←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: 0.311s | 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 #
1. matheusmoreira ◴[12 Jul 25 23:39 UTC] No.44546181[source]▶
There is nothing immoral about this at all. They're the ones who chose to send people videos for free, gambling on the notion that people would look at the ads. Nobody is obligated to make their unwarranted assumptions a reality. They are as entitled to our attention as a gambler is entitled to a jackpot.

If someone gives you an ad filled magazine, you can rip out the ad pages and throw them in the trash, leaving only the articles you actually want to read. Same principle applies here. If some random person on the street gives you a propaganda pamphlet, are you obligated to read it just because some businessman paid for it? Of course not.