Yeah, and YT Music is included too right? Because I have YT Music and no ads and it's really cheap compared to other services. I pay COP$17900 which is little less than USD$4. I used to pay around USD$10 for Spotify.

> Yeah, and YT Music is included too right?

Correct and I believe YT Music pays much more per listen than Spotify to the artist.

Yeah. Subscribed as soon as my kid got old enough to use it

What makes it worth it? Isn't the experience the same as just running an ad-blocker?

YT Premium only makes the problem worse by requiring you to log in using an account that is tied to your real world identity and was used for payment processing. You just end up giving more data points to Google to track you, cross-reference with other sources and shove more ads in other platforms, still get native ads, and Google can just add their own ads later (as it is happening step by step with streaming companies).

The flip side s that you don't have to use Chrome+Google for everything. I buy ebooks and watch youtube on it, plus my phone (so I buy android apps via the same google account). And Gmail is my fallback email account so that doesn't see much traffic.

I use 3-4 browsers and because WFH + VM's for coding some incidental sandboxing.

I don't run an adblocker on my phone, YouTube Music is included and the creators still get paid.

The main reason they get paid is that their income is primarily from sponsorships and affiliate links now. Youtube premium doesn't block that, and it's a much more insidious kind of ad.

It makes you think you're watching somebody being authentic, when really it's a business disguising itself as an authentic person that's trying to sell you things (whether out of bias or strategy)

I usually stick with known quantities and avoid any scummy looking channel.

I have no problem watching the in video Gamer Nexus ads and don't expect paying for YouTube premium to skip those ads.

Creators get paid MORE per stream by a premium user than an ad free user.

You can watch on all of your devices, even the ones where setting up an ad-blocker is non trivial or impossible.

It is pretty trivial on every device I have used. Which ones are a challenge?

How about a smart TV, a streaming stick/box (e.g. Roku, Amazon Fire Stick), or a games console?

Pi-hole will work for some types of ad on all devices, but I'm not sure how it'd work for video ads in an app like YouTube - particularly if Google started serving the ads from the same servers as the content.

In theory, but you actually help the creators you enjoy watching.

I subscribe to their Patreons, thank you very much.

Well, my hubby’s iPad and our iPhones don’t support ad blocking on YouTube, nor does my Smart TV, so…ad blocking only works on 1/5 of my husband’s devices and my own would actually be effective with ad blocking, for one…

(And before you say ‘just switch to Android’, I’m an iOS/WatchOS dev and a music producer for a living - if anything with the recent announcement of Logic on the iPad, I’ll be buying another iPads not reducing them…)

Vinegar for iOS has made YouTube much less obnoxious https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/vinegar-tube-cleaner/id1591303...

Install Brave for ad blocking YouTube on iOS.

Actually better, because I share it with my family and no one has to deal with installing / configuring adblockers on different platforms (mobile app, TV, laptops whatever) It also includes Music so together I think it is a pretty good deal. Prices in some countries are ridiculously cheap as well (<$2 monthly in India, Turkey) , but of course that could change in time.

My only problem is the sponsored content in youtube videos, I would give some extra money to skip that crap as well.

My main issue is the tracking, if youtube premium stopped the awful tracking i would be fine, but it doesn't.

I had YouTube Family at $15/month until this month, when they raised the price to $23. I signed up back when Google Play Music was still a thing.

I was never able to get into YouTube Music, though, so I don't actually use it to stream my music. The fact that my playlists are shared between YouTube and YouTube Music is enough for me to drop it from serious consideration as a music streaming service on its own. That, plus the lack of lossless streaming, inconsistent, clunky UI, and lack of any positive features that distinguish it from Spotify, Tidal, and Apple Music, is why I never used it for anything other than sharing songs with people who didn't use Tidal.

That they apparently also include ads in the albums I transferred from Google Play Music - albums that I paid for - is just added insult.

The main way I justified paying the subscription was that other people in my household got access to ad-free music streaming (and they actually used it, unlike me), Youtubers get comped more from me watching their videos, and I didn't have to worry about whole-home adblockers to remove ads from the app. But after a 50% price hike that takes it above the prices for Tidal Family ($15), Apple Music Family ($17), and Spotify Family ($16), it's not something I can justify anymore.

(Youtube Music Family is $15, FWIW, but it doesn't include Youtube itself.)

> That, plus the lack of lossless streaming, inconsistent, clunky UI, and lack of any positive features that distinguish it from Spotify, Tidal, and Apple Music, is why I never used it for anything other than sharing songs with people who didn't use Tidal.

The UX and performance of the YouTube Music web client is so much worse than the old Google Music web client. I used to be able to scroll my entire album collection without a hiccup on Google Music, that's now impossible with YouTube Music

I'm still incredibly salty about this as well.

I don't like paying a platform that rose to prominence because of piracy, just so that I can watch IP created by other people without youtube inserting a really intense number of ads into the experience. And all the vidoes are ads anyway, it's just via sponsorships and affiliate links now.

It feels deeply icky

> I don't like paying a platform that rose to prominence because of piracy

Is that true? Yeah it's there, more so in the past, but I have to imagine that was a tiny amount of their viewership. I'd imagine most viewing is from individual channels of real people.

Pirated shows are still a mainstay. I watch pirate ufc content often, and its not even hard to find.

can you link a specific example? youtube's anti-piracy measures are quite strict in my experience.

Is it possible to get YouTube Premium without a credit-card? That is what stopped me from subscribing before.

If you don't pay with a card then what would you pay with?

Probably gift cards like Play Store ones. In fact as it is all Google I think it already could be a thing

Yeah I guess playstore and apple giftcards work

Something that doesn't get Google to ban accounts? Blocking a payment to Google or doing a charge-back is involved in nearly all account closure complaints on this site.

Btw: as someone who's worked in banks, I'd like to point out that there are circumstances where some banks will charge-back automatically (or outright "accept the payment", then not pay), if they suspect fraud for example.

Local payment solutions like iDEAL, Bancontact, Prezelewy24, PayU, AliPay, Klarna or something like PayPal. Or through your mobile phone bill.

Credit-cards are not that common here in Euro-land.

> Credit-cards are not that common here in Euro-land.

But debit cards are, which also work, it's not just credit cards.

In Europe there are a few options which let you pay with your bank account without a credit card. I tried to look up all the things Wise supports, found part of the list:

Trustly, Sofort, IDEAL

IDEAL is huge in the Netherlands for example.

I subscribe with a Debit Card. Works perfectly fine.

HN/Reddit : For years, "I'm happy to pay for services that has no/few ads".

Companies: Here's a ad-free version. Subscribe

HN/Reddit: Why are you asking me to subscribe? I hate this

Except we paid for other streamers for an ad-free experience – until they started inserting ads again. Do we believe that Google of all companies won't pull a switcheroo in a few years?

Not on my dime.

By this kind of hypothetical assumption, you shouldn't pay for anything, as the other party might change the terms in future, or in your parlance, "pull a switcheroo"

Yes, exactly. Brand loyalty is a thing.

You are free to go to rumble and rot your brain

No one is forcing you to use YouTube. Illegally circumventing the Terms of Service is unethical/stealing. As long as you agree to the terms, you can do whatever you want.

I can only pity the people who don't find YouTube a valuable source of information/wisdom and use emotions/irrationality to drive decisions, while making sub-optimal financial decisions in every part of their life

it might work for you, but most people don't win from pretending that not watching ads is 'stealing' and are not going to go along with it lol

illegally? is Google going to take us to court by blocking the ads? please mind the use of the word

If it is wisdom you seek, you're gonna have to close your laptop my friend!

Why is it unethical to do things just because a megacorp wrote a one-sided "agreement" not to?

Wow, if you are White/American how will it feel if I use the same argument to rob from you?

In fact that is the exact line of reasoning used by Indian Call Scammers when they steal from Americans. Thanks for telling me you are cut from the same piece of cloth

If you wanted a contract, they'd honor it for the term of the contract but you'd have to pay for that up front but statistically nobody online likes to pay for content so the ad-funded model is pervasive. The ethical choices are either to accept the service as offered or watch something which is offered under terms you find more acceptable.

Why are those the only ethical choices? What ethical framework are you assuming?

Because there are two parties involved and those are the options which have mutual agreement.

> Illegally circumventing the Terms of Service is unethical/stealing.

That seems like a difficult argument to make because laws don't always align with ethics. Given the myriad of replies around this topic, it seems like opinions on the ethics of violating the ToS are mixed. It gets even more complicated when you consider that very few people have the time/skills to read/interpret such a complex and lengthy ToS. At what point is a company not morally complicit for taking advantage of the layman's inability to understand such a legal document? It doesn't help that the UI/UX seems to deliberately provide incentive for users to blindly accept.

> No one is forcing you to use YouTube.

Doubt it. Ever been required to watch a video for a class?

There are limits to terms of service. Where does it end? Is it unethical to mute and switch to another tab to wait out the ad? How about simply looking away? Regardless of what the terms of service says I have the ultimate control of what I decide to take in. Adblocking is a way to assert that right to selectively let in stuff into my sphere of perception.

youtube premium isn't a contract that punishes cancelling. If you don't like the service stop subscribing.

Please teach me how I can watch Linus Tech Tips on YouTube without ads with YouTube premium and without installing an extension.

There are several levels of ads on YouTube and paying for YouTube premium only gets rid of one.

Can't speak to this channel specifically, but SponsorBlock works incredibly well, even for medium to smaller-sized channels.

That's an extension.

Really? I don’t think I’ve ever seen an ad on Premium.

Every large youtube channel has sponsorship on it nowadays, it's like 1-2 minute ad segments in every video. Paying for premium doesn't stop that.

No, but it's easy to fast forward through them.

Or just don't watch videos that are littered with sponsors ads and maybe creators will do it less.

Isn't Linus Tech Tips an ad, though? The only times I've looked at it all I've seen is sponsored content with breaks to talk about sponsors and maybe buy some merch. Oh, and exhortations to use their affiliate links. And that's using Premium, I expect that without it the sponsored content would be broken up by youtube's ads.

Maybe my expectations are biased by subscribing to Nebula? And for those who do, Medlife Crisis just posted a fun video on the placebo effect featuring great (fake) sponsor callouts.

Do you consider the whole video to be "an ad" when the sponsor is a shoe company and the video is about a graphics card? I don't.

They do make videos where the entire thing is sponsored by the company whose product is the subject of the video. But it's like one or two a month.

And 5-10 seconds to mention merch is annoying sometimes but doesn't really change the nature of the video.

Press the L button twice when Linus says "just like the segway to our sp.."

i don't even hate ads or the idea of targeted advertising in theory but 20+ years into the panopticon and the company that has the most information about my purchasing habits, interests and dislikes still has never shown me any advertising that was even remotely relevant to my life. i still have better odds of seeing something i actually want to buy just by flipping through the paper and those adverts don't demand that i put my life on pause just because corporation x spent a whole lot of money on a branding campaign that is annoying, unfunny and makes me hate them and their products.

I love getting ads for things I've already bought.

Yes, I just bought a mattress, of course I'm interested in getting another one.

Oh, a new fridge! Always good to have a spare! Thanks Google!

Modern internet is absolutely unbearable without adblock.

This somewhat alludes to a question I have wondered for quite a while. Are there any compelling data that digital advertising even works?

Sure, if one clicks on an ad then immediately buys a product, then perhaps that would be more straightforward. However, I just do not think that is very common, but I could be wrong.

It just seems like there is some kind of false notion that if a company creates ads and the company has an increase in sales, then it must be because of the ads, when in reality, it could be entirely coincidental.

Tangental, but I intentionally boycott products that have annoying ads. I will walk to the ends of the Earth before I use GEICO, for example.

There are ads in every video content nowadays. Did you miss the past 10 years or something ?

Keep in mind that HN/Reddit is comprised of thousands or millions of people and there may or may not be overlap between those saying the first thing and later the second.

The rule of thumb according to youtubers is that 1000 video views is worth about $1 of ad share. Youtube's ad share is about 50%, so 1000 video views should be worth about $2 of ad money for Youtube. Youtube Premium costs $12 a month which is equivalent to 6000 video views per month or ~200 video views per day. If I'm on a very youtuby mood I'll maybe watch 10 videos in a day. So, best case scenario, paying for premium comes with a 20x markup.

So your conversation actually goes:

HN/Reddit: "I would love to just give you the money directly instead of watching ads in exchange for advertizers giving you money."

Companies: "Sure, here's the ad-free version. You have to pay 20 times as much as the advertizers do though."

HN/Reddit: "Wait, what? That's bullshit. Why?"

Companies: "Fuck you, that's why."

HN/Reddit: "I would love to just give you the money directly instead of watching ads in exchange for advertissers giving you money."

Companies: "Sure, here's the ad-free version. You have to pay 20 times as much as the advertissers do though."

anticensor: "OK, then; what if I pay the same amount as for the ad-free one, and you show me twice as many ads as before?"

Companies: "OK, deal."

The people willing to pay are the ones advertisers want to reach. Obviously we don't know the breakdown, but it's reasonable to think that advertisers would be willing to spend 20x less per ad if the high value users never saw them.

What, so Google can track me better? I hate YouTube's recommendation system and only watch videos in a Private browsing window. I would happily pay for YouTube if they wouldn't track me, shovel shit in my face, or otherwise misuse my data.

There's a really simple reason for this - HN/Reddit is not one person. It consists of multiple people with different opinions, and as such, there is no singular opinion to be found.

Plot twist: the content is actually not ad-free. (sponsored sections aren't removed from the videos)

I use YouTube infrequently and I still find it worth it. I don't at all mind paying to get rid of ads. But if there is no option to pay, and you try to force ads, I'll choose not using your service instead. An ad-based service is not something I'm interested in.

It seems inferior to a combination of ublock origin and sponsorblock. Unlike using these two, you don't have the option of staying logged out while watching videos without being bombarded by ads.