Even when paying for it the YouTube UX is pretty terrible and you're still locked-in to their apps (even though if the service is paid there should be no commercial reason for why third-party clients couldn't be allowed, unless Google wants to "double-dip" by taking money and still tracking or annoying their users with engagement-generating UX).
I think many people and outlets have wrongly attributed paying with not tracking because we associated tracking and ads with not paying.
Really, they have very little incentive to not track, unless that’s explicitly what you’re buying.
Adjacent: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/23/iphone-...
How can I pay 12 euros per month and not have ANY ads on YouTube?
By that I mean YouTube ads and native video ads (I can’t) if I need to pay 12 euros per month to ONLY get rid of YouTube ads then I will continue to use ublock + sponsorblock.
If YouTube forced content creators to tag the timeframe for in video ads and auto skipped it for premium users I would gladly pay the subscription fee.
Just as I’m not interested in paying for internet news just to still have ads shoved down my throat and pay for streaming service that still serve ads. I also refuse to pay YouTube to still see ads by sponsors.
That being said, I can afford it so I would be a humongous hypocrite if I didn't support services when an ad-free option exists.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/dnscloak-secure-dns-client/id1...
(because only browsers have content blockers, most other apps don’t.)
I was really disappointed to see that uBlock doesn't work on Firefox for iOS. I bought an iPad for other purposes, but if was meant as a media consumption device, I'd return it. The internet is unusable if you can't block ads and cookie notices.
Does Safari have something better? I'd lose my history/password sync, but at least the web would be a bit more usable.
It's basically an antitrust micro-aggression. Not serious enough to get any attention, but combined with the rest of Google's behavior, it's death by 1000 cuts.
They do it because their agreements with the record labels prohibit it, as the labels do not want YouTube to be a free Spotify competitor.
It appears that YouTube recently have made a little bit of ground convincing (or at least are doing AB testing in the hopes of convincing) the labels this doesn't happen and enabling it in the app, but there's no anti-trust concern here as Apple would have the same issue. Indeed, I suspect the reason Apple do not raise a stink about it is because they do not want to endanger their relationship with the labels for Apple Music.
As of iOS 15 you can also install web extensions which is what this post is about. They can execute code.
Firefox on Android seems like it works a little worse than chrome but is completely worth it to me to avoid ads.
As an aside I'll also say that youtube music comes with YouTube premium so you can get a Spotify like music service + no ads on YouTube for $12/mo