Whether or not you like Google or their practices, I don't necessarily understand people who insist on getting something for free and also get upset about the service. There are many bad/unreasonable things YouTube does but this is the least objectionable, imho.
As the saying go, "if the product is free, you are the product". Pay for your stuff, or you degrade yourself.
I'll just say that Youtube Premium has been a good value and there's comfort knowing that creators get a ton more revenue from my views.
I had no problem with ads when they were just a banner next to the video.
Now youtube is borderline unusable without an ad blocker.
That said they are free to try and stop me, and I am free to continue using ublock.
In HN's opinion, what should a company do when users are actively trying to subvert it from making money?
Imagine a situation where someone walks into Apple Store to explicitly steal iPhones. Is Apple justfied in preventing the person from entering? If you think "steal" is a bridge too far, lets say someone walks into Apple Store with an expectation to chat with the employees, goof around with display units, preventing legitimate customers from accessing them - will the company be justified in preventing that behavior?
Google can do what they want but they handle this poorly in my opinion.
First of all they seem to apply the adblocker checking at random instead of on everyone. They won't do that because they know it'll cost them.
Secondly, I use Safari and can simply 'reload page without content blockers' to allow ads and disable the extension on the current page - Google doesn't accept this. You have to fully disable your adblocker extension at the browser level before they'll let you back in. They are 100% doing that so that you stop blocking Google ads on non-Google sites.
Once upon a time, advertisements were intended to be watched by people. Now, the advertisements are watching people. Surveillance capitalists are the parasites turning your private information into their profits. I refuse to acknowledge invasive racketeering as a legitimate business.
It is natural for someone to object to a company's business practices. Millions of people dont eat meat, or consume dairy products due to ethical or moral considerations.
Most of those people stop giving such companies business. Some of them go and protest, but if I understand you correctly you're saying one has to go into a McDonalds and consume their burgers, and then complain?
Nah, you insist on building an empire, the onus in on you to git gud at keeping barbarians at bay _at scale_.
The thing got big because it was free. They bought it, society (d)evolved together with the thing, they turned it into what it now is. Monetization is their problem and no one else's.
Funny that you mention Apple Stores. There's a widely circulated video showing a masked man walking into an Apple Store, yanking all the display units off the tables, and walking right out, without anyone trying to stop him. No intervention. No security. Just quiet compliance from staff and onlookers.
Yes, the internet is different from real life. Would an Apple "Genius" really want to fight a guy? The standard in retail is set, call the police and let them deal with it.
Whether or not you like Google or their practices, I don't necessarily understand people who insist on getting something for free and also get upset about the service. There are many bad/unreasonable things YouTube does but this is the least objectionable, imho.
As the saying go, "if the product is free, you are the product". Pay for your stuff, or you degrade yourself.
I'll just say that Youtube Premium has been a good value and there's comfort knowing that creators get a ton more revenue from my views.
Part of what convinced me to pay for Premium was confirming that Goog didn't seem to care if I used an adblocker if I was also paying.
I had no problem with ads when they were just a banner next to the video. Now youtube is borderline unusable without an ad blocker. That said they are free to try and stop me, and I am free to continue using ublock.
In HN's opinion, what should a company do when users are actively trying to subvert it from making money?
Imagine a situation where someone walks into Apple Store to explicitly steal iPhones. Is Apple justfied in preventing the person from entering? If you think "steal" is a bridge too far, lets say someone walks into Apple Store with an expectation to chat with the employees, goof around with display units, preventing legitimate customers from accessing them - will the company be justified in preventing that behavior?
Google can do what they want but they handle this poorly in my opinion.
First of all they seem to apply the adblocker checking at random instead of on everyone. They won't do that because they know it'll cost them.
Secondly, I use Safari and can simply 'reload page without content blockers' to allow ads and disable the extension on the current page - Google doesn't accept this. You have to fully disable your adblocker extension at the browser level before they'll let you back in. They are 100% doing that so that you stop blocking Google ads on non-Google sites.
> First of all they seem to apply the adblocker checking at random instead of on everyone. They won't do that because they know it'll cost them.
How does applying adblocker detect at random cost YouTube?
What I mean is that if they applied the restriction to everyone they’d lose a meaningful number of users.
Once upon a time, advertisements were intended to be watched by people. Now, the advertisements are watching people. Surveillance capitalists are the parasites turning your private information into their profits. I refuse to acknowledge invasive racketeering as a legitimate business.
It is natural for someone to object to a company's business practices. Millions of people dont eat meat, or consume dairy products due to ethical or moral considerations.
Most of those people stop giving such companies business. Some of them go and protest, but if I understand you correctly you're saying one has to go into a McDonalds and consume their burgers, and then complain?
YouTube has a de facto monopoly on long-form video content.
Then you live without it, if you truly object to their practices. A boycott means nothing if it doesn't hurt a little.
Nah, you insist on building an empire, the onus in on you to git gud at keeping barbarians at bay _at scale_.
The thing got big because it was free. They bought it, society (d)evolved together with the thing, they turned it into what it now is. Monetization is their problem and no one else's.
Funny that you mention Apple Stores. There's a widely circulated video showing a masked man walking into an Apple Store, yanking all the display units off the tables, and walking right out, without anyone trying to stop him. No intervention. No security. Just quiet compliance from staff and onlookers.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AcUU9snHMe4
Yes, the internet is different from real life. Would an Apple "Genius" really want to fight a guy? The standard in retail is set, call the police and let them deal with it.
You either deploy ad blocking, or you deploy malware. Ad blocking is personal infosec.
Old news
The “experiencing interruptions” thing is new afaik. I only started seeing it a few days ago.