Unlock origin + Firefox! The harassment stops. I'd rather donate to the unlock team monthly instead of paying google for a solution to a problem they created.
I don't know, most creators I watch put a creative spin on those, and it's fun to watch. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
FYI, SponsorBlock isn't just for skipping sponsored segments. SB gives you granular control over the sorts of sections you can skip, and it only auto-skips sponsors by default. However:
- There are several categories of section, including intro animation/intermission ("an interval without actual content"), preview (i.e. where the information already exists later in the video), sponsor (a segment made in return for payment from a third party), unpaid/self-promotion (e.g. "buy my merch"), interaction reminder (e.g. "remember to like and subscribe"), and endcards/credits. (There's also "filler tangent/jokes", but I haven't tried this one.)
- For each of these categories, you can choose to disable altogether, show in the seek bar, prompt to manually skip, or auto skip.
So even if you would never want to skip a sponsored segment in your life, the extension still saves a ton of time if you have no/limited interest in watching even just one of the above-listed categories.
Absolutely! And what I ran down is just the extent of the features I personally interact with; there are a fair few more, including one that aims to combat clickbait by changing clickbaity titles.
•
One helpful thing I found is that it can skip "non music sections", ie those cringey silent scenes they put in YouTube videos. If that'd existed a couple of years ago, I probably wouldn't have switched to Spotify. I mainly switched because I was sick of random 10 second pauses for dramatic effect in the middle of songs, often right before the chorus
I got me some new devices recently. Researching and adding privacy/security add ons to Firefox was surprisingly enjoyable.
The idea that I have some measure of control over what I experience - and what I give in return - is novel to me.
The -10 or so extensions work well enough. It's still the internet, but it's an earlier version. Better than what currently exists.
•
Actually YouTube kinda built in the feature lol. It detects sections of the video most people skip and gives you a button to skip it as well. All right inside the YouTube app.
Pi-Hole + VPN and you can stop mobile ads as well. (You connect your phone to your VPN, whose traffic passes through your Pi-Hole)
Ublock Origin also works on Firefox mobile for Android, but that only works inside the browser.
You need the Pi-Hole network-level blocking to block ads in apps.
You don't get to say "No" to YouTube, Microsoft, or the thousands of websites that ask to you to give them your email. There's only a "Maybe later".
I fuuuhuhuhucking hate this condescending, pestering dark pattern that apparently every single designer on the planet is required to use
If an open source app asks me to do so, I usually give it a five star review. It's the least I can do to support them and make them visible on Google Play.
Pro-tip: apps can't ask for leaving a review twice, so if you press yes and then go immediately back, it will never ask again.
Uhm, that' s just capitalism in a nutshell.
Everything is just routing around people telling you "no."
Government regulation is literally the epitome of being told "no" and they spend all the money in the fucking world to force it into a "yes."
I mean, these people are so far up their own asses, I've seen ad industry people say seriously that people avoiding ads is breaking a contract. The genuine attitude that if they paid for the ad, in real life or online, that we owe them our eyes on it because they spent money on it. They're so far out of touch that they can't even face small risk.
Is it really a shock that a lot of people in corporate America are actual fucking rapists?
Gates, Weinstein, Musk, Trump, McMahon, I could go on... Plenty of these guys are well documented as not being able to take "no" for an answer, even if there's no evidence they raped anyone (Gates, for example).
I sometimes open the official YouTube app and set it to autoplay and mute while doing dishes, so they can be happy that I watched their fucking ads.
I fear that at some point the feds will knock to make sure I'm not distracted while an ad plays.
No means no but ask me later means ask me later. You never said no. Source: the option doesn't exist
Why is tech so hell bent on removing consent. We need to frame this in a way that makes their pr teams shit themselves.
No means "I'll ask you again in 30 days, because we really really want shorts to be a thing."
Even the shorts from your subscriptions they "optimize" using their algorithm instead of showing them chronologically. It's such a hassle.
You still have to do all that patching and stuff. I do enough IT for work, I won't wanna always be doing it at home.
You just have to do it once in a few months, and recent versions made it way easier to just download the correct apk and patch it quickly.
Firefox mobile sucks. I use Brave as my browser (yes I know what I'm doing I don't want a lecture on this) and Grayjay as my YouTube app.
The only reason why I went with FF/FF clones is because I wanted to completely degoogle myself. But a few websites require a chromium base, so I have Brave on standby for that. It's a good browser.
Their full screen popups when I first open the app have started to load the subscribe button a second before anything else on screen. I keep catching myself about tap it out of pure reflex and I think they doing it on purpose.
Not just Youtube. Google is! Ever try to use Gmail or Google Drive or Google Docs in a non-Chrome browser? That’s another level of harassment!
Yes they are. But no one who can do anything about it is doing anything about it.
Imo this should actually be illegal. I'm find with reasonable promotional displays and offers, but there needs to be some legal option to permanently decline. Having to tell YouTube "no" literally hundreds of times is legitimately ludicrous
You go to a coffee shop, you order a coffee, open your laptop and start working. After you're done with your coffee the waiter comes and asks you whether you would like to pay. You say no and continue working. One hour later they ask you again whether you would like to pay. You say no and continue working. Two hours later the waiter insists you either pay and leave, or pay for two coffees, and they bring you another one, then you can stay and work. You call the police because you're being harassed, and post on lemmy about predatory coffee shop practices trying to upsell you a second coffee. The police arrests the waiter and you get 9000 upvotes on lemmy.
Running a video-on-demand platform is very, very expensive. Just an FYI.
Why did the coffee shop have a "Free coffee and unlimited sitting time" sign in front of it?
So then there are some ads playing in the background and I put on my headphones so that I can ignore them.
Sure, but it's a private coffee shop, and they can just simply not let you in without paying or in headphones. They need to make money.
So, at first your clever trick works. But once everyone is doing it, their advertisers stop paying them, so now someone's gotta pay for the coffee somehow.
In the comments to your coffee shop story someone points out that coffee shops deserve to be paid for the coffee and the working space you occupy. The comment gets heavily downvoted with other commenters providing great counter-arguments, like "the coffee is ridiculously overpriced, like a 100% margin, it's an evil for-profit business and we shouldn't pay those" and "they just had a coffee, it costs them almost nothing, the rest of the time they werr just working, which didn't incur any costs on the coffee shop. The coffee shop are assholes, if they let the OP work till the evening, they would've paid for their coffee". Someone even suggested a new commercial model for the coffee shop: everyone makes their own coffee, it's free, and so is seating, funding is donation-based. They have certainly seen such a place before, although, they themselves would never be up for running one cuz they have a day job to pay the bills.
Then you are walking along the street when the city folds in on itself. You realize Leonardo Dicaprio is there. This is a dream? As if from afar, you hear a faint voice crying, "Murph! Don't let me leave, Murph!"
$5 a month and you can share with 5 other users. That’s 90c per person. Why would anyone not have YouTube premium?
Where are you at where it's $5 a month for the family plan? In the US it's $15 for the single user, or $23 for the family plan.
I pay ₴150 (Ukrainian hryvnia) for a family plan of 6, which is currently roughly $3.60 (after the currency tanked due to war). *hide the pain dab*
That's interesting, here in Poland you pay ~$12 for the family plan.
I didn't know it was that expensive in US. That sucks, man.
first and foremost you're paying for a worse experience than just installing an adblocker.
Paying for convenience isn't the same as paying to not be inconvenienced.
I pay for Premium for a few different reasons:
- I don't need to even think about fighting with ad block blockers.
- I also get YouTube Music, so I no longer need to pay for Spotify.
- Premium views pay creators more than regular views.
There is clearly a value proposition or no one would pay for it. I personally don't like to reward any company using the pay to not be inconvenienced model
A lot of people would rather fight adblockers (idk, literally never been an issue for me), use xManager (oh right spotify is free) , Pay creators you like through patreon (or buy their shitty amazon links or merch or whatever)
Premium is just rewarding youtube for making their platform worse in order to sell premium and fuck that noise.
For me it’s a way to help support content creators, along with donations/merch, although admittedly not having to even try to block the ads is a nice bonus.
I wouldn’t necessarily call myself a YouTube fan, and it will be something I continue to evaluate.
Youtube premium gives you a higher bitrate option as well.
I think it's only for lower resolutions (other than 4k) but if the video was uploaded with an absurdly high bitrate you can see a slightly less destroyed version.
It is not about money. Google created a problem and then asked money to solve it. If I were a billionaire I still wouldn't paid a single penny.
Skippable and short ads were fine. No one asked for annoying ads and a "premium" service. And it was already profitable. Greedy Google wanted more money.
Most of their ads are still skippable, aren't they? And can you prove no one asked for a premium service? I certainly recognize ads are a way to pay content creators and would like an alternative way to pay them in exchange for not seeing ads, so that already disproves your claim.
And what does YouTube being profitable have to do with paying content creators, anyway? YouTube, who were known for running at a loss for years at the start, needs a way to pay content creators as well as pay for server costs to host YouTube videos.
Sure, they are also greedy, but watching content without paying the creators is not the actual way to fight that, is it? If you disagree with how Google runs YouTube, just stop watching YouTube instead of punishing the content creators. Go watch them on alternative platforms where you can directly pay for their content like Patreon or Ko-Fi.
Most of their ads are still skippable, aren't they?
In my experience, no.
And can you prove no one asked for a premium service? I certainly recognize ads are a way to pay content creators and would like an alternative way to pay them in exchange for not seeing ads, so that already disproves your claim.
I said annoying ads and premium service. If ads were not annoying and you still wanted to support your content creators without watching ads; that's fine, premium service sounds a good solution to you. But Google chose the asshole way. They bombarded us with ads if we wanted not to pay. Even though I hate ads I am not against them. They should be short and not annoying.
And what does YouTube being profitable have to do with paying content creators, anyway?
If it's profitable they can pay content creators.
YouTube, who were known for running at a loss for years at the start, needs a way to pay content creators as well as pay for server costs to host YouTube videos.
Google is known for killing their services if they don't bring money. Let's assume what you said is true, so you are telling me that Google paid from their pocket and waited patiently till they became monopoly so they can execute their asshole plan?
Sure, they are also greedy, but watching content without paying the creators is not the actual way to fight that, is it? If you disagree with how Google runs YouTube, just stop watching YouTube instead of punishing the content creators.
Google built an empire by tracking us through the web sites before ad blockers are a thing. I'm punishing Google not content creators. If Google cared about content creators they wouldn't behaved like this in the first place. Why would care about content creators when their employer Google does not give a f**k about them?
Go watch them on alternative platforms where you can directly pay for their content like Patreon or Ko-Fi.
I haven't heard about Ko-Fi before . I'll take a look at that.
And finally I should add that Google is a danger to the internet. With this "pay for premium or you'll watch more ads then the content" bullshit they are becoming a role model to other streaming services.
Yeah, that's how YouTube works: you don't pay for individual videos
If someone wants to go that route for their content then there are sites for that
When did I say you pay for individual videos? You pay for access to those videos by watching ads or paying for premium.
If someone wants to watch videos without dealing with ads or payments, there are sites for that, too. Why aren't you going to those sites, instead?
Because I’m not giving Alphabet any information about me. It’s also why I don’t create a YouTube account and use browsers with common fingerprints.
Trying to avoid fingerprinting often results in easier fingerprinting.
Your browser might have a common fingerprint, but other points of configuration (screen size, window size, webrtc, etc) belie those.
Usually it just gets you put in the "People who don't like ads" advertising bin. They have specific ways to try to target us.
Relevant Bill Hicks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXi-9kA4ERM&t=75s
I know what all the marketing people are thinking right now, too.
"Oh you know what Bill's doing? He's going for that 'anti-marketing dollar.' That's a good market, he's very smart."
ther points of configuration (screen size, window size, webrtc, etc) belie those.
Those are also part of the fingerprinting that I’m talking about, and browsers like Tor and Mullvad take some or all of them into account.
It's £20 ($26.33) per month here. You are either lying or are in an exceptionally cheap country.
They speak of sharing with others, so they're talking about the family plan, so it's actually £20 in the UK.
I can think only for one legitimate reason:
- Google bought out YouTube and operated it at loss for most of its life, effectively making it a monopoly in the process, and only started to earn money on it when there was no way any other alternative would come up and endanger it.
If you ignore this, YouTube Premium is a pretty good offer. And I personally like the fact that I support content creators, without the need of watching ads that are nothing more than cancer for society.
That said, I would still prefer YouTube to return to its roots and separate from Google, since it's pretty much possible for it to stand on its own right now, I guess.
In Germany, the family plan costs €23.99, but the worst part is that even when you pay for it, there are still ads from the creators within the videos. Essentially, you’re paying for nothing, not to mention that they are much more expensive than all other video platforms.