Not really, sadly. google is going at this whole their-internet-ads-everywhere by several routes. Neither DNS blockers like AdGuard or google MV3 compliant browser (google chromium & firefox and soft forks) extensions, google web extensions, will work because they can't block first party hosted ads. Things that are a part of the site itself. Embedded into it. google is also pushing their Shadow/DOM (and nested module/import functions) "standard" which will turn all sites into a single packet. One in which you can't modify individual elements, because the whole of the thing is the element.
Since smartphones are google android or walled garden & closed source apple, there's really no workaround on them. I don't use a smartphone personally. On Desktop you can use Pale Moon or Basilisk browser though. They use the superior UXP addons, evolved from XUL.
No mention of le lion shill browser? Brave has in-build adblocking... though I usually throw Ublock on it as well to catch what slips through the cracks.
Brave is a google chromium soft fork browser. Their built-in adblocker works through both DNS blocking and MV2 WebRequest blocking elements. Neither will work when they update to MV3.
They could stay on an old version of google chromium and do a hard fork. However, that would bring out cries of "old browser, out of date" by its nay-sayers. They could also switch browser "engine" (not back to their original firefox one, since that will also be affected by MV3), but there's not much competition there.. FF is basically chromium-lite today. There is Pale Moon and Basilisk though. Powered by Goanna, instead of Gecko (firefox) or blink (chromium). There's also Web Kit (Safari), but it's what blink (chromium) forked off of..
Opera is Chinese owned and backed by the CCP, plus it's Closed Source and spies on you. Arc is a MacOS chromium browser firstly.. Besides, like I said, hard forking a google chromium browser isn't going to go down well, at all. Cries of "obsolete", and "unsecure" will abound. They'd also still be reliant on google web extensions.. Rooting out google from browsers today would mean breaking up all their internet related avenues. Ads, fonts, analytics, tag manager, web rtc, webgl, web extensions, web assembly, web components, widewine, safe browsing, irregexp, geo location, Skia, search, android, and chromium.
Keep on as they are. DNS blocking and MV3 compliant "declarativeNetRequest" instead of "webrequest". Almost every other browser will be similarly affected, so it'll be "par for the course/just the way it is".. sadly.
If the ads are first-party, I assume Google is financially and morally liable for any harms caused by the advertisements they serve. If they're not running third-party code, I will treat the ads as an annoyance instead of a threat, at least on their own platforms.
Kind of reminds me of what Michael Pachter once said about ads in one of his videos.
Eventually we will reach a point where videos will simply not play until a set amount of seconds will elapse and adblockers will result in users simply stare at a blackscreen for set amount of seconds.
This is what they do in China and adblockers don't really work, I broke part of my network because a new update on their ad serving refused an android TV refused to acknowledge being connected to the internet for the handshake.
Yeah, I'd rather have 90 seconds of silence than be blasted by ads for any amount of time. I generally tolerate in-video ad reads (though if I'm actively watching, I'll skip past them) but I have zero patience for any other kind.
I'm just gonna go back to reading books. I already watch videos at 2x+ speed with cc on just to skip the drivel, and books are just better at conveying info, they don't require power or web, and I can keep them forever without them getting suddenly edited and can even lend them to friends.
The good content creators even make their ad reads entertaining. Count Dankula and Internet Historian have convinced me to check out several products on account of being funny about the ad reads (or, rather, the sponsors allowing them to be funny about the ad reads made me willing to check out their products).
Reminder to download any video you ever might want to see again or share.
Google is having a hard time growing revenue and so is injecting ads into everything. This starts a downward spiral: more ads, less users, so even more ads.
At some point they'll put ads in the actual video stream and flip a switch to turn on DRM encryption for all videos. Ad-blockers won't work and any downloads will be encrypted and useless.
Google can encrypt all videos at any minute and already like 95% of users wouldn't notice because Widevine has its tendrils almost everywhere. When they do it, Linux users will just have to use the official Google Linux Kernel for their distro but most users won't notice or care because their distro will still look the same.
Vanced works sporadically for me, going down for a day or 2, back for a day or two. I've added another YouTube account into micro-g and that's been fine so far.
Are desktop viewers with adblock installed even a significant portion of Youtube viewers anymore? I thought the web was somewhere north of 60-70% mobile and tablet users now.
As one Redditor said, "It wouldn't be so bad if there weren't 2 minutes unstoppable ads, and multiple ads before the video, ads interrupting the video, rendering the videos useless!!!"
This is the truth of it right here. I was listening to a 2 hour long video while on my way to deliver a load and every 10 minutes a 1 or 2 minute ad will play. All of them unskippable. Now I’m listening on the Brave browser on mobile. I can’t stand these ads. Even if YouTube wasn’t woke as fuck I still wouldn’t give them 20 bucks a month just out of principle now. They can shove these ads up their ass.
YouTube's ultimate goal is to paywall the site. If you cast to a TV (I don't know if this is another experiment or rolled out to all), you're being nagged to get Premium every few minutes. By banning ad-blockers through new measures that render ad-blocking practically impossible (not that they'll try), implementing Widevine site wide and cramming in advertising, they can nudge people toward paying.
Eventually ads will come to Premium too (which will lose the Premium name). Happened in the 90s with satellite television and its happening now. YouTube is becoming cable TV.
While everyone will move to Rumble, Odysee and other competitors, they'll face the same issue. If not worse because they don't have the big money of large corporations behind them. The only other alternative is large subscription fees from the viewers.
Some of these videos are so short that I think we'll see an increase in browser extensions that let you download the video directly. They actually already exist, but I think they'll become more popular.
Content creators might also upload to other sites (aside from YouTube), which is great because YT needs more competition and doesn't deserve to exist after all they've done.
A possible compromise might be that adblock users will be limited to lower res videos, maybe 480p (then 720p in the future). If they're worried about costs (lol), then it makes sense that high res videos cost more money and need to be funded by ad revenue.
The people behind the ad block apps have probably already got a workaround provided
Because there's extremely low numbers of competent, technical know how staff still at YouTube and Google...
I'm assuming they just got their hands on whatever code the porn companies created for the task five years ago and copied it.
Damn i forgot some porn sites have an ad block blocker.
Not really, sadly. google is going at this whole their-internet-ads-everywhere by several routes. Neither DNS blockers like AdGuard or google MV3 compliant browser (google chromium & firefox and soft forks) extensions, google web extensions, will work because they can't block first party hosted ads. Things that are a part of the site itself. Embedded into it. google is also pushing their Shadow/DOM (and nested module/import functions) "standard" which will turn all sites into a single packet. One in which you can't modify individual elements, because the whole of the thing is the element.
Since smartphones are google android or walled garden & closed source apple, there's really no workaround on them. I don't use a smartphone personally. On Desktop you can use Pale Moon or Basilisk browser though. They use the superior UXP addons, evolved from XUL.
No mention of le lion shill browser? Brave has in-build adblocking... though I usually throw Ublock on it as well to catch what slips through the cracks.
Brave is a google chromium soft fork browser. Their built-in adblocker works through both DNS blocking and MV2 WebRequest blocking elements. Neither will work when they update to MV3.
Couldn’t Brave update the browser to handle the MV3 update? Or will this require a browser they build from scratch?
They could stay on an old version of google chromium and do a hard fork. However, that would bring out cries of "old browser, out of date" by its nay-sayers. They could also switch browser "engine" (not back to their original firefox one, since that will also be affected by MV3), but there's not much competition there.. FF is basically chromium-lite today. There is Pale Moon and Basilisk though. Powered by Goanna, instead of Gecko (firefox) or blink (chromium). There's also Web Kit (Safari), but it's what blink (chromium) forked off of..
Opera is Chinese owned and backed by the CCP, plus it's Closed Source and spies on you. Arc is a MacOS chromium browser firstly.. Besides, like I said, hard forking a google chromium browser isn't going to go down well, at all. Cries of "obsolete", and "unsecure" will abound. They'd also still be reliant on google web extensions.. Rooting out google from browsers today would mean breaking up all their internet related avenues. Ads, fonts, analytics, tag manager, web rtc, webgl, web extensions, web assembly, web components, widewine, safe browsing, irregexp, geo location, Skia, search, android, and chromium.
Keep on as they are. DNS blocking and MV3 compliant "declarativeNetRequest" instead of "webrequest". Almost every other browser will be similarly affected, so it'll be "par for the course/just the way it is".. sadly.
exactly this.
If the ads are first-party, I assume Google is financially and morally liable for any harms caused by the advertisements they serve. If they're not running third-party code, I will treat the ads as an annoyance instead of a threat, at least on their own platforms.
That's what happens when your whole fucking company is a bunch of H1B street shitters.
Kind of reminds me of what Michael Pachter once said about ads in one of his videos.
Eventually we will reach a point where videos will simply not play until a set amount of seconds will elapse and adblockers will result in users simply stare at a blackscreen for set amount of seconds.
This is exactly what Blip.tv pulled.
They made you wait 90 seconds, staring at a message telling you it only takes 30 seconds to sit through an ad.
Blip died.
This is what they do in China and adblockers don't really work, I broke part of my network because a new update on their ad serving refused an android TV refused to acknowledge being connected to the internet for the handshake.
Yeah, I'd rather have 90 seconds of silence than be blasted by ads for any amount of time. I generally tolerate in-video ad reads (though if I'm actively watching, I'll skip past them) but I have zero patience for any other kind.
At least with sponserships, the creator actually gets the support directly. Not hoovered up into Google
I'm just gonna go back to reading books. I already watch videos at 2x+ speed with cc on just to skip the drivel, and books are just better at conveying info, they don't require power or web, and I can keep them forever without them getting suddenly edited and can even lend them to friends.
The good content creators even make their ad reads entertaining. Count Dankula and Internet Historian have convinced me to check out several products on account of being funny about the ad reads (or, rather, the sponsors allowing them to be funny about the ad reads made me willing to check out their products).
So be it.
The day I'm forced to watch ads is the day I stop using that site.
Maybe this will be the push that will give alt-tech a chance to poach some non-political users.
That's fine, Alphabet Fags, I can grab the videos from your website a half dozen ways. Or just pirate them.
Reminder to download any video you ever might want to see again or share.
Google is having a hard time growing revenue and so is injecting ads into everything. This starts a downward spiral: more ads, less users, so even more ads.
At some point they'll put ads in the actual video stream and flip a switch to turn on DRM encryption for all videos. Ad-blockers won't work and any downloads will be encrypted and useless.
Google can encrypt all videos at any minute and already like 95% of users wouldn't notice because Widevine has its tendrils almost everywhere. When they do it, Linux users will just have to use the official Google Linux Kernel for their distro but most users won't notice or care because their distro will still look the same.
I've made a habit of doing that anyway. I never expect content posted on the Internet to always be available.
The other day, I overheard a YouTube ad for Google Ads and how they could help my business. I laughed pretty hard at that.
I miss YouTube Vanced.
YouTube's A/B testing knocked out my unsupported version of the app about a month ago and Revanced isn't supported on my device.
Revanced, newpipe
try to YouTube vanced hot fix version
Vanced works sporadically for me, going down for a day or 2, back for a day or two. I've added another YouTube account into micro-g and that's been fine so far.
Are desktop viewers with adblock installed even a significant portion of Youtube viewers anymore? I thought the web was somewhere north of 60-70% mobile and tablet users now.
I use YT in mobile through brave. I don't have the app. Degulaged phone.
For Mobile, you can use FurryFag Mobile and install an adblocker.
I really can't tell if that's the thing's real name, or you're alluding to something in a mocking fashion.
I assume FireFox, who fired their founder and CEO for supporting Prop 8 in California (it passed by a wide margin, btw).
This is the truth of it right here. I was listening to a 2 hour long video while on my way to deliver a load and every 10 minutes a 1 or 2 minute ad will play. All of them unskippable. Now I’m listening on the Brave browser on mobile. I can’t stand these ads. Even if YouTube wasn’t woke as fuck I still wouldn’t give them 20 bucks a month just out of principle now. They can shove these ads up their ass.
Or go the Nerdrotic route and spend half the fuckin video reading superchats instead of discussing whatever the hell your video is about.
laughs in Invidious
YouTube's ultimate goal is to paywall the site. If you cast to a TV (I don't know if this is another experiment or rolled out to all), you're being nagged to get Premium every few minutes. By banning ad-blockers through new measures that render ad-blocking practically impossible (not that they'll try), implementing Widevine site wide and cramming in advertising, they can nudge people toward paying.
Eventually ads will come to Premium too (which will lose the Premium name). Happened in the 90s with satellite television and its happening now. YouTube is becoming cable TV.
While everyone will move to Rumble, Odysee and other competitors, they'll face the same issue. If not worse because they don't have the big money of large corporations behind them. The only other alternative is large subscription fees from the viewers.
https://github.com/revanced
Twitch already does this. There's twitch-specific ad blockers now. It'll be the same the week youtube implements this
Assuming they go through with this:
Some of these videos are so short that I think we'll see an increase in browser extensions that let you download the video directly. They actually already exist, but I think they'll become more popular.
Content creators might also upload to other sites (aside from YouTube), which is great because YT needs more competition and doesn't deserve to exist after all they've done.
A possible compromise might be that adblock users will be limited to lower res videos, maybe 480p (then 720p in the future). If they're worried about costs (lol), then it makes sense that high res videos cost more money and need to be funded by ad revenue.
Maybe ad-blockers will develop a workaround.