Ooof, accepting Bitcoin/currency donations for a product that explicitly strips out monetization of another 3rd party service is going to be a problem for longevity of this project on GitHub.
Because a service like Github is an emergent property of a bunch of developers making similar decisions:
1) spend time & effort setting up a git on home server or Raspberry Pi -- or -- spend that time playing with my kids or riding a bike outside
2) spend $10/month for a shared hosting plan to run my git/Gitlab instance -- or spend $0 for a free account on Github
3) expose my self-hosted home ip address -- or find a networking workaround because my house is behind ISP NAT and/or I don't want to publicize my home ip address and keep it private so I use someone else's public network ... such as Github
Take variations of those 3 reasons and multiply it out by a million developers making similar decisions and you will inevitably end up with a "free automatically managed git instance in the cloud" ... aka Github.
Just try an independent engine like https://mojeek.com and see for yourself how vastly different the surfing experience is. It's like you're back to the time when the internet was accessible and not centralised to a few Big Tech apps and websites.
Instead Patreon or Librapay is a better way to support them.
This is something that only criminals would be happy that exists.
I don't think creators would want to use any form of crypto or have their wallet becoming blacklisted at any time because they 'bought' or received bitcoin/monero from someone else that is associated with north korean hackers and criminals.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/10/majority-...
https://civicscience.com/paypal-now-sells-cryptocurrency-but...
https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/2022-biggest-year-ever-for-...
While crypto has many downsides worth discussing, there is no reasoning to be had with anti-crypto zealots like you..
It's both. It is yet another reason why nobody should use crypto. Why should anyone use a wallet that is associated with a blacklisted address?
It is simply not worth the hassle, especially when the stats shows that people are not confident in the reliability or safety crypto even if they have heard about it, here is a direct link to this so that you can print this at home:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/10/majority-...
> Don't you think the authors should be able to choose what is the best funding method for their project?
I hope you're not suggesting that crypto is the best method because we both know it isn't.
It would be like busking for donations in Chernobyl. You can technically do it except nobody is or will be there to give it to you. The same can be said for crypto.
You might as well use the payment systems that everyone is using rather than a volatile Rube-Goldberg machine appeals mainly to criminals.
> While crypto has many downsides worth discussing, there is no reasoning to be had with anti-crypto zealots like you.
Yes. There are only many downsides, no upsides.
It's far quicker not to bother with crypto than to try and use it. Only criminals are bothered with it because it fits their use case better, illegitimate and criminal activity.
But, if a central authority is invested in being able to shut down any commerce it doesn't like but can't make illegal, and it does so by leaning on private parties, and you see that alliance of central government authority and their corporate donors/clients as legitimate, I suppose crypto is indeed used for non legitimate purposes.
Patreon has openly debanked people for investigating human trafficking rings tied to the European migrant crisis. At least use subscribestar if you bought the slander against crypto.
https://liberapay.com/FreeTube
No need for crypto or Patreon.
They don’t care if it’s traceable, they care that it’s irreversible. They can just run the money through a tumbler anyway.
“Criminal activity” is one the things crypto is best at, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
[0]: https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2021/06/08/state-of-crypto-r...
[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/02/pig-butchering-scammers-make...
Mind your confirmation bias.
So rather than advocating for 0% fee, true peer to peer donations, your first alternative is to inject a VC-backed parasite in the middle - why?
If you want to talk about 0% fees, this doesn't exist in any widely used crypto token so I don't know where you got that from.
What is being suggested (which is any crypto token) is even worse than Patreon, we just had major price manipulation on Bitcoin which tells you everything you need to know about how unstable this token is that creators will not use.
ICYMI there is also Liberapay which I stated earlier that you purposefully glossed over if you don't like Patreon. In any case, any payment system is better than crypto or bitcoin, especially for creators.
All that matters is that there are enough people willingly using it to make it worthwhile for the project to accept these donations. Furthermore, it's not "my" alternative, I'm not trying persuade anyone to use, or not to use different avenues of accepting donations.
I'm just questioning HackerNews' collective tendency to publicly shame projects that accept crypto donations. It's a shining legitimate use case for cryptocurrency, and rather than applauding it or at least ignoring it, you feel compelled to deny its existence and remind everyone that crypto is "only" used for scams and drugs - why?
It comes across like the vegan stereotype of vegans reminding everyone they're vegan and trying to convince them that they should become vegan too.
> If you want to talk about 0% fees, this doesn't exist in any widely used crypto token so I don't know where you got that from.
You're mistaken, high TX fees are an exception, not the norm. Both Monero (which this project accepts) and Litecoin transactions cost less than $0.001.
And the price comes crashing due to market manipulation and the project loses money, this isn't appealing for anyone that wants to accept donations with crypto and is the absolute worst way to do it and is the best way to lose 'money'.
You can keep ignoring my stats but people want stability with their money not instability and crypto isn't it.
> You're mistaken, high TX fees are an exception, not the norm. Both Monero (which this project accepts) and Litecoin transactions cost less than $0.001.
Whether they are high or low they are still fees and you said absolutely 0% which is not true, and we are not even counting the exchanges, conversion fees, etc.
> I'm just questioning HackerNews' collective tendency to publicly shame projects that accept crypto donations. It's a shining legitimate use case for cryptocurrency, and rather than applauding it or at least ignoring it, you feel compelled to deny its existence and remind everyone that crypto is "only" used for scams and drugs - why?
Because the bad heavily outweighs any (alleged) good crypto "has".
Because it is an even worse system than what we already have today.
If someone gives me $200 I expect $200 in my account. With crypto someone can give me $200 and the next minute in my account I get $2. This doesn't make any sense and will further discourage creators.
There is nothing special or anything unique that crypto has solved or done better than the current financial system.
> Litecoin transactions cost less than $0.001.
That is because almost nobody is using Litecoin, hence:
> If you want to talk about 0% fees, this doesn't exist in any widely used crypto token so I don't know where you got that from.
The only thing I'm really interested in is why you're making it your business to shame projects for accepting crypto donations?
Just for completeness sake, before you accuse me of disregarding your points:
> And the price comes crashing due to market manipulation and the project loses money
Anyone who sees this as a real threat can convert to another currency immediately or in regular intervals, making it a non-issue while still being able to transact using cryptocurrency.
> Whether they are high or low they are still fees and you said absolutely 0% which is not true
We're talking about fractions of a cent per TX. That's essentially free for all realistic scenarios. All centralized systems carry a 2-50% + fixed ~30c fee.
> Because it is an even worse system than what we already have today.
Situational. Neither system covers everyone's needs.
> With crypto someone can give me $200 and the next minute in my account I get $2
This just doesn't happen in reality. Normal fluctuations happen in both directions just as with any other currency exchange market.
> There is nothing special or anything unique that crypto has solved or done better than the current financial system.
Blatantly false, the current financial system doesn't have any privacy and is susceptible to government interference, e.g. account freezes.
> That is because almost nobody is using Litecoin
And that's a shame, but regardless, it's one of the most secure chains (w.r.t. 51% attacks) with ubiquitous support and one of the longest track records. It's a perfectly adequate way to accept donations.
Since you don't have any I have disregarded and ignored all your spurious points as you have no credible up to date (2020/2023) sources backing them and yet I have.
Technically nothing.
Morally, you are depriving the content creators and Youtube of revenue (if they rely on Youtube ads). You could argue that they aren't somehow fundamentally entitled to make money, but you are also not fundamentally entitled to consume their content. The content creator had to do work to produce the content and YT has to do work to provide a platform where it can be disseminated. Naturally, they want to be paid for doing this work. We can argue about how much they should be paid, but again nobody is forced to watch YT. It's a voluntary transaction. If you don't like ads, buy a YT subscription. If you don't want to support YT, encourage your content creators to provide their content elsewhere.
Practically, some companies have been historically willing to shut one or both eyes over open source/free projects as a gesture of goodwill (or marketing exercise). The moment money is involved, the lawyers tend to be unleashed and the whole "this is just a free hobby project with no monetary incentives for the developers" goes out the window.
i don't know. take radio for example. The advertiser has paid real money to the voice actors, scripts, etc, and the radio company for hosting their content and for propagation, this is real cost. so what happens if you turn off your radio and don't hear the radio commercial? are you obligated to listen to adverts on a radio? what happens if you make a manual hardware sponsorblock?
can the advertiser sue a manufacturer of this manual hardware sponsorblock machine that is an addon to radio? the original selling point of the hardware machine would be to block explicit songs and adblocking would be an added benefit.
could radio companies sue radio makers or this hardware machine maker for selling this addon? knowing full well that this maker is earning money.
>but you are also not fundamentally entitled to consume their content
here is an alternative answer argument. when you publish on a public website, you give away this "right to prevent consumption". youtube is a public website meaning anyone without login can access content so youtube and content creator and advertisers are forfeiting their right to demand remuneration. the alternative? well look at netflix. It is a paywalled service where only paid users access the content. There isn't much of adblocking on netflix or tracking protection and other stuff.
What i am trying to say is, only netflix by their nature of a paywalled gateway can expect this "no payment, no content" rule because they have put technical roadblocks. if tomorrow netflix goes open, they will be treated like youtube.
Why?
They can block non premium users if they don't want non paying visitors to view the content. And I am free to switch virtual desktop, browser tab, mute it or turn my head away and put earplugs when they want to show an AD. This is just the same, but made with software.
That's the point there are other ways ...
>Just be honest and say you think you should be able to enjoy those artists’ work without paying.
If we go back to legality then as others mentioned I believe in the right to transform what data is served to me.
If a physical shop decide their terms only allow the customers with a membership card to look at the window from outside but decide to not put curtains, those terms do not apply to bystanders who could see inside. Same when my neighbour is naked with all the lights on. If she doesn't want me to see her, she knows what to do.
If they don't like this, they can turn me away at the door. But they don't, they let me and I'm not signing any contracts with them, so fuck their rule.
Besides, I checked the terms of service in this page[1] today and nowhere is it written that people are forced to look at the ads and can't turn away. And rightfully so it would be illegal to have such terms in most juridictions. So even those that are aware of those terms because they actually looked for them ought to see the ads.
Call the police, nobody cares.
Besides YouTube content is not comprised only of artists.
The same way they shouldn't expect much respect from ad viewing.
My problem is not the $10 per month, it is that those people will STILL collect and sell my data to anyone who will buy it. $10 don't keep my data 'safe'. $10 is just to avoid ads. I wonder if they will ever make a PremiumPrivate subscription that will cost $20 where you get to avoid ads AND keep your data pritave. (easy answer --> no)
Today it is next to impossible to securely use the internet without having an adblocker installed and enabled (or using something like Freetube, which is essentially a specialized ad blocking browser), otherwise you are exposing yourself to drive-by malware installs. Ads were and are a major vector here, including Google ones, given their market size. Heck, even FBI recommends it for exactly these reasons!
So if someone is arguing that I have to make my computer less secure only to make sure they can monetize my eyeballs, that's a no, full stop.
I would happily pay and support the artists or creators (and I do so) - but not by removing adblock and opening myself to an indiscriminate onslaught of insecure and poorly made ads.
And lets not delude ourselves with these moral arguments here - this isn't and never was about funding the creators of that content. Most Youtube video creators don't see a dime for their work from Google - and yet Youtube wouldn't exist without them and Google directly profits from that work.
The choice of business model - provide free video supported by advertising - was also Google's. Nobody forced them into it and they are free to make YT subscription-only.
However, if YT was a paid service from the start, they wouldn't be anywhere near where they are today.
And don't get me started on the evolution of ads on YT - I have no issues with watching an ad or two per video. But these days you have unskippable pre-roll ads, you have (often multiple) mid-roll ads, you have ads at the end of the video and all that in addition to whatever sponsor promotion is directly in the video itself (and which actually pays the video creator). So out of a 10 minutes long video there is often ~6 minutes of just ads.
No,thank you.
This is incredibly overstated.
I don't run an ad blocker. I consider it immoral.
It's fine.
How do you figure that? It's been less than a month since simply loading a .webp image could result in arbitrary code execution in your browser.
Does it happen often? No, but it only needs to happen once to get screwed.
I wish it were just this. In the past month, I'm seeing 30 minute "ads" on 10-minute videos for kids. These "ads" are stories with thin plots used to sell toys, like G.I. Joe of yore.
If you want, primarily, to contribute to the "free sushi restaurant" fund for google employees and financially support your friendly abusive global monpolist for purely moral reasons though by all means turn off that ad blocker...
They really don't (which is demonetization hurts them every time YouTube does it). And they don't actually pay YouTube for infrastructure costs via Patreon either. And as many competitors to YouTube (one I worked for myself) found out, carrying video is very expensive.
A lot of the content creators I watch are demonetized but google still runs ads. I try to support them directly - morally speaking I think it's the right thing to do to stand up against both hard and soft censorship.
If you're in the mood to donate to Google's profit margins feel free though. They do have an expensive lawsuit to fight against accusations of being an abusive monopolist and I'm sure they could use your cash to help out.
No, Youtube deprive the content creators. Like all publishers they give back only a fraction of what the content is worth by abusing their monopoly.
At least with YouTube's case, they actually allow effectively anyone to upload mostly unlimited non-infringing content to their platform without the expectation of a single ad view. You may call them stealing from artists by not giving 100% back to their creators, but a notable chunk of the money collected really does go to keep the lights on for the entire product. It isn't just rent seeking. Complain about the splits, sure let's have a conversation. Complain about YouTube stealing money from artists, I'd say you don't have a leg to debate here.
I suspect that if it weren't for the steep decline in the quality of advertisements or their overly aggressive nature, many users of content blockers would have never being pushed to seek out a solution that grants them reprieve from the punishing barrage.
As opposed to using YT without any account or multiple ones, linked to a minimum of information, if you want to curate your recommandations.
You all just want to get shit for free.
As for just wanting things for free, well I'm paying a Nebula subscription so ...
Remember, this is private media, not something you have a right to use. Not liking the terms offered by the owner doesn’t conjure up a right any more than my not liking the dress code at a restaurant means I have standing to sue when they kick me out.
The tracking/advertising industry is a cancer, yes it allows some free content and remuneration but at the same times it kills competition from less established actors. Those actors can't just burn money to keep you there while they resell all they can on their own ad network.
So yes I'll block it and if it makes Youtube lose money then they will need to change their model and make it more hostile to users. Which can only help external platform such as Nebula and others grow.
And if those platform grows then creators might be able to leave Youtube.
In my 20+ years on the internet I have never clicked on an ad. I might have been made aware of a product that I went and purchased later when I actually needed it but never at the moment I saw the ad, meaning no affiliate revenue for the platform/creator. Am I allowed to block ads then, since there is a 100% guarantee that you won’t be getting any money from me?
(I pay for YT premium so it doesn’t directly apply to me but the point still stands)
More importantly, however, this is like going into a restaurant and saying that you should be able to order only a side dish while eating food that you brought with. You might have a good reason for wanting to do that but that doesn’t somehow create a right to use someone else’s private property in violation of their wishes.
Am I morally obliged to acknowledge the sponsors for everything I personally don’t purchase?
To whom do I owe patronage when I accept something gratis?
No, because the owner of that property has set terms allowing that. Try to eat a dozen samples, though, and they’ll probably ask you to leave.
This isn’t actually a complicated concept: their property, their rules. If you don’t like YouTube, that’s totally reasonable – I don’t – but no amount of sophistry will create a right for you to use their private property on your terms. Just go somewhere else: there are tons of creators who’d love a better deal than Google/Facebook offer them but that’s never going to happen as long as people insist on paying them through YouTube.
I’m impressed you saw what should really happen at Costco, but disappointed you could not extrapolate that thinking to the YouTube case.
I won't buy a YouTube subscription precisely because I don't like ads. Buying a YouTube subscription is directly in support of ads. If you give Google money for a YouTube subscription you have just let Google know that ads are a great way for them to make money. They are now incentivized to implement more ads in the future.
Paying to remove ads only causes more ads in the world.
Is this really a crime? The tool does not redistribute copyrighted material for example. It only reshapes video sent to your device, allowing you to decide which parts to view.
So yeah it's theft
If your business is taking pictures of people on the street and I decide to wear a baseball cap and sunglasses, you're just out of luck.
You aren't forced to use it, it is a choice
And this application (FreeTube) is for the sole purpose of circumventing their (YouTube) monetization for the sake of convenience
I don't have a dog in the fight and I'm certainly not a fan of YouTube or Google, but you can't argue it's somehow ok just because you dislike ads or lack of privacy on a "free" video streaming website
I'd say both of those things makes it ok to do whatever you can to avoid them - given that YouTube appears happy enough to serve ads for various obvious scams that wouldn't make it past television advertising standards bodies.
I'm free to pick and configure my user agent, YouTube is free to decide whether or not to serve me content.
Your point really isn't such a "gotcha" as you think it is.
Use this smartarsery to support Nebula or PeerTube instead.
You've said nothing.
When I visit a web site for the first time, I don't remember agreeing to looking at/watching or reading the ads.
That's the comparison that is most apt in this case.
Even if that weren't the case, you couldn't copy an apple in a grocery store anyway.
Someone that designed a robot that goes to the movie theater, sits in your seat, and streams the movie to your computer so you can go to the movies from home.
And then it also ends up not showing or "removing" the ads that get shown in the beginning of the movie before it starts.
The more accurate analogy would be reprinting a newspaper without the ads.
Everything starts in public. That's where we learn language, how to live and how to reason, including about morality.
In general, software engineers even on HN tend to agree with that - that using their paid service without paying is bad, yeah.
Software engineers on HN or anywhere else certainly do not tend to agree that stripping ads from freely-available content is equivalent to using a paid service without paying.
Also, having built IOS apps in the past: I love the idea that people use them I hate the idea that people use them without paying for them
You certainly do not. There is a very simple and legally-recognised way to recuperate costs associated with providing a service and that is to charge money for the service. Youtube is very happy to give you content for free; you're cheating nobody. Or do you think you're cheating if you watch the ads but don't buy any of the products too?
> I hate the idea that people use [my apps] without paying for them
Do you charge money for them?
It’s not freely available. It has very real costs associated with it, which is why YouTube was a money burn pit for the majority of its existence.
It is made available to the general public without cost. It is freely available.
[1] https://cybernews.com/tech/youtube-crackdown-on-adblock-user...
The DMCA takedown of youtube-dl was complete nonsense, even if youtube-dl is violating the DMCA it is not copyright material subject to a takedown. And Germany has ruled that YouTube's rolling cipher is DRM, but that case may be being appealed and has nothing to do with the US DMCA.