uBO does work fine, and is easily one of the most valuable pieces of end user software there is. Raymond Hill is very generous and has made a very positive impact on the world.
There is no "entitlement" to videos. They are free. YouTube sends them to us for free. They do so hoping we're gonna look at the ads. We're under exactly zero obligation to actually do that though. It is not at all our responsibility to make their business model work.
Abusing open source developers is the true entitlement.
They're relying on me doing work to run a browser that renders their ads, rather than providing a binary. They're not sending me a page of ads, they're sending me a couple files that I can choose how to show and what to put through a JavaScript interpreter
I have revanced which edits their binary to remove ads. I don't see what your point has to do with mine though. My point is this: adblock users are grazing from youtube's field. We are eating the grass that youtube has planted and watered. To expect that such a field exists and then to expect that it can be eaten from at will is entitlement. To say "but they put up no fence" (or, more accurately, a weak fence) is not a refutation of this point. In fact it is exactlty what defines it as being a tragedy of the commons.
As GP said, maybe this is not your position, but it's a common enough one that their comment is not out of line (given that you are the one who replied to them).
Sure. Let's see them return HTTP 402 Payment Required instead of a free video stream then. I'm actually okay with that.
Somehow I doubt they'll ever do that. They want that mass market appeal, don't they? I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. Just like the "free" apps who do anything in the world to get themselves installed so they can start monetizing.
They need to either start charging everyone for access or stop complaining. I pay for access to a lot of things but I'm not paying money to avoid ads. I sure as hell am not gonna pay money to watch videos with hard coded ads.
What part of my comment, specifically, is this responding to?
> They need to either start charging everyone for access or stop complaining.
Why?
The notion that detecting our adblocker and actually charging for content are equivalent.
> Why?
Because if they send us ads we'll delete them and there is pretty much nothing they can do about it.
Well then maybe you meant to respond to somebody else, because that's not something I said at any point.
> Because if they send us ads we'll delete them and there is pretty much nothing they can do about it.
This entire HN thread and the linked article are about how they are literally doing something about it, and it's working.
The cat and mouse game is not instantaneous. Give it a little time.
Then don't. It's fine. However please don't complain about not being able to get access to the content on Youtube without paying or watching ads.
> I sure as hell am not gonna pay money to watch videos with hard coded ads.
That's up to the content creators, not Youtube. Very few of my subscribed channels use hard-coded apps and if they do they need to make up for it with worthwhile content.
I don't complain. If I see an ad I just close the tab. uBlock Origin and yt-dlp is the only reason I watch stuff on YouTube at all.
> That's up to the content creators, not Youtube.
Their business relationships are not my concern. I'm not paying to watch ads. Maybe YouTube should implement their own Sponsor Block system for the benefit of their paying customers.
If people don't, then YouTube will stop delivering videos for free. Your argument is pretty disingenuous.
Partly this is by design, where it seems to decide that a creator having a "merch" ad integration doesn't count as an ad. Which might be understandable (but still not what I want) if merch meant creator's face on a mug, but it also includes products where a home fix it channel will have an overlay of products from Home Depot which is literally just an ad with no caveats (an overlay that obscures the video on Chromecast, it's part of YT UI not embedded in the video).
Though I guess I'm also unclear how often I see that because Premium is buggy and how often it's intentional. Ever since they made YT on Chromecast an "app" it's been a disaster of account state bugs where it also keeps trying to enforce safe mode (which blocks half of everything, including practically any music video) because it says it's not logged in even though I'm trying to cast from a phone that is logged in.
this is why you also install sponsorblock (https://sponsor.ajay.app/). Only whitelist the channels you want to "support", if you really want to make sure to eyeball the sponsorship (which doesn't really help unless it happens to be a product you actually are interested in buying).
Google pays out about 50% of ad revenue to content creators, that isn't "almost free" that is many billions of dollars.
> In the end, YouTube takes a 45% cut of a creator’s Premium earnings, just as it does for ad-generated revenue.
https://vidiq.com/blog/post/youtube-premium-creator-revenue/
The fact is, Google takes on no risk and does none of the work of creating content, and takes a 45% cut for distribution, and is free to continue changing their terms to make things worse for content creators.
Do you count YouTube as a "free service" (with ads) in this case?
I wonder if there is an overlap with people that expect free stuff and people that use uBO on YouTube. YT does offer most users YT premium, which gives users an ad free experience.
Disclosure: I worked at YT in the past, but still pay for premium because I don't want the ads.