YouTube's new anti-adblocker measures - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2025, 09:37:52 am
content: If they think that you have an adblocker plugin you might get very long and unskippable ads:- Damn youtube. Almost 3 hours of unskippable ads (https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/1hvsexu/damn_youtube_almost_3_hours_of_unskippable_ads/)- 60 minute un-skipable ad (https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/1i89wj8/60_minute_unskipable_ad/)And a media report including a statement from Google (just confirming "global effort to urge viewers with ad blockers enabled to allow ads on YouTube or try YouTube Premium for an ad free experience"):- Frustrated YouTube viewers seek explanation for hour-long unskippable ads (Update: Statement) (https://www.androidauthority.com/youtube-long-unskippable-ads-problem-3519957/)

author: fourtytwo42
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2025, 09:53:55 am
content: Yup I got that at XmasUtube used to be my go to place for music, no longer!!I will not remove/disable my ad-blocker for anyone..............period.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2025, 10:01:35 am
content: Even when not using a crippled chrome based browser?My Firefox with uBlock Origin still blocks everything on Youtube. Around christmas was the last time that YT nagged be, a manual filter syncronisation and a restart of the browser fixed that.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2025, 12:20:06 pm
content: I stopped using it because it got on my nerves. I actually noticed I am getting more of what I want done... following the trends is not actually doing what you want to do (its a influence)it's not a substitute for writing. and cameras have gotten cheap and easy enough that the signal to noise ratio is garbage. It used to be that you needed pretty strong motivation to make content, with that barrier almost non existent you end up with too much crud.I feel like a great amount of videos are people just explaining what they read, and the video 'editing' for quality is non existent, I am almost sure many people started to lie about how much time they spend editing to get sympathy from audience. AKA there is so much fluff/downtime/in conciseness that there is a great amount of mega low quality content. It started to feel like those kids that lie about spending 8 hours to do homework lol.I think that some people are spending 8 hours to think about where to plant their in-video sponsor advertisements, and film them (you are apparantly not allowed to put a premade video,aka they demand shitting untrained acting)I am just not excited about itoh yeah, and now, they are gonna be reading what the AI wrote (not what they read) lolwe need torrents for quality shows like eevblog etc, if someone actually does the editing, putting it on some other location is like beyond trivial. if its really good there is no reason why you should not keep a local copy anyway, why trust some cloud politically sensitive congolmerate with actual critical information that is TV or better quality?? maybe EEVBLAB does not fall in this content (but its honest about the production values)

author: shapirus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2025, 01:53:52 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on January 27, 2025, 12:20:06 pmYou're right, the SNR is continuously degrading, however, there is still a lot of quality content on YT, and it is not difficult to find. In my case, for example, most of what I see on the recommended videos page is pretty good, probably because I subscribe to good channels and use the "don't show this again" button when I need to.(but yeah the default home page when you open it not being logged in and without cookies etc. is absolutely atrocious, whenever I see it I lose all hope in humanity)Quote from: coppercone2 on January 27, 2025, 12:20:06 pmThis is a good idea too. Not necessarily torrents, but, generaly speaking, a platformless, decentralized, federated content distribution medium would be nice to have. I even have little doubt that it has been implemented technically already.The problem is that it won't be attractive neither for the advertisers (no money), nor for the average user (too difficult and no bells and whistles), and therefore it's doomed even before it's born. Same thing that already happened to jabber/xmpp or matrix. Excellent stuff from the technical perspective, but hopeless in attracting users.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2025, 02:28:51 pm
content: Do not use Chrome, do not login into YT.I don't see any YT ads, but I'm not worried.The day YT will show me ads, I'll stop using YT.There is a reason why I didn't watch TV in decades.

author: Geoff-AU
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2025, 05:37:55 am
content: I've noticed recently that if you're using a VPN, YT demands that you sign in so they can figure out who you are (well.. browser fingerprinting probably tells them anyway).Normal ISP addresses don't seem to suffer the same affliction - yet.

author: tatel
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2025, 05:11:55 pm
content: Quote from: Ranayna on January 27, 2025, 10:01:35 am+1

author: Bryn
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2025, 05:28:31 pm
content: They're so desperate for revenue, aren't they?But still, as long as we have our robust adblockers, it'll continue to be a losing battle for them...

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2025, 06:14:42 pm
content: Quote from: Bryn on January 28, 2025, 05:28:31 pmyeh, who do they think they are?, wanting to get paid for their service and pay their creators pfff..

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2025, 06:23:03 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on January 28, 2025, 06:14:42 pmThat's all well and good, but many dislike their business practices: stupid, opaque, arbitrary rules regarding what content is allowed and monetised, being too greedy with advertising and even putting adverts on channels which are demonetised.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2025, 07:11:35 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 28, 2025, 06:23:03 pmsure, then they should probably stop using their service instead of complaining they can't get it for free, but where's the fun in thatrefusing to pay for a service, in someway or another, and then complaining that the service is trying to get paid is just silly

author: John B
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2025, 11:24:21 pm
content: I used to think it was as simple as accepting ads = remuneration to creators and the infrastructure.But then it became apparent that every user is a goldmine of sellable information, large coporate entities have deals with YT to push their own business interests on consumers, and governments have arrangements with YT as well for censoring information.If we are going to be treated as data piggies, consooomers and lab rats for political interests, then I will consider that payment for the services.

author: Haenk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 06:35:03 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on January 28, 2025, 07:11:35 pmI think the problem is like the communist 5-year plan. There has to be more revenue year-over-year, even if billions are already made each quarter.However overtighteng the screw will lead to failure, and IMHO we are beginning to see this.I have no problem with ads as a source of revenue, but only up to a certain level. Above this level, I will take countermeasures or pass on their offer (aka abandon Youtube).(Sidenote: "Back in the days" we had ads placed on several sites. While everyone else went blinking and flashing, we stayed with a fast loading, static ad. People literally thanked us for not going onto their nerves, by sending emails and when calling in.)

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 07:44:46 am
content: One thing I'm wondering: what brings more revenue for YT per "average" user: a subscription, or ad revenue if they watch all ads?

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 08:42:25 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on January 28, 2025, 07:11:35 pmPaying vs watching adverts is a false equivalency. I didn't used to block adverts, but then it got beyond the joke.I'm certainly not complaining. I just block annoying adverts. I'm also pretty sure Google are making enough money from my data, as I do watch signed in.Before I blocked that adverts, I doubt many of them worked on me. A lot of the time I listen to podcasts, whilst I'm doing something else, so I don't see the video, and I noticed that most adverts were just annoying music, with no speech, giving me no clue about what it's advertising.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 09:49:22 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 29, 2025, 08:42:25 amJust one question about that. I honestly cannot think on how it would make any difference on how much money Google makes wether i'm logged in or not.I only use my Google Account for Youtube. Originally because i wanted to subscribe to organize the channels i watch.I only log in on my desktop, using a browser with AdBlock.There is no location data attached to my account, except of course very imprecise geo-ip location. There is no cross-website tracking attached to my account, thanks to the adblocker which also block googleanalytics and similar crap. There isn't my real name attached to the account, or any kind of payment info. I haven't even enabled, and wasn't so far forced to do so, 2-factor Authentication, so Google doesn't have my phone number.The only "connected" thing is a non-Google Email address, that - surprisingly - does not get noticable spam.I have no idea how they would make money of me. Except maybe a statistical blip in video views, which can't have much value, if at all.

author: thephil
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 06:16:40 pm
content: I got fed up with Youtube trying to inject ads and tracking me. After a lot of thought I started using FreeTube now. It has some problems every now and then and i have to think of donating to the content creators I like every now and then as Freetube will prevent them from getting their share for my view. A bit more hassle but so far I think it's worth it.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 06:47:32 pm
content: Quote from: thephil on January 29, 2025, 06:16:40 pm"I got tired of the local supermarket wanting to get paid for the stuff I take, so now I just use the backdoor to get in and out. Some day I might consider tipping the staff that keeps the store running"

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 06:56:37 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on January 29, 2025, 06:47:32 pmYet another false equivalence.My local supermarket doesn't track me. I pay money for the goods I purchase. I don't use a loyalty card scheme which would enable them to track me. I've never tipped a member of staff, nor ever known anyone else who has done so. When I worked at a supermarket, no one gave me any tips and I didn't know anyone else who had received any.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 07:07:32 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 29, 2025, 06:56:37 pmbut would you skip the "paying" when using youtube and instead tip the "staff"?

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 07:15:34 pm
content: No ads and no problems here watching yt using firefox on Linux with uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger.I don't have an account.When it's not possible anymore to watch yt withhout ads and without paying, I'll simply stop watching yt.Life is too short for spending too much time on yt anyway.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 08:47:25 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on January 29, 2025, 07:07:32 pmOf course not. Shop workers get paid by the supermarket. I don't know what your point is.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 10:24:52 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 29, 2025, 07:44:46 amThere will be region and demographic dependence, as a wealthy adult viewing from USA will generate more revenue than a child in a poor city in another country.You can look at cost per view youtube charges, $0.03 to $0.50 per view. Maybe they keep 50% of that?Youtube premium is $14/mo, and they keep 45% or $6.30.At the low end you'd have to fully watch ~20 ads per month, and at the high end ~400 ads per month. Then past that they'd be making more money than off a subscription, I'm sure some people do fall in that category.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 11:37:52 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 29, 2025, 08:47:25 pmyoutube and the creators get paid by you watching the ads or paying for premium ..

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 12:13:23 am
content: Quote from: thm_w on January 29, 2025, 10:24:52 pmOf course I was just considering the average, which is what matters for estimating YT total revenue.If your estimation is correct and even if we consider the worst case of 400 ads/month, that would be about 13 ads/day, and for indeed an "average" user who wouldn't have a subscription and who wouldn't use an adblocker, getting to that point seems pretty easy. There are often several ads served on just one video.So, that's interesting. My point was, would YT make more or less revenue if ALL users had a subscription and watched no ads, rather than all users having no subscription and watching all ads?Is it in the interest of YT to get everyone to subscribe? I doubt it. And that would even change YT's business model entirely. At the moment, the bulk of YT clients are the companies paying for ads. If they relied entirely on subscriptions instead, that would become a company with end-users as their primary customers, which is a completely different business model.Just some food for thought.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 12:34:53 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 30, 2025, 12:13:23 amIf no one skips ads, they'd make more money with ads.If everyone skips ads, they'd make less money on ads, and more on subscriptions. Which is the case as ~90% of ads are skipped.The average watch time is about 26 hours per month.

author: Poe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 02:08:52 am
content: I keep hearing about ads, but I haven't really seen an ad on any platform since about 2006.It's crazy companies pay so much on marketing, but I guess people are still using shitty websites like Reddit so there are probably a bunch of people who don't use adblockers too.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 03:19:37 am
content: Quote from: fourtytwo42 on January 27, 2025, 09:53:55 amWhat's wrong with paying for something you use all the time and is your "go to place"?It's been obvious for more than a decade that Youtube is not financially sustainable and must move more toward a subscriptin based model.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 03:25:20 am
content: Quote from: shapirus on January 27, 2025, 01:53:52 pmHello, I'm one of the top channels on LBRY/Odysee.https://odysee.com/@eevblog:7

author: wilfred
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 07:09:40 am
content: I'm using Ublock origin on my PC and I use an App called Smarttube Beta (there is a non-beta version) on my Android media box. The media box is way too piss-weak to handle the official YT app these days and it repeatedly asks if I want to shut it down or wait whenever YT is about to show an Ad. But Smarttube just shows the video and no ads and it also cuts out instream promotional ads and some regular fixed intro and outro content.I'm not bothered by Ads hardly at all unless I watch YT on my phone which is quite rare.

author: shapirus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 08:07:35 am
content: Quote from: Karel on January 29, 2025, 07:15:34 pmThis one's kinda inside out. You don't (normally) watch YT, because it's just a video hosting platform, nothing more. You watch content. It's up to you to choose one that's worth spending time watching.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 08:39:42 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on January 29, 2025, 11:37:52 pmWhere's the proof that the creators miss out if people block the adverts? If the adblocker is good, then Google doesn't even know about it.And most of the creators I watch are demonetised or have sponsors.Quote from: EEVblog on January 30, 2025, 03:19:37 amI wouldn't have a problem with a subscription to YouTube, but they need to get rid of the censorship and be more transparent before I would consider giving them any money.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 10:02:38 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 30, 2025, 08:39:42 amNo video platform is going to be perfect for everyone.No shop you buy at is going to be perfect for everyone.No brand you buy is going to be perfect for everyone.etcIMO you should either swallow your pride and pay for the service you decide to use (and it's ok the critique them at the same time to try and enact change), or you don't use it.Trying to rob them of their business model because you don't like something they do is not exactly a moral high horse.You can also apply that to anything company/product/service.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 11:17:47 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 30, 2025, 10:02:38 amGoogle can hardly take the moral high ground, when they put advertising on creators' content and give them nothing, thus robbing them.Most people will simply watch the adverts. If too many people block them, then Google will change their approach: better adblocking detection, subscription model etc.If they want more people to support them, then they need to adopt more ethical business practices.If Google make it impossible block adverts, then I will use a different platform, but I will not be guilt tripped into watching adverts or subscribing. Zero fucks are given.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 11:38:10 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 30, 2025, 11:17:47 amunlike you robbing youtube by uing their service without watching the ads or otherwise paying for the serviceand youtube is not robbbing creators, even if they don't get any moeny from youtube, youtube is still providing the servers and bandwidth to distribute their content

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 11:44:32 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 30, 2025, 10:02:38 amAgreed.Poor argument.Yes - and it is a two-edged sword that can be applied to your previous point."Disintermediation" is a standard business practice that enables a supplier to get closer to their customer by cutting out the middleman. That could be regarded as "robbing [the middleman] of their business model", but not many regard it as "immoral". Many people would think of the music industry, and record companies acting as middlemen and how they don't give money to the artists. I'd suggest yoootoob might be in that category, but I don't know much about the specifics.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 11:49:19 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on January 30, 2025, 11:38:10 amI call BS. If they just had the minimal amount of advertising for demonetised content, just enough to cover the cost of serving the video, then fine, but that doesn't appear to be the case.Heck, I don't have a problem with advertising. I don't use an adblocker on this website and occasionally click on the adverts, because this isn't a scummy company.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 01:32:14 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 30, 2025, 11:49:19 amHow do you know what the costs are for the entire server and distribution network? AFAIK Youtube have never released those numbers.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 01:38:15 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 30, 2025, 11:49:19 amThanks, I try not to be scummy.Speaking of which an advertising company just approached me with an offer of way higher ad rates for anonymous but "verified" users.They said this:QuoteSounds potentially scummy, but I do like the idea of targetted ads that keep things fresh, rather than the fixed ads I currently have on the site. Without having to expose anyone's email, but I'm not how that's technically possible?

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 01:44:20 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 30, 2025, 01:32:14 pmYou're just proving my point: lack of transparency.The reason why I'm doubtful it's just to cover their costs is because they still have more adverts on their demonized content, than they used to have 10 years ago.Quote from: EEVblog on January 30, 2025, 01:38:15 pmI don't know. You could always make it voluntary. I would have thought you have to get permission for sharing email addresses anyway. Perhaps you could offer something to those who accept it?

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 01:51:19 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 30, 2025, 01:44:20 pmthey are trying to make up for the loss of more users using adblockers?

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 03:07:52 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 30, 2025, 01:38:15 pmIf they really would support anonymous users, you would have to send them the hashes instead of email addresses. And the .csv format suggests that they want a bit more, e.g. user names. It's all about tracking. Anyhow, that method doesn't work for users not logged in and users who use different email addresses for different websites.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 03:08:59 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on January 30, 2025, 01:51:19 pmMore likely they're just being greedy. Either way, I don't care and being opaque isn't helping their cause.Quote from: joeqsmith on January 30, 2025, 01:53:16 pmIn the UK, our OfCom limit the amount of adverts they're allowed to show on TV and pushing prescription drugs isn't allowed.We have the BBC which only advertises its own programmes, not commercial products, but everyone who watches TV live, as it's being broadcast, irrespective of whether it's BBC, or the BBC's streaming service iPlayer has to pay a £170 annual licence fee. I used to pay it and only watch BBC, but I got board of their crappy soaps and dramas and it became more obvious their news is biased, so I stopped watching and cancelled it. They now send me threatening letters, which I no longer read and bin.

author: special_K
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 03:11:05 pm
content: Quote from: Haenk on January 29, 2025, 06:35:03 amYou're actually describing the ordinary behavior of every publicly traded company to ever exist. The earnings must always increase, or else it is a bad stock. New ways to extract revenue must constantly be discovered, forever, and the attempts only become more desperate and less viable over time. If they fail to do so (and they all eventually fail), they've failed their shareholders, stock price crashes, heads roll. It's the most capitalist problem ever.Google really isn't anything special, the whole commercial internet is going the same way. Many places are worse. Service will continue to degrade while finding ways to pressure money from people, and just when you think they can't possibly get worse, they'll find some way to surprise you.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 04:11:13 pm
content: Quote from: madires on January 30, 2025, 03:07:52 pmThis. Them requiring the email addresses in plaintext is bullshit.Also "hashing twice" seems to be targeted at the technical laymen who might be influenced by buzzword bingo. Given a proper hashing algorithm it doesn't matter if you hash once or hash twice.

author: shapirus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 05:50:17 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 30, 2025, 01:44:20 pmI think I'd subscribe to this one.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 06:35:01 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 30, 2025, 01:38:15 pmIf the email is hashed first, what is the input for the second hash?Anyvaguelycompetent hash is one+way, i.e. irreversible. Inferences;their algorithms are crap, and they aren't going to make them less crapthe implementers are less than competentthey are being "economical with the actualité"https://wordhistories.net/2024/03/20/economical-with-actualite/they are being actively deceptive for unknown objectives

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 10:26:00 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on January 30, 2025, 06:35:01 pmIts very common to iterate hashes, but usually we are talking 10's or 1,000's of times for passwords, 2 iterations is low:https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/179552/is-using-100-000-iterations-of-sha256-good-enough-for-password-storage

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 10:57:44 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 30, 2025, 01:32:14 pmIt's hard to even know whether YT is really profitable. What we can see is that YT total revenue appears to be around 10% of Alphabet revenue. Beyond that, good luck.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 11:18:44 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 30, 2025, 01:44:20 pmDemonetised content costs exactly the same as monestised content to host and distribute, i.e. it's not free.How does anyone expect a company to host and distribute vast amounts of video content for free?

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 11:34:23 pm
content: Quote from: thm_w on January 30, 2025, 10:26:00 pmThat's for protecting a password.AIUI this hash is used to obfuscate identity, which has different requirements.Two hashes doesn't sound beneficial, for both of us, albeit for different reasons.

author: oPossum
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 01:20:17 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 30, 2025, 11:18:44 pmThey loose a little on every video, but they make it up in volume.

author: peter-h
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 08:15:32 am
content: I use Vimeo for my videos, and I pay them the basic $50/year and then viewers don't see adverts. Simple!The entire hassle with Youtube and adverts is because most content providers want to make money out of it. Most end up making nothing because you need to have a huge number of followers (4 figures+).

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 08:37:34 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 30, 2025, 11:18:44 pmI don't expect them to distribute for free of course, but it is Google who decide to demonetize, therefore they should cut the amount of advertising, otherwise swallow the losses. There is no excuse for demonetising content, then continuing to have adverts. If it's too controversial for their advertisers to be associated with it, then it wouldn't have adverts. It appears to be purely ideological/politically motivated. This is why I adblock YouTube more harshly than any other site. Call it a punishment for treating their creators unfairly.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 08:55:29 am
content: Well, the situation with demonetization is indeed questionable. Now while it's obvious that a company can't give away its services for free, as I mentioned earlier, I'm personally convinced that if all current users got a subscription and YT removed all ads, it wouldn't be sustainable anyway. Its market value would likely plummet and Alphabet would likely end up cutting its losses. So the idea of a fully ad-free YT, whatever amount of money users pay for using it (to a reasonable extent), is a fantasy.Now of course you can get that ad-free experience, for now, on an individual level by just buying a subscription, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't work on a global scale. So basically, this model, where only a (probably small) fraction of users have a subscription and wonder why everyone else doesn't do the same, precisely works because a large number of users do get the ads.Not saying there's a definite solution to this. It's a matter of business model, YT chose one and is now stuck with it. And yes, if you don't like that, you can always use another service. But just saying that there's something either dishonest or at least schizophrenic about it: it's IMO in their best interest that a majority of users do use their service for free, but watching ads. Not that a majority take a subscription.Just my 2 cents. It's obvious that whatever each of us says about it, it won't make any difference whatsoever in how YT is gonna conduct its business.

author: NE666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 09:37:08 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 30, 2025, 11:18:44 pmThere's probably an intersection with those who conflate 'open source' with 'free software', and then start screaming like toddlers when the companies who pay their development teams to build and maintain the larger projects decide to shift the roadmap in a direction they don't like, or attempt to create a revenue model to support those costs.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 11:33:05 am
content: Quote from: NE666 on January 31, 2025, 09:37:08 amI don't know what your point is. It depends on what is meant by free software. According to theFree Software Foundation, free software is open source software, but many people consider free software to be, software which is made available at no cost to the user, under certain conditions and is more often than not, closed source.And there are many valid criticisms for large software companies, such as changing to a subscription model, then the user is under ransom to keep access to their data, which is stored in a proprietary format. I'm very wary or any software which stores my data in an opaque proprietary format. It's more of a consideration than licence, or upfront cost.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 11:38:33 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 31, 2025, 11:33:05 amAh. Someone that is aware of the curse of 1960/1970s timesharing bureaux - and hence why the IBM PC was greeted with a sigh of reliefWeenies have forgotten that, and are repeating the mistake with cloud computing.I'm beginning to think that the "arrow of time" is wrong, and that the Hindu "wheel of time" is more appropriate

author: shapirus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 11:55:46 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 31, 2025, 11:33:05 amNo, that's not how FSF defines free software. Being open source is implicitly required, but it's not sufficient. There can be (and there is) open source software that is not free.Here's a direct quote fromhttps://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software:Quote

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 12:02:53 pm
content: YouTube has attempted to block my adblocker about 4 times now.I find other sources of entertainment and it's usually back to ad free a day later.It's been years since I seen an advert on YouTube and I watch a LOT of YT.On related note. There was a storm in a teacup over game mods and dodgy websites sharing them from "traffic flow advert" pages. You know the kind, "Click download", you get page with 25 adverts and 6 download buttons, only one of which takes you to another download page with an actual link, the others will send you around a "web ring" of affiliates to gain more ad traffic.The things is.... I see none of this. To me these sites look "mostly innocent". I see no ads. I get no popups. I get no redirects. I only see 1 download button.Browser security. Removing your tracking cookies and forcefully invalidating them by refreshing the browser UUID every day. etc. etc. etc.I have it so tight now that should I actually want to log into "Meta" applications it sends me a security alert everytime and forces me through the full MFA verification proceedure. The reason is simple. Meta have become so accustomed to tracking individuals they now use it as part of their login verification. "Is the auth data correct?", "Yes.", "Does our tracking tokens coorelate that this is the same individual?", "No."

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 12:11:12 pm
content: Quote from: shapirus on January 31, 2025, 11:55:46 amSemantics. My statement still stands. Free software is open source software, but not all open source software is free software.

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 12:20:54 pm
content: Quote from: shapirus on January 31, 2025, 11:55:46 amI have been around this debate recently with "Freeware" software creators. In their case they want to follow the age old model from the 1980s which was completely destroyey by the Internet.The model where the software is "free" for download, "free" for use, but 100% restricted distribution and or modification and all derivatives are prohibited.The folks in these scenes are going absolutely insane trying to retain ANY control over their wares.I have tried to explain how software licensing works and how "default exclusive international copyright treaties" are NOT the way to go. That is like fighting a dog with a wet newspaper.I try to steer them towards an actual license which accepts that retaining total control over "free" "written for the love not the money" software is FUTILE. Not only that, but its not actually the best for the original developer and it certainly provides no protection between contributors.... all of which can withhold copyright on their individual contributions until the project get stuck in "ownership and rights wars" when it forks.The bottom line they need to hear and understand... for international copyright. If you approach any lawyer (bar a few rare self funded activists), and ask them to take your case where a company or individual has taken your work and redistributed it without your permission, their very first question back will be "How much?" They want to know "How much money" did this "cost" you, perceived or otherwise. If you want to bring a case for "International Copyright" it's on a basis of "Claiming damages after the fact".So if your software is free. You make no money from its distribution, therefore you are out of pocket by "$0". You would be taking a civil damages case for $0. If that even got into court and wasn't just rejected for wasting the courts time, you would still need to pony up the legal fees and court fees to take the case. IF the court finds in your favour then the other party is only required to settle the costs. At best you might claim the 3rd party has been taking ad revenue from hosting your works. So you would have to estimate what that total would be and claim that. When it turns out the other company has got ad campaign metrics and can prove that "your individual package" resulted in exactly $0.59 ad revenue.... woohoo, the court will award that be repaid. Well done.Having gone through all of this, you will simply find another and another an another repeating the same thing.If they would go and read any of the articles that put this all into plain English they would, like many actually have, give up and go full OSS GPL-Like.Instead most just get more and more red faced and angry and honestly it's sad to watch.

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 12:30:25 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 31, 2025, 12:11:12 pmNot all free software is opensource. Chrome is not opensource. The core engine "Cromium" is, but Chrome is not. You could list thousands of examples.Some software is inherently opensource. Like Javascript in browsers for example. There is no way to serve JS, without serving the JS. The vast majority of interpreted script langs are the same.No software in inherently free however. A point I failed to mention in the ditribe above... "No license == no license." Software without a license is not legally usable by anyone except the original author. "Default copyright" does not apply to the use or warranty of sofware.Worse.... if "Free use" is implied for any particular use case, then a warranty is also "implied" and companies have been sued before for providing "free" software which then failed in production and cost money. The damages claims where upheld. This is why software licenses all have lengthy section detailing what warranty implied or otherwise exists or does not exist... and in the case of "Non-public" licenses... what exactly you are "licensed" to do with the software. This then protects the company when their software is used for criminal actions, such that it does not come back to them that they made the software which facilitated the crime. "We provided no license, implied or otherwise that would facilitate hacking a bank with our software."

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 12:47:57 pm
content: Quote from: paulca on January 31, 2025, 12:30:25 pmIt all depends on how one defines free software. Are you talking about free to use and distribute, or free to modify? Under the definition of theFSF, all free software is open source.To save confusion it's important to be clear. For example, LTSpice is free to use, under certain conditions.

author: NE666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 01:35:12 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 31, 2025, 11:33:05 amVery simple. If someone is not contributing to the provision of the free meal in any significant way, then there's no legitimacy to their demands as to how that meal must be being served to them.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 01:45:56 pm
content: Quote from: paulca on January 31, 2025, 12:02:53 pmMany online shops and services do that. In my case I want to make tracking me hard. Auto-deleting cookies and browser plug-ins like uBlock are helping to achieve this. So I get also security alerts, additional pin codes and so on. It feels like a punishment for deleting cookies, especially when you know that copying cookies is a common attack by cybercriminals. Sounds like the "If you let me tracking you I'll give you a bit more convenience." strategy. A positive side effect of restraining tracking is less ads, because personalised ads and tracking are usually intertwined.Back to YouTube. My personal ad experience with YouTube is quite underwhelming, i.e. same ads over and over again (makes me detesting the product/service), and ads for scams/frauds. BTW, recently Google lost a lawsuit in Germany involving ads for fraud (liability for interference).

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 01:53:13 pm
content: Quote from: NE666 on January 31, 2025, 01:35:12 pmI agree, just as people the freedom to discard the parts, they don't want to eat.

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 01:56:03 pm
content: Quote from: madires on January 31, 2025, 01:45:56 pmYep. The "punishment". In the EU (and UK) we have the cookie consent popups. A lot of them you can "single click" "Accept all", but to select "just functionally required" you have to go through a whole form. Thus artificially encouraging you to just click "Accept all".That's pretty shitty, but it gets worse.Nearly every single one of them treats your cookie preference as "non-required". So if you do select "Only required" it won't save that preference. So you get asked each and every single time.

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 01:59:19 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 31, 2025, 12:47:57 pmAgain it's the definition of "FREE".FSF and OSF et. al. have a very distinct definition of free and it has nothing to do with money."Freeware" is typically referring to the 0 monetary cost while the software is absolutely NOT free in any "rights" kind of way.To FSF and OSF and Stallman et. al. "FREE" means, free like speech, free like expression, free like the wind. To do as one pleases without unnecessary restriction to better the world through software as a collective.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 02:01:56 pm
content: Quote from: paulca on January 31, 2025, 01:59:19 pmThat's pretty much my point. I wasn't going to post all of that, because it just derails the thread, but on reflection, it would have been better to do so, because it has generated more fluff.Quote from: paulca on January 31, 2025, 01:56:03 pmFor some sites, you can block that using no script and the site still works.Does using a VPN set to US work?

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 02:09:09 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 31, 2025, 02:01:56 pmThere are browser plugins which support most of the "canned" cookie preference modules in use to auto fill it with "Required only". Odd and bespoke ones will still bypass it.It was on the list after "Degoogle and Demeta" however, it seems those two will be an ongoing process. Still haven't found a viable "Email" provider and doing it myself ... I've been there before. I like that google does my filtering. Meta is more difficult since they unified their platforms. I only need/want messenger as it's good for family and friends comms as "everybody has it". However to even sign into messenger now it wants to send you Facebook or Instagram MFA verification notifications. Like to sign into messenger you have to first sign into FAcebook and accept the new login.I might have to allow things to jump the queue.

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 02:19:55 pm
content: Quote from: NE666 on January 31, 2025, 01:35:12 pmI think this is "back to the point".It's the age old arguments around "advert funded wares".Typically "piracy" or ad-blocking has been seen as an unavoidable hindrance to profits. Stuff is provided as "Free" access. It's just that in conjunction with the free content ads are displayed.What is changing is that many companies business model in this sense has failed. They cannot sustain themselves with that model alone. The press. Papers, magazines etc. Most of those have been forced to move online or entirely online in the past 10 years. Originally trying to support themselves via adverts alone has failed and caused a huge number of journalist outlets to simply fold up shop. Others are putting up paywalls on content.In the UK a few have even openly blocked content from those with ad-blockers but also cookie blockers and "No thanks" answers to cookies.I can't remember if it's the Daily Fail or the Guardian has a "less than free" license for some content and to view it you need to accept all tracking cookies and accept a much more open privacy poilcy to allow the paper to make money selling your data to pay for your access.GDPR of course does not provide any protections for this as it mentions nothing about being "bribed from your privacy" being wrong.Personally I am a hypocrite. I block all ads. Yet I monetize my own videos and have made a few hundred quid off them.I understand YouTube is entirely funded by ads and I like the service, I use it a lot.However my PC is an ad free zone. Period. Not negotiable. If YT does finally block adblockers once and for all, I will find another platform.My house is an ad-free zone. If I want something I will find it. I do not like being told what I do or do not need and being treated like a moron.EDIT: If YouTube fixed it's "Premium" offerings and pricing, that would be an option. At the moment it's a "one size fits all" and makes no garuantees you won't get adverts in band or out of band.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 02:49:57 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 30, 2025, 01:44:20 pmThat would very much have to be voluntary, opt-in and disclosed because, at least when it concerns EU users, it would fall straight under the scope of GDPR. E-mail address is a personally identifiable information. One can't just deliver a CSV file with them to whoever asks/or pays.The fines are pretty hefty for doing that. And yes, it applies even to businesses outside the EU as long as they are processing data of EU citizens. So Dave would either have to be compliant with it - or boot all EU users from the site as a precaution, as some US businesses did.And it is also an extremely scummy practice - of course they pay for "verified users", reselling this stuff not just to advertising companies collating dossiers/profiles on people but also to spammers, phishers and other criminals is big business. Advertisers don't need the e-mail to track you, they have plenty of other means, from cookies all the way to browser/computer fingerprinting and behavioral tracking.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 03:41:08 pm
content: Quote from: paulca on January 31, 2025, 01:56:03 pmBy the way: That is *not* how it is supposed to be. A compliant cookie banner needs a single click "Decline all" or "Functional only" button.That makes it often easy to filter out the "sleazier" sites. If they can't comply with a relatively simple cookie banner directive, what other shit do they do?

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 04:08:12 pm
content: Quote from: Ranayna on January 31, 2025, 03:41:08 pmYep and in the most part we got saved by "Code reuse" and "Open source" engineering.There are a few "open source" off the shelf implementations that websites can incorporate easily which.... do follow the best practices.By making them so readily available I think it had discouraged many in a dozen from creating their own "sneaky" versions.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 04:45:01 pm
content: QuoteBut then you get the sneaky buggers who have that option,but when you look a bit deeper "legitimate interest" is still selected

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 04:53:42 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on January 31, 2025, 04:45:01 pm"legitimate interest".Ah. The classic joker card for GDPR.The "sneaky" part is that "explicit denial over rules legitimate interest". So they try and avoid asking you as its "opt out" and not "opt in" under GDPR. Companies can claim legitimate interests after the fact. It's only when someone explicitly says, "Do not use my data that way" GDPR will prevent them.Legitimate use is very poorly defined.

author: .RC.
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 09:42:10 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on January 29, 2025, 06:47:32 pmLOL, at the local supermarket they have the stuff you want and it is easy to find. I ask where the beans are and I am directly straight away to the beans section.On youtube 99% is utter garbage and their search engine is complete horse shit. You ask where the beans are and they direct you to one video about beans about an hour long and totally unedited made by some numpty and 50 Mr beast videos who I have never watched a single video of. Then ads of "single" women with big boobs all over youtube these days as well.Open the home page of youtube with a clean browser cache and see what garbage gets pushed at you. There will be multiple short videos with images of a young woman holding something or not wearing much with titles likeThis feels wrong.It just fell off.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 10:05:26 pm
content: Quote from: .RC. on January 31, 2025, 09:42:10 pmYou realize if you log in and click "don't recommend" it won't recommend the channel to you again right?I don't have any major issue with suggestions right now, definitely not perfect, but usable.

author: .RC.
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 10:12:34 pm
content: I do not have a youtube account.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 10:16:28 pm
content: Quote from: .RC. on January 31, 2025, 09:42:10 pmOnly 99% rubbish? What's the secret to your success?You forgot to mention the proportion that don't need moving pictures, and those that are talking heads spouting many ums and ahs.IThere is some good stuff, iff you can find it.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 10:17:45 pm
content: Quote from: .RC. on January 31, 2025, 09:42:10 pmsounds horrible, with such experiences you'll obviously never use youtube again, so what they do with ads won't affect you the slightest

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 10:33:23 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on January 31, 2025, 10:17:45 pmIt is sufficiently horrible that I won't bother watching a yoootoob vid unless I knowbeforehandthat it will be worth my time. That's a non-trivial hurdle.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 10:45:11 pm
content: Something that the YouTube apologists here like @langwadt (and even to some extent our own forum host) miss is this:Formerly, up to a couple years ago, YouTube was basically presented and used as a free service to viewers, even as it was becoming more and more monetized by content creators (and its owner, Google, itself).Now, though, all of a sudden we're being told "hey, you can't expect to get all this stuff for free? what the hell are you thinking?".It's as if the rug was suddenly being pulled beneath our feet, after everyone took it for granted that it was essentially a free service. So now it's like network TV, where sure, you can watch it all you like for free, but we're going to subject you to the maximum amount of commercials in exchange.Is that a good bargain? is it something freely entered into by the poor viewer, or is it something being thrust upon us by the medium owner because suddenly they can't reap their exorbitant profits by any other method? Basically "take it or leave it"? And if so, what's the alternative? YouTube is the 900-lb. gorilla that has slaughtered all the other animals in the zoo.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 11:39:11 pm
content: Quote from: .RC. on January 31, 2025, 10:12:34 pmIf you don't have an account you can't complain about the suggestions... the suggestions are based on your watch history which is linked to your account.

author: shapirus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2025, 12:08:48 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 31, 2025, 10:45:11 pmThis.This is akin to changing rules of the game during the game.Yes they have all the rights to do it, but somehow it doesn't feel right.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2025, 01:25:06 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on January 31, 2025, 10:45:11 pmit was never "free" they have had ads on videos for close to 18 years, that's what's paying the bills

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2025, 02:03:50 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on February 01, 2025, 01:25:06 amI've been using YouTube off and on for at least a decade now, never had an account, and I never saw the amount nor the intrusiveness of ads that I'm seeing now.Usually no ads at all.

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2025, 10:24:58 am
content: Quote from: .RC. on January 31, 2025, 10:12:34 pmSo YouTube assumes the lowest common denominator and you get kittens, dashcams "You wont believe this", and Mr Beast.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2025, 11:31:54 am
content: Quote from: shapirus on February 01, 2025, 12:08:48 amIt is standard operating practice.The standard word to describe it is "enshittification". Cory Doctorow has written very good descriptions of how and why it happens.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2025, 03:09:43 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on February 01, 2025, 02:03:50 amExactly. It's only recently they've increased the number of advertisements to unacceptable levels. They started annoying me when they introduced non-skippable adverts at the beginning of videos, then came the ones in the middle. I put up with it for awhile, as I saw it as a necessary evil. The final straw for me was when they demonetised Sydney Watson, without giving her a reason. Presumably it was because she's conservative, even though she's not extreme, just moderate, right of centre and she'd done everything she could to stay within the rules, but it wasn't enough.At first I started using a simple ad blocker which just skipped the mid video adverts and I managed to manually skip the ones at the start by pressing the back, then forward button on my browser. They then they started demonetising many other YouTubers, causing me to actively hate them, so I installed a YouTube specific adblocker and haven't looked back. I don't care if they lose money. Heck, it's tempting just to stream loads of ad blocked content just to waste their bandwidth, but I'm not that petty.here are other things they can do if they want to reduce costs. For example, reducing the resolution of videos which aren't so profitable, would be preferable to having too many adverts. I'd be happy with crappy old 480p for most videos and it would be much cheaper to serve.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2025, 03:35:08 pm
content: SmartTube app on Android TV or Android stick (Amazon Fire stick here). Problem solved.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2025, 04:38:30 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on February 01, 2025, 03:09:43 pmI've no idea who or what Sydney Watson might be.You jump to the reason being political bias.From what you've said, she was knowingly pushing the boundaries. Anjem Chowdrey knowingly pushed boundaries in the UK, and claimed he wasn't extreme. I'm not sorry he is now unable to continue doing that.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2025, 05:10:24 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 01, 2025, 04:38:30 pmistm that for some it is also a deliberate business strategy; push the boundaries to get a reaction, claim the "establishment" is trying to suppress "the truth", ask for donations, profit ...

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2025, 06:41:38 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on February 01, 2025, 05:10:24 pmUnfortunately extremists have widely adopted such tactics, and too many people are prepared to fall into the trap of believing them."Alternative facts", "you prove me wrong", "my opinion is equally valid", and all that dangerous rubbish. Empires fall by rotting from within

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2025, 07:03:38 pm
content: Quote from: paulca on January 31, 2025, 04:53:42 pmbuddy you just layed it out for me, the german democratic peoples republic, cookies, I get it, decline allmaybe it was not called GPDR, but it could have beenessential website function = give marketing a raise somehow based on people literally coming in to look at stuff.So logically what you do is have them walk over a puddle of ink, take shoe prints, x-ray them and track their eye movementsand with X its "PAPERS, NOW!"I swear its like being at the club with a bouncer every 10 feet looking at you while whispering into a ear pieceI think if we got a physical representation of the state of some websites in the form of say a restaurant, museum or night club we would feel seriously afraid being there. So, HOW big is your security apparatus? do we have a 2 man or 4 man team tailing every visitor?I feel like you would get a similar amount of attention if you stepped out of a train in east germany in 1962 wearing a I <3 uncle sam t-shirt and a american flag sticking out of your bag. Next week the director gets a fat ass dossier with 25 pictures of you, a psychological profile that high lights moral weaknesses and fears, your prints, DNA, voice print and a hair sample

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2025, 07:35:47 pm
content: I have no idea what you are talking about.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2025, 08:30:24 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on February 01, 2025, 07:35:47 pmits funny that with cookies and web tracking the solution they found sounds like german peoples democratic republic. I guess it puts your online privacy in line with what you could expect in the GDR, after you apply all the loop holes.I am told they had a real thing there for magazines. Magazines with pictures is how you ended up being questioned lol, it was used like bait. Bring a car mag to the border and you got a response

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2025, 10:50:44 pm
content: Still have no idea what you're going on about here.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2025, 11:36:21 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 01, 2025, 04:38:30 pmIt's the only explanation I can think of.YouTube are renowned for having a strong left-leaning/liberal bias.QuoteWhat did I say which implied she was knowingly pushing boundaries?If you're really interested, then you can easily search YouTube for her channel and make your own mind up.I don't think her videos were politically extreme. She certainly didn't advocate hate or political/religious violence/extremism. I don't watch that kind of content.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2025, 11:50:24 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on February 01, 2025, 11:36:21 pmThat's a variant of the famous Sherlock Holmes saying "When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". I've long hated that cop out, for many reasons.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2025, 12:04:41 am
content: I don't know, youtubers get demonetized all the time for reasons that only YT knows, but there sure are topics and words that almost guarantee demonetization. Still, that's pretty opaque.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2025, 05:04:29 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 01, 2025, 11:50:24 pmWhy not watch her videos and form your own opinion, rather than making silly comments? If you're not interested than that's fine, but it's a bit daft to comment on something you know nothing about.Again you're reinforcing my criticism about Google's lack of transparency. If they gave a solid reason for demonetising her, then fine, but they do is point to community guidelines which clearly aren't guidelines. They are rules which are nebulous and applied in a seemingly arbitrary manner. I've seen content which is far more offensive/controversial which is still monetised.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2025, 09:21:50 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 01, 2025, 11:50:24 pmI'd never heard of Sydney Watson either, so I went and looked at her list of vids on YT. She's along the same lines as Alex Jones, GB News, etc.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2025, 09:25:51 pm
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on February 02, 2025, 09:21:50 pmI suspected as much. Full of alternative facts (i.e. lies), conspiracy theories, unsupported assertions, and "reasoning" that wouldn't pass muster at O-level (let alone A-level).My remaining life is too short to waste on yoootooob vids unless I can determinein advancewhy spending my remaining life on them will be beneficial.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2025, 06:13:36 pm
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on February 02, 2025, 09:21:50 pmI've heard of Alex Jones but am not a follower and I wouldn't compare Sydney to GB News.Quote from: tggzzz on February 02, 2025, 09:25:51 pmNowadays the difference between a conspiracy theory and plausible reality is months to a couple of years. Take the "conspiracy theory" that COVID-19 leaked from a lab for example. A few years ago, if you make a video which claimed it was a lab leak, it would have been marked as misinformation and deleted. Yet, now the CIA believes COVID-19 leaked from a lab and it's on the BBC website.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9qjjj4zy5oNow why would they lie about it? Why was the wet market theory the only acceptable truth at the start and all other possibilities with dismissed as crackpot?It appears as though the likes of the BBC and those who blindly believe them are the ones who lack reasoning.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2025, 07:14:39 pm
content: Because there's still no evidence of the lab leak theory being valid. It might be true but no one has provided any definitive evidence of it. Also, at the time, I recall many biologists saying that there was no evidence of gain of function research on that COVID strain, basically, it appeared to be a natural variation. Things like CRISPR leave evidence behind. It is possible the virus was naturally mutated to achieved the desired effects and then leaked, but it is impossible to prove this. It still remains more likely than not that the virus was just a natural occurrence, but we will probably never know for sure, unless someone from the Wuhan lab testifies with detailed evidence. The CIA is a political organisation and will publish whatever is beneficial to American interests.News sources like the BBC will only publish things that can be reasonably shown to be true, which is why whenever Trump says something that is not supported by facts (like DEI caused the collision between the jet and helicopter recently), they weasel it like "President Trump alleged, without providing evidence, that XYZ was the cause".

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2025, 07:52:26 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on February 03, 2025, 07:14:39 pmAnd the WHO are politically compromised by China.The lab leak theory is now supported by many virologists.It's also possible it was natural, but there's no definitive evidence to support that either.More has surfaced about the virus over time. I suggest you look into it again.I didn't intend to discuss it here, as it's against the rules. The point is, only one narrative was accepted at the time, yet only now more has surface and the dust has finally settled, are other theories being investigated. A big driver for speculation is people not being told the full truth, which includes what is unknown at the time.QuoteWhatever happened to investigative journalism and questioning things? There's a shortage of that in the modern mainstream media.The BBC and other news such as the Guardian are funny. There are definite cases when a politician such as Trump or Starmer have lied about something and it's clear cut, as in the case you've cited above, but often it's not, yet they then provide a fact check which isn't proven either. They say that the claim Trump made about many who crossed the border being from foreign prisons and asylums, is false, yet there is no proof of it being definitively false. To be charitable to the BBC, there's no evidence to suggest foreign governments are deliberately releasing inmates (that's not what Trump said) it's certainly true some foreign escapees have illegally travelled to the US. Saying that's false is an extraordinary claim.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2025, 08:17:24 pm
content: I thought it was amusing that the leak theory was so insane but USSR managed to cover up their little anthrax incident for a long time, blamed animals too

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2025, 07:33:06 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on February 03, 2025, 07:52:26 pmInvestigative journalism takes time.Unfortunately the attention span of people these days is typically only 10 seconds (i.e. Tiktok video) and 280 characters (i.e. TwitterX).Also, unfortunately it is these people that also bring in the ad revenue for media companies.Have you heard the phrase 24 hour news cycle?https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/News+cycleInvestigative journalism simply doesn't attract sufficient eyeball ad revenue. As such, investigative journalism is normally found in media subscriptions, or performed by government funded media.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2025, 10:07:10 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on February 03, 2025, 07:52:26 pmAgreed, and it has already had bad consequences. The BBC started going downhill a decade ago when its top managers prevented its journalists from investigating/verifying political statements.Mechanism: weaponised lawyers plus undisclosed and shadowy money.Shills and cranks have learned that they can sue media outlets into carrying their dangerous lies, under the banners of "avoiding bias", "all opinions are valid and should be heard", and similar nonsense.

author: wilfred
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2025, 10:14:39 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on February 03, 2025, 07:52:26 pmIf you want to make a convincing case it would help if you didn't weaken the case with an immediate contradiction. If there is no direct evidence supporting the natural theory either, then what are the virologists basing the lab leak theory on? Direct evidence seems necessary one way or the other.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2025, 11:33:11 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on February 04, 2025, 10:14:39 amI'm not a strong believer in either theory.This isn't the place to discuss COVID-19 and wasn't my intention. It was merely an example.Finally, you've missed the point. It was about censorship and why some theories are accepted despite lack of strong evidence, yet others with similar levels of credibility are labelled as crackpot conspiracy theories.Read my post again.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2025, 11:58:51 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on February 04, 2025, 11:33:11 amEver heard of Occam's Razor?

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2025, 01:00:22 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 04, 2025, 11:58:51 amWith reference to what? Censorship? Lab leak vs evolution?I don't know what your point is?EDIT:Assuming you're talking about censorship and why one narrative was accepted and not the other. The answer is the theory which absolved the authorities of blame was chosen.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2025, 01:24:01 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on February 04, 2025, 01:00:22 pmAh. A conspiracy theorist.In that case it won't do any good to point out that Occam's Razor is a principle for solving problems that recommends a simpler explanation over a more complex explanation.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2025, 09:05:07 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 04, 2025, 01:24:01 pmExactly. That's why the theory which was more convenient to the authorities was accepted. It's the simpler explanation as to why all alternatives were branded conspiracy theories.EDIT:It isn't as though the lab leak theory is more complicated than natural evolution. The Wuhan lab of virology is right next to where it was initially discovered. It's a simple enough explanation.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2025, 09:10:39 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on February 03, 2025, 07:52:26 pmMoney happened, and then the internet came and killed off most serious journalists.Investigative journalism takes time, often a lot of time. And as the saying goes: Time is money. Time is expensive, often the most expensive part of any project.Then the internet came, and news essentially became free. In the beginning this was often essentially subsidized by the earnings of the sale of printed media. But with more and more people able to access the internet, print sales dropped. Reputable magazines needed to implement paywalls to keep going. And many users went away, going for other, still freely available, sources.And many, many, of these sources are utter trash. They do everything for the click. Nothing matters but clicks. Worse than the worst example of the printed yellow press.And with the current boom of artificial intelligence and image generators, this will get way worse.I still "do my part" by keeping a subscription to my local newspaper and a weekly magazine. I still trust both, but the quality is dropping steadily.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2025, 11:33:56 am
content: The lab-leak theory is by definition a conspiracy theory: it requires multiple people who were knowledgeable of the leak to have been kept secret in a conspiracy by the Chinese government, either covering up incompetence or a deliberate action.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2025, 12:27:01 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on February 05, 2025, 11:33:56 amThat is true, but that doesn't mean it should be dismissed out of hand, or be subject to censorship.Heck, I don't see how the idea it escaped from a lab is harmful to health. It's not like the crazy ones about the virus being fake, or that the vaccines contain chips which track you, which I concede have the potential for harm.Given the way China initially covered the whole thing up from the start it's not surprising people are going to be naturally suspicious.Again, I'm not proponent of that the lab leak theory, just that it's a plausible explanation. There are plenty of cases of government cover ups and lies.Saying you're a crackpot, conspiracy theorist, blah, blah, blah, is just a tactic used to shut down debate.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2025, 12:51:38 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on February 05, 2025, 12:27:01 pmThat could be said for flat earthers, or people like myself who are convinced the moon is made of green cheese, that man never landed on the moon, and that reptilians run the US government.Those beliefs should, of course, be given equal credence, publicity and airtime as nonsense like relativity and quantum theory and evolution.Fortunately they are now be given airtime and publicity, and 12 million Americans have been able to take the red pill.https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/10/how-spot-reptilians-runing-us-government/354496/

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2025, 12:52:46 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on February 05, 2025, 12:27:01 pmSo is using political code words such as MSM and SJW.

author: wkb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2025, 02:06:22 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 05, 2025, 12:51:38 pmWell, that reptillian 'brains' run the current US government appears to be true, given recent developments.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2025, 02:07:26 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 05, 2025, 12:51:38 pmBut those are extraordinary claims. The idea that a virus escaped from a virology lab, which studies similar viruses, right next to a wet market, where it was initially discovered and started a pandemic is not an extraordinary claim. Heck it's also possible for two theories to be both true: it evolved naturally, was taken as a sample, stored in the lab, then escaped to the wet market.Quote from: tggzzz on February 05, 2025, 12:52:46 pmAnti-Semitic, racist, Islamophobic, woke, the list goes on.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2025, 02:25:29 pm
content: At this point i can care less about covid, labs, bats, pangolis or whatever other creature mickey mouse and randy marsh decide to have fun with for a night (man i loved that episode)I care much more about Youtube anti adblock measures.Currently, Firefox + ublock still work flawlessly in my area, revanced on mobile as well. Too bad almost all the channels i follow don't upload to other platforms, because i would be happy to drop youtube altogether (caveat: there is still all the music available in the world though, more than in the other streaming services combined though, with recordings of live shows as well. and for listening while working the quality is more than good enough)

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2025, 05:35:47 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on February 05, 2025, 02:07:26 pmSo now extraordinary claimscanbe dismissed out of hand?Einstein's claims were regarded as extraordinary for decades; even Einstein tried to dismiss some of the extraordinary consequences.You can't have it both ways, i.e your pet theories are taken seriously but other people's pet theories can be dismissed.QuoteLike SJW and MSM, "woke" is certainly a political pejorative designed to shut down discussion. Anti-semitic, racist and Islamophobic have (imperfect) definitions in law, and hence can be used without attempting to shut down discussion. They can also be used to shut down discussion.That's the reason that a simple minded ban on politics is unrealistic.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2025, 05:37:23 pm
content: Quote from: wkb on February 05, 2025, 02:06:22 pmYou might think that, I could not possibly comment. No idea what David Ike and Scientologists think, and I don't care

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2025, 06:02:17 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 05, 2025, 05:35:47 pmEinstein's theories have logic and reasoning behind them, where as flat earth, chips in vaccines etc. don't. I'm also not advocating censorship or dismissing anything out of hand. I'm just against censoring something because it's not accepted by the authorities.QuoteThe trouble is nowadays is the definitions of the above have been expanded and widely used in incorrect contexts, for example criticising Israel, often results in accusations of anti-Semitism.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2025, 07:53:09 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on February 05, 2025, 06:02:17 pmWho's talking about censorship?Many concepts have "logic and reasoning" behind them, e.g. the flat earth or N-rays or phlogiston or the aether, and are still flat out wrong. They should not be given equal airtime "because of the government conspiracy" or "just sayin'" or "all opinions are equally valid".If you go down that route then you are opening the floodgates to cranks pedlars, shills and salesmen/saleswomen;today'sexample is "mouth taping" of all things (from Dragon's Den).QuoteTrue enough in that case. But there are many other political code words e.g. SJW, "national comrade", MSM. Some seem to be acceptable to some here (and lauded by a few), So, why some political code words and not others?

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2025, 11:17:21 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 05, 2025, 07:53:09 pmMe. This discussion started when I talked about YouTube deleting content, because they deemed it to be misinformation, yet is now believed to be plausible, not just by cranks, but experts.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/youtubes-new-anti-adblocker-measures/msg5805567/#msg5805567QuoteI'm not sure what your point is. You appear to be rambling or strawmanning. I should have spotted it earlier when you mentioned Einstein's theories which you know damn well are completely different to flat earth woo woo.I stand by my assertion: in many cases, what's initially deemed to be a "conspiracy theory", fake, crackpot etc. sometimes turns out to true or plausible.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2025, 01:38:35 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 05, 2025, 05:35:47 pmIts absolutely possible, but it takes a large self control effort from those that keep workingtheirpolitics into discussions. Which won't happen, so you need mod effort to clean it up.In a select few threads I admit its probably not possible (thunderfoot thread), but outside of that it can be avoided.In this thread it starts at either post 56 or 93https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/youtubes-new-anti-adblocker-measures/msg5801575/#msg5801575https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/youtubes-new-anti-adblocker-measures/msg5802849/#msg5802849

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2025, 09:50:38 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on February 01, 2025, 03:09:43 pmReduce costs and shift those heavy users to "Premium" to generate revenue.If they just put 4K behind the paywall period it would probably have a significant impact.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2025, 10:16:47 am
content: Quote from: paulca on February 06, 2025, 09:50:38 amDidn't they already? If not the actual resolution, i think the higher bitrates are limited to premium subscribers.I don't really care about 4k. Not only do i not even have a 4k capable screen, i'm also of the opinion that the content is more important than it's presentation. Sure, FullHD is nice, but good stuff stays good on 720p or even SD. Stuff where i really care about image quality gets watched from BluRay disc anyway.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2025, 10:50:48 am
content: Quote from: thm_w on February 06, 2025, 01:38:35 amI refute your insulation I have worked my politics into this thread. I merely suggested YouTube's demonetization policy appears to be ideological/political and gave an example where this appears to have been the case.It's impractical to completely ban politics. It's everywhere. It affects engineering and technology: Brexit, the response to the pandemic, tariffs etc. have all impacted on my job, hobby and no doubt the same is true for most people. There's a difference between permitting openly political threads right from the start and being heavy handed.Would you be happy if every mention of: EU mandated cookie pop ups, leaded solder ban, standby power requirement legislation etc. be removed from the forum? I certainly wouldn't want that, just as much as I wouldn't like the forum polluted with posts about Trump, Israel, BLM etc.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2025, 12:23:57 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on February 06, 2025, 10:50:48 amOf course that is political. You could have just said "I don't pay because creators I support have been demonetized" and left it at that.But you had to specifically call out: who it was, and your pet theory on why you think it was the case.In this thread I really don't care, leaving is easy and nothing of value is lost. As long as that shit is kept out of technical threads I am very happy.QuoteYou are missing something here. A thread stating leaded solder being banned and how you are upset on a personal level is completely apolitical.It can be discussed at length without going into the politics: why you think whoever party or "side" that banned it is bad or good, why xyz politician is ruining the world, etc etc.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2025, 01:45:37 am
content: Quote from: thm_w on February 07, 2025, 12:23:57 amPrecisely. Especially the point about his "pet theory".I wouldn't have thought that was contentious, but...

author: .RC.
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2025, 09:21:13 pm
content: I see their latest trick now is if you run an adblocker they lock older monetised videos >1 or so year old to 360p.It comes up "null" when you try to change the resolution.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2025, 09:48:31 pm
content: my brain feels alot better after a few months of not going on youtube unless absolutely requiredafter two weeks I stopped putting Y into the web browser barand 0 exposure to 'smart' youtube commentsI feel like its being in stasis or something when you are watching videos all the time. Is the idea not to do anything because you can see the video? I feel like at the end its a bunch of random stuff. And it makes you feel like you can skip a bunch of stuff and get ahead but the big crux is that if you try the stuff that fails you might find out why or solve it in another way and reach a totally different conclusion then the video maker.

author: 5U4GB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2025, 04:13:45 am
content: Quote from: Ranayna on February 06, 2025, 10:16:47 amAs with audio golden ears types, there have been plenty of experiments done where people couldn't tell whether they'd been watching (at least) SD vs. HD (1080p) and similar. Haven't looked recently but it wouldn't surprise me if the same held for 720/1080p vs. 4K, even more so because you probably can't even tell whether it's 480p on most phones, tablets, and other YT-consumption devices.

author: .RC.
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2025, 06:04:14 am
content: It is easy to tell the difference between 1080, 720, 480 and 360.1080 is as far as my monitor goes so beyond that I have no idea.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2025, 07:10:06 am
content: Quote from: .RC. on June 11, 2025, 09:21:13 pmI can't say I've noticed. That's probably because I'm happy with 360p for most of the videos I watch. Indeed I listen to many videos, rather than watch them.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2025, 12:19:01 pm
content: Regarding the lastest changes some users reported that being not logged in or watching in private mode helps. My current experience with YouTube is a bit different. For some videos I get a small overlay box noting performance issues (with a link on how to resolve them). And if I take a longer break from watching sometimes the video player controls don't work anymore. A page reload fixed that.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2025, 06:11:28 pm
content: Quote from: .RC. on June 12, 2025, 06:04:14 amI think you are talking about a computer monitor, and if so, I quite agree. But a television is at least 10ft away, and I think it is much harder to discern the difference under those conditions.Furthermore, everything you watch on a TV has been through a lossy compression codec, and having looked closely it is clear that a typical picture from a 4K feed is much "softer" than the resolution would suggest, and nothing like as detailed as the uncompressed picture you get on a desktop computer monitor (I mean the picture from the OS and the applications, not streamed video because that is compressed again).

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2025, 07:46:41 pm
content: Quote from: .RC. on June 11, 2025, 09:21:13 pmWhat browser are you using? I cannot reproduce that. The video your screenshot is off claims to be 1080p for me, and it surely doesn't look 360p.I'm using Firefox with uBlock Origin. A couple of days ago the adblock detection screamed at me, but i could just dismiss that popup and it hasn't yet returned.

author: .RC.
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2025, 11:00:27 pm
content: Same browser as you but with adblock. I tried ublock and it works with that, go back to adblock and it limits it to 360p.I turned them off and goodness me it was horrible with ads everywhere all of nothing I had the slightest interest in.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2025, 09:11:41 am
content: I would strongly recommend switching to uBlock Origin.Adblock has had some shady practices in the past, such as "acceptable ads", which just meant that advertisers that paid Adblock were left through the blocker...

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2025, 08:56:06 am
content: Quote from: .RC. on June 12, 2025, 11:00:27 pmAdblock is a Trojan. You want uBlock Origin.