Just say that you want to leach from the website and not pay for it. Trying to tell YouTube to not bypass ad blockers because it would make YouTube less secure is pure coping.
I'm tired of hearing this.
I use ad blockers, but I still had to sit through the "Wait 5 seconds to click through this ad" stuff. Then, it went up to like 30 seconds after you clicked through some ads. After a few more of those, it would escalate to not being able to click through the ad at all - you had to watch it in full before whatever you wanted to see. After a few further views, you then had to watch two ads before proceeding.
And you know what? I didn't mind that at all. That's how YT makes money, so whatever.
And then last week they told me to fuck off because I used an ad blocker that still let their ads through. So, now I mind. Fuck that.
Edit: Between this and WEI, it's hard not to see this as a part of a broader user-hostile plan from Alphabet.
I get people using YouTube. I get people not using YouTube. People getting angry with YouTube for experimenting with their advertising strategy, however, does not flow from honourable principle-based reasoning.
That's not honourable, that's over the line.
The thing about principles is they depend on the person, not the Google.
When ads do get through, the content has fallen into a rut where I'm exclusively viewing anti-trans hate group ads or anti-Palestinian hate group ads.
ContentID has rendered fair use discussion of popular media almost impossible; While a creator discusses how much they liked a scene in a film, my eyes are being shown half-second clips from OTHER FILMS or from stock footage.
That's not what I agreed to at all when I started using Youtube. This platform has gone insane.
They give you the videos for free. You don't have to watch ads. I don't know why you think you have to do that. You don't.
No, I don't.
> It's not charity and you are not entitled.
You're right. I'm not entitled to it. They give them away for free. I'm taking advantage of that. They've been doing it a long time. I'll keep watching them until they're not offered anymore.
At no point have I been obligated to watch their ads. I didn't strike some deal with them where I promised to watch their ads in exchange for videos. I'm simply accepting their free videos. You don't get to invent obligations in other people that they never agreed to.
What rule do you think there is that requires me to watch youtube ads? By what mechanism do you think I'm beholden to that rule? Is it a real rule that I have to abide by for some reason, or more like a feeling you have about the way things should be?
I am genuinely curious where you think my obligation to watch ads comes from.
No, they don't. Not beyond what's explicitly in the license.
It may be in their interest to invest in open source software they use. Or they may simply want to do it, even if it's not in their interest. But they have no obligation to do so. If they did, it would be in the license, and as a result that license would not be open source. To say that users of open source software are obligated to contribute is an attack on the idea of open source.
The reason I license my software the way I do is so that users are not required to do anything to see it or use it. That's the whole point. I'm giving it away, like youtube does their videos.
They aren't entitled to our attention either. We're not gonna watch ads and there's nothing they can do about it. Either they give up the mass appeal of free content and start charging money for access or they deal with it.
https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/pl/security/news/cybercrime...
I have no problem leaching... it's also about a better browsing experience and security.
But the issue goes beyond just getting stuff from youtube directly. They are absolutely a source of links to unsafe places - their advertisement platform serves ads that send you to places with unsafe javascript.
So even if you was correct about "can not" (which is obviously untrue)... they can and regularly do cause issue none the less.
And "but youtube" sidesteps the issue that ad blockers aren't just security from youtube. Youtube is one of millions of websites. Full of shitty websites with horrible security practices and awful practices around annoying advertisements.
It is not obviously untrue. Internet ads with malicous JavaScript come from sketchy ad networks. YouTube does not auction its ad space to third party ad networks.
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/fake-keepass-...
Malicious JS, to be fair, shouldn’t be able to do really any significant damage. However, it is the right of the user to decide what gets displayed on their screen and grabs their attention span.
Ad Blockers stop the secondary stuff (ad campaigns that YouTube serves sending you to unsafe places) as well as primary stuff (actual "malicious" JavaScript served directly from YouTube). (they also do stuff like block trackers and the like but those aren't the topic of conversation here precisely other than saying that Ad Blockers are a security measure on many levels - not just on YouTube proper)
While the odds are low that YouTube itself will serve malicious JavaScript... the chance isn't 0. They have better security practices than other smaller companies but stupid or malicious employees exist and - as I think I said - things have been known to happen. Even with best practices stuff like supply chain attacks exist as do stuff like stuff injected into dependencies.
So while there hasn't been an "actual" breach at YouTube (if you exclude their malicious ad campaigns which "only" direct you to unsafe places but aren't DIRECTLY served by YouTube)... the fact remains that interacting with YouTube (or anything on the internet) WILL lead to eventually to unsafe places.
I have no problem admitting that YouTube is going to be better at not directly serving adware/malware/etc... but can you admit that that's not what I personally am focused on? My original statement that Ad Blockers are security is 100% justified based on the decades of experience at this point.
For the creators who I do extract definitive value from (how-tos, DIY, teachers, etc), I'll donate directly or subscribe to a Patreon for a bit of time.
There's a three way ecosystem: the content creator, Google and the consumer. Money can only enter the system through either ads or premium subscriptions.
* Patreon (already mentioned, money definitely enters the system through here)
* Sponsors (VPNs, CuriosityStream, Brilliant, etc.)
* Nebula (a premium subscription for a non-Google service)
* Merch companies
* Book sales
Google would love for you to think it's a three-way system and they're the one and only middle-man who can help you to fund creators you like, but it's completely and totally false. Pushing their monopolistic line as if it were the truth does nothing to help the creators, it only helps Google.
Sponsers = another word for advertisers
Nebula = consumer pays again (similar to yt premium)
The only exceptions are merch and book sales, which only a small amount of big YouTubers have access to.
Wouldn't it be nice if you could pay a monthly subscription, and any video you viewed gave the creators a small fraction?
> There's a three way ecosystem: the content creator, Google and the consumer.
Patreon is a different company than Google. So is Nebula. Sponsors pay the creator directly and don't go through Google.
> Wouldn't it be nice if you could pay a monthly subscription, and any video you viewed gave the creators a small fraction?
Yes, and I'm very happy with my Nebula subscription, thank you very much. It's nice to know that I'm contributing to creators without contributing to the centralization of the web.
But yes, I think we are in agreement overall. If the money can't flow in through ads, the consumers need to pay the platforms and creators directly.
I host a lot of things out of pocket with the sole intention being to share them - not to profit off of them. I recognize that this is a privilege not everyone has but the internet was much better off when the incentive to create content was to share with other people even of it was at a personal loss. Now the incentive is what can go viral, get the most clicks, and be just clickbaity enough that people keep clicking but not clickbaity enough that people stop clicking. No thank you. If that is what the internet is I'd rather it die off so I don't really care if I'm contributing towards it dying or not.
My grandfather always said - "Bold assertions dismissing other people as unworthy will get you everywhere in life, you ungrateful little shit - that's all the birthday present you deserve".
Even if you pay for YT Premium, the tracking does not stop: https://mastodon.social/@nixCraft/111257004092595145
My adblocker is off for DuckDuckGo. DDG does not track my activity across websites.
I'm one of the few suckers here paying for YT Premium. This is what I got rewarded with for being a paying customer: https://mastodon.social/@lazycouchpotato/111347456188566575 Precious screen real estate ruined with Shorts. They've set themselves into this monopoly position leaving you nowhere else to go, and are dead set on making the experience as terrible as possible to extract every little bit of "engagement" out of you.
I don't sympathize with Google for users wanting to use an ad blocker on YT. I'd gladly support YT if any other half-decent company owned it.
In what universe does anyone have a moral obligation (let alone a legal obligation) to pay them anything?
But if we did somehow have a moral obligation to pay them, why would we have that obligation in the particular format of having to sit hostage while they put on their own little timeshare sales pitch for products none of us want?
For that matter, is there a philosophical method of severing marketing from freedom of speech, such that we can just ban marketing outright and be done with it?
It's the same idea, it's a transaction. YouTube and the creators on the platform provide content for free, and you only have to view an ad (or pay). You are essentially choosing to dine and dash, just without the same of doing it in person.
A snippet: " Permissions and Restrictions You may access and use the Service as made available to you, as long as you comply with this Agreement and applicable law."
Not a dang thing in there about "free". Now, you can argue whether or not your saw those terms, or agreed to them, but the TOS are legally binding.
Don't like those TOS, fine, makes no difference to me. But calling those videos "free" is not only naive, but wrong.
Worse than meaningless.
For a contract to be valid, they need to talk to me in person, and get my signature. They don't get to pretend it's a contract and bully the rest of the world into acting like it is.
If they do not like me sending http requests to them, it's up to them to ignore them.
> but the TOS are legally binding.
Not only are they not legally binding, anyone who makes claims like this should be denied all political rights. No voting, no sitting on juries, none of it. You have demonstrated your profound and fundamental unfittness to decide policy for other people, and humanity can't really risk it if you say you've seen the error of your ways.