Hacker News Reader

Comment by freyir | Hacker News Reader

> ”because of an obscure clause that no one has ever read, which was created for this very purpose.”

I don’t like that OP was locked out of his email.

But besides that, it’s not as if he broke some obscure TOS clause. He actively subverted the company’s revenue model to take its product for free. That’s about as obvious as it gets that you’re risking being blocked from a service.

View on HN

> He used specialized software to subvert the company’s revenue model and take its product for free.

How is this different than using an ad blocker in the browser?

Google linked the usage of New Pipe with the Google Account (despite the person not being logued into their account in New Pipe) and blocked it from all Google services.

Imagine you using adblock in the CNN website without being logged in and they block your access to all Time Warner services (for example HBO).

That sounds like it could only be a good thing, to help you free yourself from the intellectual pablum and misleading narratives they produce. I for one encourage these companies to ban all of us from everything, the sooner the better, so we can be effectively galvanized into making real alternatives instead of the Tivoized bullshit Android has become.

Legally? It isn't really. (Your question was rhetorical, wasn't it?) Sure, maybe courts could separate these two issues on other grounds (such as using a side-channel for banning people based on the mere existence of an ad-blocker versus detecting the exact instance of blocking the ad from showing/playing somehow) - but from the point of the ToS, it's a clear deal. You get to access to YT but you have to watch ads. No ads, no YT.

That said, fuck that. It's not like people haven't been subverting ads for ages. (From the simple pause recording when the ad starts, rewind just a tad bit and resume-recording when the movie continues to Pi-Hole and Blockada on Android.)

pretty sure even with my adblocker, I still see the "watch 5 seconds and skip ad" ads. May've configured it that way, not sure, been a while.

But to your question, if the ad blocker is subverting the company's revenue model and they can detect it, you risk the company blocking you. Per the Issue, it looks like the service that is there to scan for bad actors on your device may've picked up that NewPipe was installed on their device which may've caused them to look (speculation on all counts).

Yeah, something with your config. I don't see those using uBlock Origin.

I got the impression the GP is describing precisely that.

NewPipe is a video downloader, different from an adblocker.

TIL.

Would that mean that using progs like `youtube-dl` to fetch videos from Youtube may get your Goog Account deleted?

I don't think you even can login with youtube-dl.

You can. That's how you can download private videos

It does seem similar. If you don't want to see the ads, don't use the service.

I don't use an ad blocker, and if I don't want to see ads I pay for the service, such as with Reddit, Ars Technica, Windows Live Mail, Netflix, and YouTube. Technically, I quit Netflix once they started showing me ads, even though they were for their own shows (general dark patterns were the more significant factor though).

Where do you draw that line though? If I take steps to ignore/block ads that don't involve software -- like muting during ads or flipping the phone over -- am I subverting the company's revenue model? How much do I need to "see" ads?

A very good question. Muting a TV seems OK on the surface to me, but only because it is normal to me. When actually thinking about it, I realize that muting TV ads is similar to web ad blocking.

So in principle I would have to say that one shouldn't mute TV ads, or skip them using +10 second buttons. Of course I will not always live my life up to that principle...

Right. It's like the slow march towards the future from the fifteen million merits episode of black mirror.

> It does seem similar. If you don't want to see the ads, don't use the service.

That just doesn't make sense. Not using their services has zero advantages compared to blocking ads. But by using them, you raise their costs, making their business model less viable.

> I don't use an ad blocker, and if I don't want to see ads I pay for the service, such as with Reddit, Ars Technica, Windows Live Mail, Netflix, and YouTube.

By paying for services, you show that you have disposable income. You cannot escape ads that way except in the short term.

Now should I be worried about using YouTube vanced app. Same thing there to isn't it?

You don't get it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com