YouTube's crackdown on ad-blockers officially goes global

[kira setsu]

5 bucks a month I'd see premium being worth it,

but my pc running adblockers and my phone running revance show me how ad ridden youtube really is, even if you bypass all the traditional ads, high chance the youtuber themself will burn 2 or 3 minutes peddling some expensive nonsense too.

 

[TheDreams]

My adblocker on Chrome still works

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

Come on, users! Fight back!

From the recent article re-post (there are live links in that article):

The Complete List of Alternatives to All Google Products
https://www.techspot.com/article/2752-all-google-alternatives/

"YouTube alternatives

Peertube
DTube
Bitchute
Rumble
Vimeo
Brighteon
Bit.tube
Dailymotion
Hooktube "

No offense, but isn't this what YouTube wants? If you've been blocking ads when watching YouTube, then you're only an expense to them that's being moved to another platform. In fact you're helping YouTube while damaging the competition by watching videos on another site while using an Adblocker.

This is not the case if you're willing to pay or watch ads, as long as it's less than what YouTube expects. It's also not the case when you leave YouTube for another platform because a creator has done the same due to being suspended or demonetized. But neither of this is what you're suggesting.

Ads on YouTube are annoying, but I can put up with them. They're up to 20-30 seconds, but usually 5 second and skippable. How many ads depends on what the creator chooses, so you should choose to find less money-hungry YouTubers to follow instead. Inn fact, sometimes I actually prefer the longer ads because they're unskippable but will immediately resume the video upon completing. This applies when I'm doing something where I'm unable to interact with my phone.

My main gripe with YouTube's ads are when they have skippable ads that are more than 2 minutes long (some ads are basically seminars selling a product for like 2 hours). Otherwise it's a business, and if you want to enjoy the benefits they provide then they need to be able to make money.

 

[envirovore]

I watch YouTube daily. Firefox and ABP work just fine together. May want to give Ghostery a try as well. Stay away from Chromium-based browsers.

Ditch ABP and use uBlock Origin.
ABP allow ads through from advertisers that pay them to do so. Being that Google already pays them I could see it possible that it won't be long before users of ABP start seeing ads in YT.
https://www.businessinsider.com/goo...dblock-plus-to-stop-blocking-their-ads-2015-2

 

[Theinsanegamer]

No offense, but isn't this what YouTube wants? If you've been blocking ads when watching YouTube, then you're only an expense to them that's being moved to another platform. In fact you're helping YouTube while damaging the competition by watching videos on another site while using an Adblocker.

This is not the case if you're willing to pay or watch ads, as long as it's less than what YouTube expects. It's also not the case when you leave YouTube for another platform because a creator has done the same due to being suspended or demonetized. But neither of this is what you're suggesting.

Ads on YouTube are annoying, but I can put up with them. They're up to 20-30 seconds, but usually 5 second and skippable. How many ads depends on what the creator chooses, so you should choose to find less money-hungry YouTubers to follow instead. Inn fact, sometimes I actually prefer the longer ads because they're unskippable but will immediately resume the video upon completing. This applies when I'm doing something where I'm unable to interact with my phone.

My main gripe with YouTube's ads are when they have skippable ads that are more than 2 minutes long (some ads are basically seminars selling a product for like 2 hours). Otherwise it's a business, and if you want to enjoy the benefits they provide then they need to be able to make money.

You must have missed the part where google sells your personal data for thousands of dollars per year. Oh wont someone think of the poor megacorporation!

If I'm already paying $2000 per year to use youtube, I better not get any ads!

 

[Robbie K]

They are firm on making every person visiting YT to pay for premium.
Why do I think so? Because ads are atrocious. They are not an option but a torture now.
I still remember TV ad frequency before I ditched it for good. YT ads are as horrible and frequent as TV ads.
I wonder if watching from countries where monetization is off could help. Of course, they could start blocking VPN IPs.
They are greedy, and stupid.

I am with you. I don't watch free to air TV and haven't since I was a kid. Hate ads with a passion. I remember when my dad paid for TV and there wasn't any ads and then they introduced ads with pay TV. I can see YT doing the same if we give in and pay them.

 

[Barcham]

I only access YouTube via my PC and I use two ad blockers in EDGE and never see any ads or any warnings. If I start seeing them, I will simply stop using that platform as I have stopped using others in the past when they moved behind a paywall or prohibited the use of ad blockers.

 

[scavengerspc]

I'm not sure who the biggest b*****s are.
YouTube, or the people that think everyone should work for free just for them.

Disable the blocker, pay up, or go elsewhere.
Them be the rules.

 

[yRaz]

I'm not sure who the biggest b*****s are.
YouTube, or the people that think everyone should work for free just for them.

Disable the blocker, pay up, or go elsewhere.
Them be the rules.

If this really is how google wants it then we should be having a 2 way conversation with google about how they sell our data. The product was free because we were the product. Now they want our data AND have us pay money to give it to them. They wont stop collecting and selling your data if you start paying them, they just stop showing you ads. That's where the real conversation needs to start.

 

[brucek]

I should probably be thanking Google for encouraging me to lessen my YouTube habit, but instead I'm using Firefox instead of Chrome where the ads are staying blocked more effectively.

 

[RandomWAN]

That appears to be an Android app only. The same thing for PCs would be nice, especially if it pulls content from YouTube, without the ads.

I haven't tested it, but you could try something like BlueStacks to emulate Android on a PC. That would at least let you run the app. YouTube itself is easy enough to prevent ads and pop-ups with for the moment if that's where you do most of your streaming video consumption.

 

[Gars]

Come on, users! Fight back!

From the recent article re-post (there are live links in that article):

The Complete List of Alternatives to All Google Products
https://www.techspot.com/article/2752-all-google-alternatives/

"YouTube alternatives

Peertube
DTube
Bitchute
Rumble
Vimeo
Brighteon
Bit.tube
Dailymotion
Hooktube "

your list is incomplete, you missed the most imPORtant hub here

 

[kiwigraeme]

Seems if Google could have made this perfectly it would have done so - said it wanted to do something like this a year ago.
They probably could do it in chrome - but it would be so dranconium - they will lose many to other browsers

Ie they need to keep the protection in YT itself - no some big brother in Chrome

So looks like it will never end - I haven't seen adverts for awhile yet - and they were targeting me for 3 weeks or more
I just use adblocker and block any elements that pop up

I don't think they have changed their method much either - YT rotates it's couple of strategies as well over the days - as saw this with element blocking - one method was already blocked - other just needed 5or so more elements blocked

 

[kinetix]

I have never, ever seen a YT ad in my life. lucky to live in one of those places where they don't apply.
Anyway, uBlock and Cookie Autodelete are some of the plugins that I installed immediately in the browser.

 

[Durch]

If it was 1 or 2, 5 second preroll ads every 3 videos, like it use to be, then we wouldn't be here. But now there are unskippable 30 second ads and multiple mid-roll ads.

Whole heartedly agree.

I watch standard YouTube and wouldn't mind a 30 sec ad every now and then is that's what it took. It's the 3-50 min infomercials that makes by blood boil. Anything over 2 minutes should be mandated to be a video that can only be viewed by actively engaging with it, it wastes data and time. I honestly have more engagement with the 15 second and under ads myself.

 

[Vanderlinde]

A fully updated with all filter sets enabled uBlock Origin on Firefox still works for multiple videos just fine without ads.

It's simple,

The Adblock you can find in the store, pretty much closed a deal with Google to "allow" acceptable ads.

When you run Ublock Origin - the whole thing does not appear.

 

[Vanderlinde]

If this really is how google wants it then we should be having a 2 way conversation with google about how they sell our data. The product was free because we were the product. Now they want our data AND have us pay money to give it to them. They wont stop collecting and selling your data if you start paying them, they just stop showing you ads. That's where the real conversation needs to start.

Youtube was initially driven by content creators... You know people who do alot of effort to really make you a good video in whatever your interest is.

But at the same time since it got bought by Google it's used to determine, collect and gather more info about it's users, esp interests and more over spam people to death with ads.

You got ads in pretty much everything - and now a clean install of Chrome comes with ads turned on, or even tracking. It's just insane how much Google is attempting to lure in advertisers onto it's network.

In my opinion, we need to go back from scratch. Because too many times, the whole adsense network was abused to spread malware. How many times where there fair warnings not to click on certain ads like "Afterburner" which would lead to a different website and present you malware in a package?

These folks do not even test who and what is inserting an ad on their network. The same is with Facebook / Meta / Instagram: They litterally allow rogue, scam webshops to advertise with no intention of ever sending the product to the consumer.

The whole system is rotten - and I really advocate to start using Ublock, Adguard (IOS/Android) or even Pi-hole on a DNS level for the whole family at home. Let 'm come up with a compelling product and there's no need for ads really.

 

[yRaz]

Youtube was initially driven by content creators... You know people who do alot of effort to really make you a good video in whatever your interest is.

But at the same time since it got bought by Google it's used to determine, collect and gather more info about it's users, esp interests and more over spam people to death with ads.

You got ads in pretty much everything - and now a clean install of Chrome comes with ads turned on, or even tracking. It's just insane how much Google is attempting to lure in advertisers onto it's network.

In my opinion, we need to go back from scratch. Because too many times, the whole adsense network was abused to spread malware. How many times where there fair warnings not to click on certain ads like "Afterburner" which would lead to a different website and present you malware in a package?

These folks do not even test who and what is inserting an ad on their network. The same is with Facebook / Meta / Instagram: They litterally allow rogue, scam webshops to advertise with no intention of ever sending the product to the consumer.

The whole system is rotten - and I really advocate to start using Ublock, Adguard (IOS/Android) or even Pi-hole on a DNS level for the whole family at home. Let 'm come up with a compelling product and there's no need for ads really.

I'm not even anti-ads, I have adblock turned off for techspot. My problem begins and ends with how much and how our data is collected and used. When my data analyst friend went over with me how our data is collected and how much it is sold for I lost it

 

[Vanderlinde]

I'm not even anti-ads, I have adblock turned off for techspot. My problem begins and ends with how much and how our data is collected and used. When my data analyst friend went over with me how our data is collected and how much it is sold for I lost it

It's not just that. Ive bin digging into the "how much real privacy we have today" thing and I came across quite some stuff. Pretty much big brother in the 80's is completely back at it where our goverment is in pretty much everything you use on a daily basis.

A VPN is questionable too. A VPN provider can simply be cohersed into broad tapping of all it's communications. Your ISP of your phone is storing pretty much everything you do with it of a minimum 6 month retention. So where you was, with who your called and even in the event of something serious enough they are able to tap into your live whatsapp, videocalls and what more.

Whatsapp advertising with it's E2E stuff is bullshit. Goverment can obtain access just like that. People are mass followed and the public is'nt even aware of the fact. There's simply no privacy anymore.

 

[MaestroIT]

Well, it is not GLOBAL in the exact sense of the word, it is global in countries where YT Premium is available (which is not the whole world). Where I live YT Premium is not available, and I have an ad blocker and don't get the ad-blocker block, but when I open VPN to EU/US I immediately get the popup.

 

[Bobbydpue]

What's wrong with supporting creators? I pay the $15 a month for no adds, rather than complaining about add while watching free content made by someone who partially relies on add revenue to keep creating content. Are people really that entitled?

 

[mgilbert]

What's wrong with supporting creators? I pay the $15 a month for no adds, rather than complaining about add while watching free content made by someone who partially relies on add revenue to keep creating content. Are people really that entitled?

YouTube pays creators peanuts. The only ones you are supporting by paying an utterly obscene $15 a month is the multimillionaire Google executives.

 

[scavengerspc]

What's wrong with supporting creators? I pay the $15 a month for no adds, rather than complaining about add while watching free content made by someone who partially relies on add revenue to keep creating content. Are people really that entitled?

Yes they are, and paying for what you want is lost on them.
Many are just one step above a common thief.

I'm like you, I am willing to pay for what I want. I watch very little TV but when I do
I want what I want NOW. So I pay for pretty much every streaming service out there.

Anyway, if the terms of agreement state "no add blockers" and people use them anyway, they are thieves. Plain and simple.

I don't get why YouTube doesn't just ban them. No tolerance.
They claim they can just stop using Youtube anyway, so Youtube should help with that goal.

YouTube pays creators peanuts. The only ones you are supporting by paying an utterly obscene $15 a month is the multimillionaire Google executives.

Most millionaires will contribute more to society today than you will in a lifetime.

 

[mgilbert]

Yes they are, and paying for what you want is lost on them.
Many are just one step above a common thief.

I'm like you, I am willing to pay for what I want. I watch very little TV but when I do
I want what I want NOW. So I pay for pretty much any streaming service out there.

Anyway, if the terms of agreement state "no add blockers" and people use them anyway, they are thieves. Plain and simple.

I don't get why YouTube doesn't just ban them. No tolerance.
They claim they can just stop using Youtube anyway, so Youtube should help with that goal.


Most millionaires will contribute more to society today than you will in a lifetime.

Calling people who use ad blockers thieves is laughable when you consider just how greedy and unethical Google is. The level of ads on YouTube makes the site unusable. Google has no one to blame but themselves for the popularity of ad blockers.

 

[yRaz]

Yes they are, and paying for what you want is lost on them.
Many are just one step above a common thief.

I'm like you, I am willing to pay for what I want. I watch very little TV but when I do
I want what I want NOW. So I pay for pretty much every streaming service out there.

Anyway, if the terms of agreement state "no add blockers" and people use them anyway, they are thieves. Plain and simple.

I don't get why YouTube doesn't just ban them. No tolerance.
They claim they can just stop using Youtube anyway, so Youtube should help with that goal.


Most millionaires will contribute more to society today than you will in a lifetime.

Alphabet, the owner of Google, is a data company. Alphabet still makes tons of money from analytics and trends it gets from the people watching its platform. What they're doing is splitting the books to make it appear YouTube is losing money. This is done first and foremost as a tax write off but it also allows them to point at YouTube and say, "youtube is losing money, you guys need to pay" which is an absolute lie.

On top of that, Google doesn't vet the ads it displays very well. If you get malware or sometype of virus from an ad Google displays when they mandate you not use an adblocker then they should be held responsible for damages.

Also, ad blockers were not mandatory when I signed up for youtube, that was pretty Google. I agreed to a different EULA and I strongly disagree with the changing of a EULA without not only the users consent, but notifying them. I was never notified of this change in youtubes policy and I never agreed to it. Continuing to use their service without notice of the change does not constitute consent