Same here. Was just explaining to a coworker who was complaining about YT ads that I "just" use PiHole+Unbound for network blocking, AirVPN with DNS blocking, mullvad Private DNS on Android, and then Libretube to view my self-hosted Piped instance. As I said it I realized how ridiculous it's gotten and how deranged I probably sound.
Reasonable, yes. Feasible for everyone? Not necessarily. I would like to get at least a pihole going at some point but for now ublock origin and ReVanced have been enough for me.
Well they were already talking UBO and PiHoles, so I had faith lol AirVPN has the option to add blocklists to its DNS. Obviously with everything else I don't really need it, but it can't hurt.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the point of using Piped having a proxy between you and YouTube? Or are you serving your instance to friends/family so that your queries get mixed together?
I’m going to start a discussion in the comments here about methods to bypass the message. I will add suggestions here, so leave comments if you find a method!
Methods to bypass Youtube Anti-Adblock:
The easiest method is simply to comply and turn off your adblock extension.My Method- My method, and the one that will likely work universally is as follows:
Why would this work when others get blocked? Is it a novel way to block YT ads that's not popular? Because I think YT isn't looking for specific extensions but looking for certain kinds of behavior.
This method lets ads load for half a second but then get skipped instantly. i have not personally found a way to 100% block ads once ive gotten their block page.
I use greasemonkey to do a similar trick with the skip and dismiss buttons. But added random delays up to 2 seconds in an attempt to mimic a human clicking the button.
Also instead of an interval running, you can use MutationObserver and a callback to only run the code when the DOM changes and adds the button.
Is it advertising if a community government makes citizens aware that bus service will be changing?
Is it advertising to tell people that there’s a suicide hotline available if they need help?
Is it advertising to encourage people to volunteer for a local festival?
What about telling people that the festival exists using a poster? Is that an ad? Does it depend if the festival is free or non-profit?
Advertising is just fundamentally about bringing people’s attention to something. The spectrum can range from a municipal government “advertising” its monthly meeting so that local people can participate in their local democracy, to spam emails hyping a pump-and-dump cryptocurrency.
Different people will have different ideas where the cut-off should be. The extreme libertarians will say that nothing should be banned. Others will say that it’s ok to ban ads for alcohol and cigarettes but not for makeup or coffee. Even totalitarian states and supposedly communist states where one entity controls all companies have ads. Some of the most striking ads ever made were for Mussolini.
So, the question really isn’t about banning ads, it’s just where to draw the line.
An increasing number of states are banning billboards along highways. Travelers do need a low tech method for finding certain services though, such as food, lodging, fuel and restrooms. So you’ll see those blue signs that says “FOOD NEXT EXIT” with a Waffle House and Burger King logo. In order to put the logo on that sign, the business has to meet certain criteria (which vary from state to state like all highway laws), for example a restaurant must be within 3 miles of the highway, be open for at least 12 hours a day and feature public restrooms and telephones. The sign itself may include a distinctive logo and the name of the business in legible font but no slogans or ad copy. “This burger restaurant is nearby.”
This I see as an appropriate amount of advertising.
It is a great example of how an industry can survive with only self-reported effectiveness. I remember a freakonomics episode where it was shown that very infrequently do companies get a positive return on marketing spending. It will be very interesting if that industry ever collapses.
They know. The fact that targeted ads leveraging so-called “big data” are not more effective than standard advertising is now known to the public. We can bet Google knew this years in advance. But they can’t abandon their whole business model since that would freak the stock market and investors out. So, they need to squeeze as much as they can before the entire model becomes unworkable and they’ll be forced to switch to something else or disappear.
Oh definitely. Its essentially a massive case of ‘it’s difficult to get someone to understand something when their salary depends on not understanding it.’
Same shit with Facebook claiming videos were the bestest content possible, using numbers sourced from the vicinity of their pelvis. Now every goddamn news site has autoplaying video for no damn reason.
Advertising is about creating trends, and catching some impulse buyers. Effectiveness is likely overstated, but on the other hand it’s difficult to quantify the effectiveness of a trend. I don’t think it’s likely to ever collapse, people will always want to believe they can influence others more than they actually can.
There is also a way to individually update just the extractor LUA script that VLC uses to play YT videos, but I haven’t messed with that in so long I’ve forgotten how to do it
I agree. It’s around $22 NZD and that is just too steep. They have a slightly cheaper one but you can’t background play with it. I’m sick of being nickel and dimed at every possible opportunity and then hearing about how these companies are making record profits.
It’s $25/mo for family. I hate that I pay for it, but I use music, and I mostly watch YouTube on a streaming device, so I’ve never been able to use ad blockers. $15 for the fam felt worth it, but $25 has me rethinking. Maybe I can configure YT-DL to get the shows I care about on my Plex
Any android based streaming device can run SmartTube (formerly SmartTube next). On an Android phone you can patch the YouTube apk with revanced, which also gives you full access to yt music.
Do you guys not get Youtube Premium Lite? It’s €7 per month to get rid of ads and doesn’t include stuff most people aren’t interested in like Youtube music.
I am not sure if it will work out like this though. The amount of ads they are forcing down peoples throat is isane. Eventually it will make people consume less videos and with that less ads overall.
I am not sure if it will work out like this though. The amount of ads they are forcing down peoples throat is isane. Eventually it will make people consume less videos and with that less ads overall.
Sure, could be - but keep in mind that they have all the relevant usage data at hand. Any decrease in service popularity among users (or indeed any kind of user behavior) is immediately visible to them. They have the means to know exactly what annoyances the market will bear.
And considering that YouTube still holds a de-facto monopoly on video discoverability within the entire anglophone internet I feel like it’s safe to say that the market will likely bear a lot more annoyances :P
capitalism (or at least the weird version of it used in the tech world) is about short term profit. if they get good numbers from this, they can make future projections of an imaginary increase over the years and make the ad companies happy for a while. they do not care about breaking the product in the long term
I know. This was just the intelligent person view. In reality, as you said, they only care about short term profit, and can you blame them? Things can change overnight in the tech world. Google (as a product) was undisputed until ChatGPT was released and integrated into Bing, now Alphabet is falling vehind and losing its dominance on the market.
Why would the ad companies back out if Youtube got rid of the people who were blocking their ads anyway? If anything, it makes Youtube a safer investment.
They’re already in hot water because of lying to their customers over this. They actually track ad blocker usage because lying about ads getting played when they weren’t would be fraud. In fact they’re getting sued by a whole bunch of advertisers because the “100% verified watched ads on Youtube.com” were actually playing in hidden frames on random websites.
I’m pretty sure the anti blocking, remote attestation direction Google is taking is an attempt to quickly fix this situation before it can get out of hand. They don’t know what ads plays are legitimate anymore and their customers are angry about it.
Worst case scenario, all Youtube advertisers over the last x years get their money back with some compensation, which would be devastating to Youtube as a product.
That is something you just cannot avoid with a new medium. Eventually there will always be professionalization. It just sucks that youtube now just gives us the same shit over and over instead of making it easy to find new creators, like it used to be.
Hell I think you could make a massive improvement to the site if it could realize “Hey, I’ve been suggesting the same exact video to this user 500 times in a row, and he’s never clicked it. Maybe this user likes this creator/series, but not this specific video.”
I remember one of the early Youtube sensations was this teen chick’s vlog that turned out to be a fictional soap opera basically. Because it hadn’t occurred to anyone to do that yet.
This was BACK IN THE DAY, around the same time Boxxy became a sensation, or that one chick who just sat still in front of the camera because the Japanese liked her huge eyes.
lonelygirl15? I remember a friend telling me about that series because she wanted to share a funny video reply (Remember those?) by somebody who managed to find the same animal plushies that the girl carries around; it was a parody episode where the plushies talk about the current situation in the story and suggest that maybe the girl should drop all the teen drama stuff so they can all focus on running for their lives instead.
That’s the one, lonelygirl15. What a wild story. My internet destroyed brain immediately jumped to “Wow that was before the Youtube partner program, and it was presented as an authentic teen’s vlog at least at first…I wonder what the monetization strategy was?” And it turns out there kinda wasn’t one. They went into $50,000 worth of credit card debt to fund the series, according to Wikipedia. Like remember that episode of South Park (remember that show?) where they had the waiting room full of viral video people waiting to get their non-existent internet fame money?
Google will try everything in their power to stop us from blocking their ads. It’s their main source of revenue, you don’t have to be a genius to see why they don’t like ad blockers
Wouldn’t this show that they failed, if they have to recur to site-based adblocker blocking? Clearly v3 hasn’t stopped people from using Firefox, yt-dl, or whatever.
The Gecko Engine (Firefox), holds a user share of 4%. When compared to Chromium's (Google Chrome and its clones) whooping 72% (roughly) user share, it's clear that Firefox has limited relevance to their business strategy.
(according to latest statistics, Firefox would have an even lower share)
My point is: if v3 were effective at neutralizing ad blockers in 75% of the user base, or even 95% since Safari is supposed to get on board too, why are they developing additional countermeasures?
Or has Safari decided to do like Firefox, and still allow full ad blockers?
I reckon that blocking ad blockers isn't some extra countermeasure here. It's actually right in line with what Manifest V3 and that new environment attestation system are all about. They're basically making sure that if you tinker with crucial bits of the JavaScript -- stuff they see as essential (like anti-adblock) -- you won't make it through the attestation and you'll get blocked.
They don't want to block all modifications because that would be a hindrance to many users, for example the visually impaired. However, anything affecting their bottom line will probably be blocked.
How that will affect Firefox? I don't know, maybe nothing will change for us, or perhaps Google will block Firefox altogether. We certainly know they're capable.
Yes, attestation is in line with V3 changes, just that it makes them irrelevant: YouTube’s website could some day ask for environment attestation of “no extension using the intercept hooks”, or “only the approved ones”, and still have the same effect. The fact that they’re implementing a server-side anti-adblock now, while postponing V2 deprecation over and over, makes me think the V3 changes are a flop.
Firefox… would likely require Mozilla to play ball and implement similar attestation in an official binary attestable by the OS. Edge too, just so MS doesn’t mess with Chrome’s binary attestation on Windows.
Safari already has attestation, without extra parameters, but it could be extended:
Youtube’s use of A/B testing is very smart in that it’s actually nothing about testing user response and all about limiting the number of people they piss off at once with their god awful changes.
The day I can’t block ads on the internet is the day I stop using the internet.
Admiral is the worst kind of anti adblock there is.
They buy thousands of domains at a time, with individually corresponding Google Cloud IPs to evade adblock lists. Real pain in the ass to block them, they also DMCA community blocklists containing their domains
I haven’t used youtube.com to watch YouTube in years. NewPipe x SponsorBlock (polymorphicshade) on mobile, SmartTubeNext on TV, Invidious, Piped, or FreeTube on desktop.
What happens to me now with Firefox and ublock origin is if i leave a video paused in the background for a long time and then it unloads it and then I click it to continue watching so it loads back up, then it plays an ad. I was legit like cat-confused because I haven’t seen an ad on the internet in years.
Same! I was taken aback and offended all at once then refreshed to get rid of the ad which thankfully still works… But for how long more is the question 😭
strawpoll.com
Ważne