Today YouTube started blocking attempts to view it with an ad-blocker,<snip>
giving me the choice of paying $14 a month in perpetuity or of turning
off my ad-blocker (AdBlock Plus on Firefox under Ubuntu).
If I can't fix this, I'll probably just give up on watching anything
on YouTube.
Today YouTube started blocking attempts to view it with an ad-blocker,
giving me the choice of paying $14 a month in perpetuity or of turning
off my ad-blocker (AdBlock Plus on Firefox under Ubuntu).
I don't get bothered by ads or counter-blocks.
I used to use AdBlock Plus, but an ad blocker that subjects you to
its own ads misses the point.
Today YouTube started blocking attempts to view it with an ad-blocker,
giving me the choice of paying $14 a month in perpetuity or of turning
off my ad-blocker (AdBlock Plus on Firefox under Ubuntu).
Turning off my ad-blocker resulted in a very unpleasant experience
with YouTube, with multiple ads both before and in the middle of
whatever I was trying to view, and additional stationary ads to the
side. Years ago, the ads were only before the video, and you could
skip them after the first five seconds. I might as well be watching
the "vast wasteland" that is over-the-air TV.
If I can't fix this, I'll probably just give up on watching anything
on YouTube.
I've tried using a private window in Firefox (Incognito in Chrome)
and rejecting cookies and that seemed to work for the moment.
Obviously that means you can't comment or whatever - but that might
not be an issue for you.
Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
I've tried using a private window in Firefox (Incognito in Chrome)
and rejecting cookies and that seemed to work for the moment.
Obviously that means you can't comment or whatever - but that might
not be an issue for you.
I tried that, and I got ads. Even worse, the first (and only, since I immediately aborted out of it) ad was Christmas-themed. I don't like
to see anything Christmas-themed before December. *Especially* before November. Christmas season isn't special if it's Christmas season for
a large proportion of the year. It got up to 80 F (27 C) yesterday,
not exactly Yuletide weather. I didn't even start raking until today.
Today YouTube started blocking attempts to view it with an ad-blocker, giving me the choice of paying $14 a month in perpetuity or of turning
off my ad-blocker (AdBlock Plus on Firefox under Ubuntu).
Turning off my ad-blocker resulted in a very unpleasant experience
with YouTube, with multiple ads both before and in the middle of
whatever I was trying to view, and additional stationary ads to the
side. Years ago, the ads were only before the video, and you could
skip them after the first five seconds. I might as well be watching
the "vast wasteland" that is over-the-air TV.
If I can't fix this, I'll probably just give up on watching anything
on YouTube.
It's not as if my not viewing the ads was harming them in any way,
as I've never had the slightest interest in anything they advertise.
People who are interested in the ads won't block them, so what's the
*point* in their new rule? Just to be mean?
I tried simply disabling JavaScript, but YouTube won't work at all
without it.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 00:30:42 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch
<kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
Today YouTube started blocking attempts to view it with an ad-blocker,
giving me the choice of paying $14 a month in perpetuity or of turning
off my ad-blocker (AdBlock Plus on Firefox under Ubuntu).
I've heard the uBlock Origins is better but it is still cat & mouse.
So it depends on whether the cat or the mouse is winning this week.
Turning off my ad-blocker resulted in a very unpleasant experience
with YouTube, with multiple ads both before and in the middle of
whatever I was trying to view, and additional stationary ads to the
side. Years ago, the ads were only before the video, and you could
skip them after the first five seconds. I might as well be watching
the "vast wasteland" that is over-the-air TV.
If I can't fix this, I'll probably just give up on watching anything
on YouTube.
I've tried using a private window in Firefox (Incognito in Chrome) and >rejecting cookies and that seemed to work for the moment. Obviously
that means you can't comment or whatever - but that might not be an
issue for you.
On 10/31/23 7:48 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
I've tried using a private window in Firefox (Incognito in Chrome)
and rejecting cookies and that seemed to work for the moment.
Obviously that means you can't comment or whatever - but that might
not be an issue for you.
I tried that, and I got ads. Even worse, the first (and only, since I
immediately aborted out of it) ad was Christmas-themed. I don't like
to see anything Christmas-themed before December. *Especially* before
November. Christmas season isn't special if it's Christmas season for
a large proportion of the year. It got up to 80 F (27 C) yesterday,
not exactly Yuletide weather. I didn't even start raking until today.
You might appreciate this video, even if you have to go through ads: >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDlFzC8tCRg
There was a sudden freeze in New Hampshire overnight, after being over
70 F. on Saturday.
I wonder how Keith thinks YouTube should finance its operations.
According to the uBO team Youtube changes the detection script twice
per day to defeat the various well-known ad-blockers.
Youtube's ad blocker blocker is NOT rolled out everywhere yet so if
you use an ad-blocker without seeing any issues this may be why.
Yeah, it seems to be cookie & account based so private windows OR
eradicating all tracks of Google/Youtube login and cookies does seem
to help.
However as you mention it does result in some "missing features" and
I wouldn't be surprised if this is temporary, IE that once it's
rolled out in all regions and users it'll also start affecting
people that isn't logged in.
Youtube will definitely loose some users over this but I expect that
it WILL be a net positive for them, even if I hate it.
Peter Trei wrote:
I wonder how Keith thinks YouTube should finance its operations.
A private window on Firefox resulted in the adblock icon disappearing,
and my getting the all-ads-all-the-time YouTube experience.
On 11/1/23 12:18 AM, Peter Trei wrote:
I wonder how Keith thinks YouTube should finance its operations.
Google has figured out some ways to do it without ads, which is probably
why they're rich and (I assume) you aren't. They have YouTube Premium, YouTube Music, and YouTube TV. None of them are worth the price to me.
Youtube's ad blocker blocker is NOT rolled out everywhere yet so if
you use an ad-blocker without seeing any issues this may be why.
"Everywhere" in terms of geography, or in terms of browser, player,
and app?
On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 16:40:50 -0400, Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
Google has figured out some ways to do it without ads, which is probably
why they're rich and (I assume) you aren't. They have YouTube Premium,
YouTube Music, and YouTube TV. None of them are worth the price to me.
Yeah Youtube Premium is a £12/month rolling contract - that just isn't
worth it in the UK, at least not for me.
The ads have always been available to those who are interested in
them. Forcing those who aren't interested in them to view them won't
result in any additional sales, hence doesn't benefit the advertiser
or anyone else, but merely wastes everyone's time and annoys people.
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
The ads have always been available to those who are interested in
them. Forcing those who aren't interested in them to view them won't
result in any additional sales, hence doesn't benefit the advertiser
or anyone else, but merely wastes everyone's time and annoys people.
I hate to tell you this, Keith, but this is not how advertising works.
If you think this is how advertising works, you are missing most of the
ways advertising manipulates you. To be fair, some advertisers do also.
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
The ads have always been available to those who are interested in
them. Forcing those who aren't interested in them to view them
won't result in any additional sales, hence doesn't benefit the
advertiser or anyone else, but merely wastes everyone's time and
annoys people.
I hate to tell you this, Keith, but this is not how advertising
works. If you think this is how advertising works, you are missing
most of the ways advertising manipulates you. To be fair, some
advertisers do also.
On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 16:40:50 -0400, Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
On 11/1/23 12:18 AM, Peter Trei wrote:
I wonder how Keith thinks YouTube should finance its operations.
Google has figured out some ways to do it without ads, which is probably
why they're rich and (I assume) you aren't. They have YouTube Premium,
YouTube Music, and YouTube TV. None of them are worth the price to me.
Yeah Youtube Premium is a £12/month rolling contract - that just isn't
worth it in the UK, at least not for me.
On 11/2/23 8:53 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
The ads have always been available to those who are interested in
them. Forcing those who aren't interested in them to view them won't
result in any additional sales, hence doesn't benefit the advertiser
or anyone else, but merely wastes everyone's time and annoys people.
I hate to tell you this, Keith, but this is not how advertising works.
If you think this is how advertising works, you are missing most of the
ways advertising manipulates you. To be fair, some advertisers do also.
You're making a big assumption in that. Unless you know a lot about how
a particular person thinks, you can't say how or whether advertising >manipulates them. People aren't off-the-line puppets, nor do advertisers >assume they are. As long as enough people respond positively to justify
the expenditure, without generating too much hostility in the process,
the advertisers consider it a win.
Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
On 11/2/23 8:53 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
The ads have always been available to those who are interested in
them. Forcing those who aren't interested in them to view them won't
result in any additional sales, hence doesn't benefit the advertiser
or anyone else, but merely wastes everyone's time and annoys people.
I hate to tell you this, Keith, but this is not how advertising works.
If you think this is how advertising works, you are missing most of the
ways advertising manipulates you. To be fair, some advertisers do also.
You're making a big assumption in that. Unless you know a lot about how
a particular person thinks, you can't say how or whether advertising
manipulates them. People aren't off-the-line puppets, nor do advertisers
assume they are. As long as enough people respond positively to justify
the expenditure, without generating too much hostility in the process,
the advertisers consider it a win.
It doesn't matter how advertising manipulates one person. It only matters how advertising manipulates most people in a population, because that is
what affects how advertisers behave.
As ads get more targetted that population may get smaller. But advertisers don't care about Keith specifically, they care about the group of which
he is a part. And as long as advertising keeps manipulating most people, it's not going to change.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 399 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 70:05:57 |
| Calls: | 8,356 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,159 |
| Messages: | 5,895,047 |