←back to thread

Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

(0x44.xyz)
1034 points deryilz | 1 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 #
matheusmoreira ◴[12 Jul 25 20:19 UTC] No.44544815[source]▶
Because by paying you are demonstrating you have more than enough disposable income to waste on their extortion. You're paying for the privilege of segmenting yourself into the richer echelons of the market. You're basically doing their marketing job for them and paying for the privilege.

At some point some shareholder value maximizing CEO is going to sit down and notice just how much money he's leaving on the table by not advertising to paying customers like you. It's simply a matter of time.

Take a third option. Don't pay them and block their ads. Block their data collection too. It's your computer, you are in control.

replies(1): >>44545084 #
krelian ◴[12 Jul 25 20:54 UTC] No.44545084[source]▶
You gotta love the mental gymnastics people will go through to convince themselves that not paying and blocking ads is the morally correct thing to do.

If you truly have those beliefs the right moral action is to not use YouTube at all but god forbid you'd have to make any sort of sacrifice.

replies(3): >>44545118 #>>44545992 #>>44546181 #
card_zero ◴[12 Jul 25 20:59 UTC] No.44545118[source]▶
I don't use Youtube at all, but I keep thinking I'm missing out and should make the effort to find a way to circumvent tracking. I can't see that the morality points to an obligation to absorb adverts. There can be no contract on the basis of what your mind must do.

Edit: let's step through this. If I use a towel placed over the computer to block ads, that's morally the same as using blocking software, I think? If I block the ads by putting my fingers in my ears and staring at the ceiling, also the same thing, morally. If I block them by watching them in a negative frame of mind, saying that I dislike ads and won't do what they suggest, I'm still doing the bad thing, the same as using an ad blocker - if it is a bad thing. My obligation, if it is an obligation, is to be receptive. Otherwise what, it's a sort of mind-fraud?

replies(1): >>44545430 #
1. h2zizzle ◴[12 Jul 25 21:40 UTC] No.44545430[source]▶
Adding: advertisements use as many hacks as possible to grab your attention. You could broadly categorize things that behave in this way as akin to a) a baby's cries (attention-seeking by something that absolutely requires your assistance), b) an alarm (attention-seeking by something that seeks to warn you), or c) being accosted (attention-seeking by something that seeks to harm you for its own benefit). Which are advertisements most closely aligned with? Is it the same across all advertisements, or do intentions vary? People likely assign varying levels of morality to the above examples; does advertising inherit the morality of the most closely aligned example?