Experimental Youtube "feature" detects and blocks some users of ad blocking browser extensions on Youtube

[Giganthrax]

50 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Ultimately all the people with ad-block contribute nothing to the service, while making costs higher for other people...which in turn makes the ads worse for those who don't use it.

Nah, the views, likes/dislikes, comments, and view times of adblock users still help the channels they're watching immensely. Adblock users are also no less likely than anyone else to buy merch and other stuff that directly helps the creator. 

 

The reason we use adblock is because we don't to watch no bloody ads, and ain't no one gonna force me to do so.

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Ultimately all the people with ad-block contribute nothing to the service, while making costs higher for other people...which in turn makes the ads worse for those who don't use it.

Oh really? Maybe if sites wouldve grown a spine and go against advertisers pushing down the prices instead of cramming their sites full of ads to the point where there is some content in the ads we wouldnt have this problem...... (And i wont even get started on the total lack of security.)

[wanderingfool2]

14 hours ago, Giganthrax said:

Nah, the views, likes/dislikes, comments, and view times of adblock users still help the channels they're watching immensely. Adblock users are also no less likely than anyone else to buy merch and other stuff that directly helps the creator. 

 

The reason we use adblock is because we don't to watch no bloody ads, and ain't no one gonna force me to do so.

Then when/if YouTube kicks you off, you cannot complain or whine about it.  What you currently are saying effectively is a selfish mentality.

 

Guess what, if everyone used ad-block YouTube would not be a thing.  Do you seriously not understand that it's not JUST about the creator.  Video hosting in particular can cost a ton of money, and yes blocking ads DOES harm other users who don't.  42% use ad-block which means in order for the same amount of profits YouTube has to run 42% more ads (or higher paying ones).

 

13 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Oh really? Maybe if sites wouldve grown a spine and go against advertisers pushing down the prices instead of cramming their sites full of ads to the point where there is some content in the ads we wouldnt have this problem...... (And i wont even get started on the total lack of security.)

Don't like all the ads, then stop using the site; or buy their premium.  Don't think premium is worth it...then tough grow up and pay or watch the ads and stop making the experience worse for everyone else who now has to watch more or pay more because you are circumventing something not due to security but for sheer selfishness.

[Dracarris]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Guess what, if everyone used ad-block YouTube would not be a thing.  Do you seriously not understand that it's not JUST about the creator.  Video hosting in particular can cost a ton of money, and yes blocking ads DOES harm other users who don't.  42% use ad-block which means in order for the same amount of profits YouTube has to run 42% more ads (or higher paying ones).

Will someone please think about the poor, poor people at Google? Heck, some folks over there have to make ends meet with only a 150k$ salary! Maybe we should give them more usage/personal data they can sell, if we already forbid them to drown us in ads!

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Don't like all the ads, then stop using the site; or buy their premium.  Don't think premium is worth it...then tough grow up and pay or watch the ads and stop making the experience worse for everyone else who now has to watch more or pay more because you are circumventing something not due to security but for sheer selfishness.

It's not the ads, it's the frequency and type of ads and total absence of any sort of QC that's pissing people off. Also, "their premium" comes frankly bundled with stuff that nobody really wants. Give us a reasonable cheap subscription that makes them a bit more than they'd otherwise get through ads (which is tiny per user), which removes ads, gives the higher-bitrate 1080p option, and allows for background play on mobile. That last one is absolutely ridiculous artificial product segmentation. Nobody should be required to pay for that, and it simply causes people to leave video running in the foreground in their pocket, needlessly wasting bandwidth and energy.

Over 10$ per month without needing their music service is just plain bullshit.

19 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Premium is too much, I dont care for music portion and would sub if it was about half the cost.

Use a VPN (maybe even trial) to create a new login session in countries like Argentina or Turkey, then subscribe to Premium. You will pay much less than half of the US/EU price and once you've subbed and setup payment, you never going to need such an IP again. Well unless they start cracking down on that as well, lets see.

I currently pay about 1$ per month due to the crazy volatile Argentinian Peso exchange rate and don't use YT Music. In the end, both the creators I watch and Google probably make more money from me than they would if I'd watch with their flood of ads.

And for direct creator support, anyways please use Patreon, Floatplane or similar mechanisms and absolutely nothing that goes through Google.

[starsmine]

37 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Will someone please think about the poor, poor people at Google? Heck, some folks over there have to make ends meet with only a 150k$ salary! Maybe we should give them more usage/personal data they can sell, if we already forbid them to drown us in ads!

Yes google isnt poor.

YOUTUBE is though. The only reason they are able to make a profit today is because they dont have to pay google to use their ad engine, even that is not a sure thing. 

[Mark Kaine]

i wonder about the legality of something like this... after all ads are a known *huge* security risk on the internet and while google is "private" eh? they're also publicly available for *none members* and certainly have "some" responsibility for their innocent, unwitting users (in EU at least, rest of the world doesnt seem to have any sense for consumer protection,  except Canada maybe ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 

[Dracarris]

6 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Yes google isnt poor.

YOUTUBE is though. The only reason they are able to make a profit today is because they dont have to pay google to use their ad engine, even that is not a sure thing. 

True that Youtube is cross-financed within Google.

 

Still, I don't see why it is my job as a consumer to be responsible for financing a division of one of the biggest corporations on the planet through shitty ads or ill-constructed premium plans because they can't get their shit together.

Make a 3$ or even 5$ premium plan that gives the features I described. They'd probably be swimming in money.

[Mark Kaine]

21 hours ago, grg994 said:

Upping this once because many users are reporting that Youtube apparently started to roll out this anti-adblock popup on a massive scale today: https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/

sorry, what exactly are you referring to? all i see is a bunch of threads how "it happened to them" or how they "will never turn off adblock".... can you guys decide for once...? lol

 

what's happening then.... i see no change at all.... adblock still works, i haven't seen an ad on yt in decades... what's all the drama about really?

 

why link reddit anyways lmao

[Donut417]

3 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Well unless they start cracking down on that as well, lets see.

Thats the issue. Because if Netflix and the other streaming services crack down on VPN's, whats to stop Youtube.

[Dedayog]

On 5/10/2023 at 7:56 PM, grg994 said:

Summary

 

 

Quotes

 

My thoughts

Most adblock extensions will most likely successfully develop and deploy anti-adblock circumventing measures for Youtube as it is done for many websites already.

 

But more importantly I would like to note that Google Chrome is planning to remove support for a some browser extension APIs (Manifest V2 / eg. webRequest API) which are necessary for more sophisticated adblocking techniques, including the ones which are used in anti-adblock circumvention.

Currently Manifest V2 support removal is indefinitely postponed (due to design issues mostly unrelated to adblocking-related API things), but once it happens Google will have much better ability to enforce adblock prohibition on Youtube at least for Chrome users.

 

Sources

https://www.ign.com/articles/google-responds-to-reports-of-ad-blockers-being-banned-on-youtube

100% fine with that.

 

People just want shit for free without regard to the cost to get it to them.

 

People are the issue, not Youtube.  

[Dedayog]

7 minutes ago, Dean0919 said:

I despise ads and usually if a website is having a problem with my adblocker, I leave that website unless I really need something very much from that website. Ads ruin design and make websites sluggish and slow. I don't think I hate anything more than ads on the Internet.

Please outline the payments you have made to the websites you visit.

 

I am working on tracking how much you get from a website vs how much you give them for said information.

 

 

[Dracarris]

2 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Thats the issue. Because if Netflix and the other streaming services crack down on VPN's, whats to stop Youtube.

So far, I guess the issue is just way too small for them to actually start cracking it down. I'll enjoy it while it lasts.

32 minutes ago, Dedayog said:

People just want shit for free without regard to the cost to get it to them.

 

People are the issue, not Youtube.  

Nope, not at all.

 

Like, absolutely not. Both things are wrong.

And the issue are not people, but YTs subscription models/plan that make no sense.

[Mihle]

You can think Google have enough money or don't deserve it.

 

But if you think Google don't have the right to try to stop you from using ad-blocker, you are just wrong.

[jagdtigger]

8 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

What you currently are saying effectively is a selfish mentality.

What im telling you is the root of the problem, whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

 

8 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Then when/if YouTube kicks you off, you cannot complain or whine about it

 I can, i will, and you canmot do anything against it. You better come back down to earth otherwise sooner or later you will be in for a very rude awakening.

Besides, this is just anotger futile attempt and will fail like the rest.

[starsmine]

4 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

What im telling you is the root of the problem, whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

 

 I can, i will, and you canmot do anything against it. You better come back down to earth otherwise sooner or later you will be in for a very rude awakening.

Besides, this is just anotger futile attempt and will fail like the rest.

OH NO, a store threw me out because I kept using their products and services that they asked for payment on, and I never paid them. 
THE STORE IS WRONG.

I dont like ads either, I run Adblock because of how aggressive sites are, and I don't complain about them not letting me use the site. I just complain about how aggressive the ad models are to not only pay for the user without adblock, but the half dozen ad block visitors (and greed because we do know that some(not all, but some) sites would still use gross models if adblock wasn't a thing). 

youtube aint generally agressive and premium aint expensive if you use the site daily like many do. 

[Lupino]

37 minutes ago, starsmine said:

OH NO, a store threw me out because I kept using their products and services that they asked for payment on, and I never paid them. 
THE STORE IS WRONG.

Unfortunately, that "store" metaphor doesn't work in the digital era. While for one, the sold good is constrained by limited resources, for the other it is pieces of information, that in itself does't require any resources to be distributed among a large number of people¹: while a bakery, for instance, can only produce so many breads in a day with limited resources, the good of a digital "store" is (almost) limitlessly and instantanuously reproducable. We are talking about two completely different economic systems.

¹Yes, it takes electricity and infrastructure to distribute information, but it is the medium that is limited by those resources, not the information itself.

[Dracarris]

52 minutes ago, starsmine said:

youtube aint generally agressive and premium aint expensive if you use the site daily like many do. 

12$ or whatever it is now for removing ads is horridly expensive, period. It's fine if you use YT music, which many don't need. As long as that is a mandatory part of YT premium, it remains rubbish. 12$ buys you subscriptions that unlock content the provider has to pay for (Netflix e.g), plus the streaming delivery service. For YT, the content is absolutely free to them. So this pricing remains horseshiet.

[Theminecraftaddict555]

Wait is the popup that infrequenty shows up the only thing that was implemented? If so, this doesn't really change anything

[wanderingfool2]

9 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Will someone please think about the poor, poor people at Google? Heck, some folks over there have to make ends meet with only a 150k$ salary! Maybe we should give them more usage/personal data they can sell, if we already forbid them to drown us in ads!

Oh look the big box store has theft insurance and is making hands over fists in money.  Lets steal from them because no one feels sorry for the big box stores.

 

It doesn't matter if you think Google makes too much money.  YouTube had a history of LOSING billions.  Google was closing in on bankruptcy before going towards target ads.

 

9 hours ago, Dracarris said:

It's not the ads, it's the frequency and type of ads and total absence of any sort of QC that's pissing people off. Also, "their premium" comes frankly bundled with stuff that nobody really wants. Give us a reasonable cheap subscription that makes them a bit more than they'd otherwise get through ads (which is tiny per user), which removes ads, gives the higher-bitrate 1080p option, and allows for background play on mobile. That last one is absolutely ridiculous artificial product segmentation. Nobody should be required to pay for that, and it simply causes people to leave video running in the foreground in their pocket, needlessly wasting bandwidth and energy.

Over 10$ per month without needing their music service is just plain bullshit.

Chicken and the egg.  If there wasn't adblock they would have 42% more ad revenue; which mean less ads (or better curated ads)

 

Do I think Google as a whole needs to do better in terms of what types of ads they deliver?  Yea, but if I block them like most people do because they don't want to see the ads, then I don't have the right to act as though I am somehow entitled to the service.  I don't get to act like I should be allowed accessing it, and act like doing so without ads isn't hurting other people.

 

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

I can, i will, and you canmot do anything against it. You better come back down to earth otherwise sooner or later you will be in for a very rude awakening.

Besides, this is just anotger futile attempt and will fail like the rest.

Your entitedist logic is the same that people use to steal from big box stores.  Grow up and accept that you are not entitled to get things for free.  It's peoples mentality like yours that are resulting in so many services going to the models they are.

 

46 minutes ago, Lupino said:

Unfortunately, that "store" metaphor doesn't work in the digital era. While for one, the sold good is constrained by limited resources, for the other it is pieces of information, that in itself does't require any resources to be distributed among a large number of people¹: while a bakery, for instance, can only produce so many breads in a day with limited resources, the good of a digital "store" is (almost) limitlessly and instantanuously reproducable. We are talking about two completely different economic systems.

¹Yes, it takes electricity and infrastructure to distribute information, but it is the medium that is limited by those resources, not the information itself.

I'm sorry, but no that isn't how digital works.  Also if you want a closer analogy then it could be said the people who steal electricity

 

Try streaming 10 HD movies from your HDD; it's going to get bogged down.  The cost to provide HD video over the internet is actually quite high.

 

Lets say each YouTube video is 0.5 GB (probably an underestimate).  You can buy HDD's at 16 TB for maybe $200 (underestimate).  Now Google  has to have a form of redundancy; so that lets say is now 16TB for $400.  That means each video costs at least $0.01 in harddrive space/5 years (because HDD's fail).

 

While small, it's still costly when you consider that so many of those videos will be ones that have 5 - 10 views (where ads haven't been run on).

 

Now bandwidth and usage costs, that could cost maybe $0.005/GB.  If lets say a video had 1 million views, based on average pricing for youtube  ads, that's $2000 / 100,000 in terms of revenue.  That's $20,000 on that 1 million ad views, but you can probably watch maybe 3 - 4 videos before an ad; so $5000 for 1 million views...but 42% use adblock so $2,900.  Bandwidth cost, 0.5 * 0.005 * 1000000 = $2500.  (This differs wildly based on the types of ads being ran, and location of the end user)

 

Overall digital transmission of data is a limited resource and one that can actually cost quite a bit.  Look at floatplane, they claim to have priced it at a point where they make a very small margin (to the creators).  Video hosting can get expensive quickly

[PocketNerd]

The only reasons I use an ad-blocker are thus:

 

- They break up content to the point it’s a bad viewing/reading experience 

- They slow down the loading of the website (YouTube is not generally a problem)

- There is no security surrounding them and can and will install malware

 

Fix those? Ad blocker is gone. Like this very forum.

[Fasterthannothing]

On 5/11/2023 at 1:07 AM, Kisai said:

There is no legitimate reason to block ads on a site that isn't a garbage site. Block ads on garbage sites, because those are sites peddle in stolen content anyway. Blocking ads on youtube is just being a spiteful jerk.

YouTube kinda is a garbage site since the throw ads into a video like every 2 minutes now. If they bloc ad blockers l will absolutely straight up stop watching YouTube 

[Mark Kaine]

12 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Will someone please think about the poor, poor people at Google?

what gets me is that poster seems to think no youtube would be a bad thing... lol.

 

it needs to go, and google with it.

 

all it does is waste tons of important resources globally,  there's no real justification for such a gigantic waste of resources to exist.

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

2 hours ago, Fasterthannothing said:

YouTube kinda is a garbage site since google bought it

FTFY!  

[Mark Kaine]

6 hours ago, Dedayog said:

People just want shit for free without regard to the cost to get it to them

my time isnt free either... does yt pay me for watching their low quality content that ~80% consists of hilarious conspiracy theory videos?  no? so who's getting what for free?

 

 

make it members only if the content is so good... problem solved.

 

 

6 hours ago, Dedayog said:

People are the issue, not Youtube.  

the fact that Youtube has a near total monopoly on certain content is the problem,  and *absolutely nothing else* is in this context .

[TetraSky]

Yeah, I got blocked on Youtube for using uBlock Origin as well...
Then I deactivated it, but left Vivaldi's built-in adblocker on. Apparently youtube doesn't detect that one yet, because I can watch videos again with no ads and no popup.