Hacker News Reader

Comment by deadmutex | Hacker News Reader

> I have seen this becoming more and more common on open source projects and totally free services, where people act as if they are entitled to something as if it is their god given right.

Do you count YouTube as a "free service" (with ads) in this case?

I wonder if there is an overlap with people that expect free stuff and people that use uBO on YouTube. YT does offer most users YT premium, which gives users an ad free experience.

Disclosure: I worked at YT in the past, but still pay for premium because I don't want the ads.

View on HN

I pay for YT premium and Ads are still my #1 complaint about YT.

Partly this is by design, where it seems to decide that a creator having a "merch" ad integration doesn't count as an ad. Which might be understandable (but still not what I want) if merch meant creator's face on a mug, but it also includes products where a home fix it channel will have an overlay of products from Home Depot which is literally just an ad with no caveats (an overlay that obscures the video on Chromecast, it's part of YT UI not embedded in the video).

Though I guess I'm also unclear how often I see that because Premium is buggy and how often it's intentional. Ever since they made YT on Chromecast an "app" it's been a disaster of account state bugs where it also keeps trying to enforce safe mode (which blocks half of everything, including practically any music video) because it says it's not logged in even though I'm trying to cast from a phone that is logged in.

> a creator having a "merch" ad integration doesn't count as an ad.

this is why you also install sponsorblock (https://sponsor.ajay.app/). Only whitelist the channels you want to "support", if you really want to make sure to eyeball the sponsorship (which doesn't really help unless it happens to be a product you actually are interested in buying).

This is the reason I won't pay for youtube red. It doesn't do what it says. It says "ad-free" but only filters some of the ads. It's literally false advertising. It's doubly frustrating because youtube can easily fix it if they want. They would just like the extra money.

YT Premium costs more than Netflix or Disney+. Quite pricey to get ad free Youtube videos and not as much content than normal streaming sites.

You are still served ads in videos. It sucks paying for premium and your content creators use 3 minutes of 15 minute video to promote “nordVpn”.

https://sponsor.ajay.app/ - sponsorblock is a must.

That’s kind of your fault. None of the channels I subscribe to do sponsored content.

Especially considering that YouTube gets the content for almost free

> YouTube gets the content for almost free

Google pays out about 50% of ad revenue to content creators, that isn't "almost free" that is many billions of dollars.

If a channel hasn't make any ad/premium revenue yet, Google still has the content for the cost of supporting the upload--i.e. they got it almost for free.

The fact is, Google takes on no risk and does none of the work of creating content, and takes a 45% cut for distribution, and is free to continue changing their terms to make things worse for content creators.

Yeah but what percentage of subscription costs go to paying creators?

This site says 55% since youtube take 45%:

> In the end, YouTube takes a 45% cut of a creator’s Premium earnings, just as it does for ad-generated revenue.

https://vidiq.com/blog/post/youtube-premium-creator-revenue/

Imagine paying to an ad company that profiles, tracks and snoops.

You still have ads despite paying YouTube not to show you ads. They're hardcoded into the videos themselves now. You're also tracked and profiled by Google which is an indignity unto itself.

I wonder if paying for YT premium would disable tracking as well as the ads, and I feel like the answer is obvious

I think he’s referring to the Adblock as the free service here.

I think deadmutex is pointing at a bit of irony and hypocrisy at how we're saying it's bad for people to feel entitled to free adblock support (and ask for more) but champion people feeling entitled to free videos by blocking the ads or refusing to pay for no ads.

Not hypocritical at all.

There is no "entitlement" to videos. They are free. YouTube sends them to us for free. They do so hoping we're gonna look at the ads. We're under exactly zero obligation to actually do that though. It is not at all our responsibility to make their business model work.

Abusing open source developers is the true entitlement.

Another true entitlement is adblock users complaining that YouTube is greedy, etcetera, now that they're actually kicking said users off their site. You (in the general sense) are certainly not responsible for making YouTube's business work, but by a similar token they are certainly not under any obligation to continue serving data to users who don't generate any revenue.

> by a similar token they are certainly not under any obligation to continue serving data to users who don't generate any revenue

Sure. Let's see them return HTTP 402 Payment Required instead of a free video stream then. I'm actually okay with that.

Somehow I doubt they'll ever do that. They want that mass market appeal, don't they? I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. Just like the "free" apps who do anything in the world to get themselves installed so they can start monetizing.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. By all accounts, YouTube is implementing countermeasures that block adblock users from watching videos on their site. What is functionally different between that and returning a 402, especially since you can in fact pay for ad-free YouTube?

Nope. Still free, they just managed to circumvent my browser extension. They're not even supposed to know I have it installed.

They need to either start charging everyone for access or stop complaining. I pay for access to a lot of things but I'm not paying money to avoid ads. I sure as hell am not gonna pay money to watch videos with hard coded ads.

> They need to either start charging everyone for access or stop complaining. I pay for access to a lot of things but I'm not paying money to avoid ads.

Then don't. It's fine. However please don't complain about not being able to get access to the content on Youtube without paying or watching ads.

> I sure as hell am not gonna pay money to watch videos with hard coded ads.

That's up to the content creators, not Youtube. Very few of my subscribed channels use hard-coded apps and if they do they need to make up for it with worthwhile content.

> please don't complain

I don't complain. If I see an ad I just close the tab. uBlock Origin and yt-dlp is the only reason I watch stuff on YouTube at all.

> That's up to the content creators, not Youtube.

Their business relationships are not my concern. I'm not paying to watch ads. Maybe YouTube should implement their own Sponsor Block system for the benefit of their paying customers.

> Nope.

What part of my comment, specifically, is this responding to?

> They need to either start charging everyone for access or stop complaining.

Why?

> What part of my comment, specifically, is this responding to?

The notion that detecting our adblocker and actually charging for content are equivalent.

> Why?

Because if they send us ads we'll delete them and there is pretty much nothing they can do about it.

> The notion that detecting our adblocker and actually charging for content are equivalent.

Well then maybe you meant to respond to somebody else, because that's not something I said at any point.

> Because if they send us ads we'll delete them and there is pretty much nothing they can do about it.

This entire HN thread and the linked article are about how they are literally doing something about it, and it's working.

> it's working

The cat and mouse game is not instantaneous. Give it a little time.

Convenient lack of mention of the content creators in these threads where people just complain about Youtube corporation.

Content creators have other revenue streams these days. The ones I enjoy have quite the following on Patreon and other such platforms. Unlike ads, those are perfectly ethical ways to make money and I wish them all the success in the world. They don't even require copyright to work since they don't depend on artificial scarcity.

Expecting that the videos will be free with no qualifiers (such as an ad playing) is also entitlement. Not that you have said that explicitly but that seems to be a common assumption among many adblock users.

YouTube is free to make windows and Mac apps, and turn off their web views.

They're relying on me doing work to run a browser that renders their ads, rather than providing a binary. They're not sending me a page of ads, they're sending me a couple files that I can choose how to show and what to put through a JavaScript interpreter

They're also free to build more serious adblock countermeasures into their website, which is exactly what they're doing now, and people are complaining about it.

As GP said, maybe this is not your position, but it's a common enough one that their comment is not out of line (given that you are the one who replied to them).

>YouTube is free to make windows and Mac apps, and turn off their web views.

I have revanced which edits their binary to remove ads. I don't see what your point has to do with mine though. My point is this: adblock users are grazing from youtube's field. We are eating the grass that youtube has planted and watered. To expect that such a field exists and then to expect that it can be eaten from at will is entitlement. To say "but they put up no fence" (or, more accurately, a weak fence) is not a refutation of this point. In fact it is exactlty what defines it as being a tragedy of the commons.

YouTube switching entirely to a Netflix-like paid model or going bankrupt are entirely acceptable outcomes.

Ad blockers are free. They’re made available to be downloaded for free. It is not at all our responsibility to make their business model work. Open source developers are entitled.

What business model?

Psssh, you and I both know the model only works because people _do_ sometimes look at ads.

If people don't, then YouTube will stop delivering videos for free. Your argument is pretty disingenuous.

So you think people watching over-the-air television are morally obligated to watch the ads and not mute them, leave the room, use a DVR to skip them, etc.?

This is what some people actually believe.

So what? Let them stop. Let their "model" stop working.

One is free high quality security software, and the author doesn't even accept donations. The other is "free" videos that come with malware.

One is the best, most reliable video serving platform on the planet and the other is a scriptkiddie’s project that evidently doesn’t even work and he’s so salty about it that he had to make a post.

The OP is a post by a random person discussing reddit drama. As far as I can tell, the author of uBO isn't involved in any of it.

uBO does work fine, and is easily one of the most valuable pieces of end user software there is. Raymond Hill is very generous and has made a very positive impact on the world.

Correct.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com