans vs a pimp.
17. fakedang ◴[13 Jul 25 05:04 UTC] No.44547675{4}[source]▶
There's a difference between a middleman that simply ensures that you're paid for your work on a fixed commission-based model, and a middleman who basically controls the entire platform you use to reach your audience. A better analogy would be OnlyFans vs a pimp.
18. fakedang ◴[13 Jul 25 05:08 UTC] No.44547694{4}[source]▶
I agree about YouTube being a platform for discovering new content, and even great content. I've even bought Premium for my parents and brother just so they wouldn't need to go through all sorts of ads on YouTube.

I would have bought the argument of the commenter if they talked about buying Premium to support the platform. But buying Premium to support the content creators? That's a bunch of horse manure.

replies(1): >>44576835 #
19. j45 ◴[15 Jul 25 23:03 UTC] No.44576835{5}[source]▶
I think primary and secondary motivations are OK - I'm not sure how the premium subscriptions are distributed to content creators other than by ad revenue.

One thing is for sure - an ad-free family is much more peaceful and able to enjoy the content itself, which can bode well for connecting with the content creators and appreciating the platform for what it is, and once was.