Skip to content

YouTube just quietly blocked Adblock Plus — the internet hasn't noticed yet, but I've found a workaround

Technology
275 158 101
  • I think you stopped scrolling too early

    That said though, there is one ad blocker that still works. Two words: uBlock Origin. Yes, I know that Google has blocked it from its Chrome Extension store, but there is still a way to get uBlock Origin on Chrome that our how-to extraordinaire Kaycee has detailed.

    They even link to what I assume is that process.

    But...

    It costs the same as Spotify

    I used Google Play music and it was awesome, when it shuttered I tried Spotify and didn't like it.

    YouTube premium is worth it just for music on your phone/car, getting YouTube ad free is kind of just a bonus. But there's a couple podcasts I watch on there, and I've found a couple really good channels for all the crazy science stuff that's been happening. Not to mention a lot of UK shows upload full episodes, and there's more than one account that somehow uploads full runs of shows after being upscaled to 4k.

    I really don't understand why so many people are against YouTube premium. It makes sense if someone just pirates all their other media. But people pay for a music streamer and a couple TV streamers.... It seems like an arbitrary line.

    Edit:

    The article is from "toms guide" not "toms hardware".

    The guide has every article like this where it reads like paid advertising. The "hardware" one is a good resource.

    But yeah, pretty much anything from "tomsguide" is going to read like paid advertising for something. I legit don't know if they're affiliated or it's a ripoff site built to confuse people with the "hardware" site.

    I read that. But the way the article is written suggests that the workaround they're implying is to buy YouTube premium.
    I am not per se against YT premium, after all its normal business to take money and serve a product, but what my biggest cons are

    1. The price
    2. I already use all of the mentioned premium features and more but for free

    For example:
    YT music -> ReVanced (background play, no ads)
    YT App -> ReVanced (no ads, Sponsorblock, no shorts)
    YT on browser -> Extensions (uBlock, Sponsorblock, block yt shorts)

    If I were to pay for premium and use the regular app, I would lose that functionality and 130€ per year. This money would support a company whose business model involves extensive collection of personal data, which is then sold to third parties, effectively contributing to the global surveillance infrastructure.

    I would rather not use YouTube than pay for it.

  • I am willing to completely ditch YouTube and not access it, but there are a couple of channels that just aren't anywhere else that I do enjoy watching.

    Currently, I use RSS feeds in order to stay up to date with their videos, and I use new pipe to actually watch the videos, but still, it's annoying. I would like to stop using them and cannot. I feel as though I'm being held hostage.

    I have this running on a local server: https://github.com/alexta69/metube

    It’s a frontend for yt-dlp and whenever I want to watch something I just download it and have a copy saved locally. It makes it harder to binge youtube feeds that the algorithm tries to shove down my throat, and that’s a good thing.

  • Honestly, I just did that. YouTube has costs, storing and sharing all that data at high resolution and speed, so expecting that service for absolutely nothing is a little weird. We can find reasons that they’re bad, that’s fine, but good or bad they do have to pay for things.

    I also pay for the Patreon of one of my favourite mandolin players because I want him to keep making content and I wanted access to backing tracks and the Discord server. He can’t do it at that level for free, and that’s ok.

    We already pay with all of the personal data they steal from us (adblocks or no), and all the lifetimes wasted watching ads for those who don't or can't block them (and the ad revenue paid to them by corps who buy those ads) so no, Google doesn't deserve our money for Premium.

    Same thing as when cable TV was new, they said paying for it was to require fewer ads... how long did that last?

  • Yes. I consider it better because it's preconfigured for privacy, includes UBlock Origin by default, and rips Mozilla's telemetry out. So you never have to worry about them sneaking something new in a later update.

    I'm more worried about the updates not happening in a timely fashion. Is it just a passion project by a handful of devs, or is there some kind of funding?

  • I don't care what YouTube's costs are, I don't want to pay. I'll leave that to people like you.

    I care about making google lose money. They deserve it. I will only make accounts on big tech just to abuse them.

    All of big tech deserves to be bankrupt, convince me otherwise.

    They only care about money. No ethics, no rights, no environment, just money. And money IS NOT more important than ethics, rights, etc.

  • Honestly, I just did that. YouTube has costs, storing and sharing all that data at high resolution and speed, so expecting that service for absolutely nothing is a little weird. We can find reasons that they’re bad, that’s fine, but good or bad they do have to pay for things.

    I also pay for the Patreon of one of my favourite mandolin players because I want him to keep making content and I wanted access to backing tracks and the Discord server. He can’t do it at that level for free, and that’s ok.

    Sure, if paying them ment that they also didn't data mine the shit out of you and sold it to 3rd parties...but no they insist on double-dipping so they can get fucked.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Everyone breaking the website so they can watch gigabytes of content without ads or subscription: You're not allowed to break things just because you disagree with the other party! You should find an amicable alternative!

  • Honestly, I just did that. YouTube has costs, storing and sharing all that data at high resolution and speed, so expecting that service for absolutely nothing is a little weird. We can find reasons that they’re bad, that’s fine, but good or bad they do have to pay for things.

    I also pay for the Patreon of one of my favourite mandolin players because I want him to keep making content and I wanted access to backing tracks and the Discord server. He can’t do it at that level for free, and that’s ok.

    I don't watch enough YouTube to make premium worth it. If they had a lower tier with a cap on ad-free watch time, I probably would pay.

  • That said though, there is one ad blocker that still works. Two words: uBlock Origin. Yes, I know that Google has blocked it from its Chrome Extension store, but there is still a way to get uBlock Origin on Chrome that our how-to extraordinaire Kaycee has detailed.

    Or..... You could just ditch Chrome altogether!

    I don't know why people are so fixated on using Chrome. It's a crippled browser made by an evil company that is actively looking to screw the user at every turn.

    I switched to Firefox when Google essentially killed uBlock Origin on their browser. At first I ran into some problems with some sites not rendering correctly. But it seems like that's become much less of an issue with later updates. And the best thing is that there are some phenomenal extensions for blocking ads - like a fully-fledged uBlock Origin to name just one. I don't even see sponsor promotions in YT videos now.

    And if you don't want to deal with Mozilla directly you can use Waterfox instead.

    All this dancing around and jumping through hoops to get uBlock Origin working on Chrome is kind of absurd. Just ditch Chrome (and all Blink-based browsers) altogether where you can (I get that corporate environments are often off the table for this).

    Collectively we should be sending a message to Google whenever we can that we are done with their browser bullshit.

    Or at least use a Chrome fork, if you must use it for compatibility or something.

    TBH I think it's just an accessibility issue. It's easier to install an extension than find another browser and swtich to it for most people. Hence Internet Explorer lasted as long as it did.

  • I care about making google lose money. They deserve it. I will only make accounts on big tech just to abuse them.

    All of big tech deserves to be bankrupt, convince me otherwise.

    They only care about money. No ethics, no rights, no environment, just money. And money IS NOT more important than ethics, rights, etc.

  • I don't care what YouTube's costs are, I don't want to pay. I'll leave that to people like you.

    Guns n Jesus mentality. Someone's got to shoulder the burden and it ain't gonna be the cool guys.

  • Everyone breaking the website so they can watch gigabytes of content without ads or subscription: You're not allowed to break things just because you disagree with the other party! You should find an amicable alternative!

    Honestly, if not for security purposes and safety then I wouldn't really have any argument against the blocking of ad blockers.

    Cuz at the end of the day it's their property their service and they get to make the rules and it's their money paying for your free entertainment.

    But we live in a world where ad blockers are a fundamental to save online activity and basic security. So they can f*** off I'm going to use my ad blocker

  • I experience the same issue. All the elements on the page load extremely slow or sometimes not at all.

    I noted an experimental rule in uBO to address delays, but have not tried it yet myself.

    Under settings, Filter lists, Built-in, uBlock filters - Experimental

    Code has a comment:

    ! fake buffering on the initial load

  • I think you stopped scrolling too early

    That said though, there is one ad blocker that still works. Two words: uBlock Origin. Yes, I know that Google has blocked it from its Chrome Extension store, but there is still a way to get uBlock Origin on Chrome that our how-to extraordinaire Kaycee has detailed.

    They even link to what I assume is that process.

    But...

    It costs the same as Spotify

    I used Google Play music and it was awesome, when it shuttered I tried Spotify and didn't like it.

    YouTube premium is worth it just for music on your phone/car, getting YouTube ad free is kind of just a bonus. But there's a couple podcasts I watch on there, and I've found a couple really good channels for all the crazy science stuff that's been happening. Not to mention a lot of UK shows upload full episodes, and there's more than one account that somehow uploads full runs of shows after being upscaled to 4k.

    I really don't understand why so many people are against YouTube premium. It makes sense if someone just pirates all their other media. But people pay for a music streamer and a couple TV streamers.... It seems like an arbitrary line.

    Edit:

    The article is from "toms guide" not "toms hardware".

    The guide has every article like this where it reads like paid advertising. The "hardware" one is a good resource.

    But yeah, pretty much anything from "tomsguide" is going to read like paid advertising for something. I legit don't know if they're affiliated or it's a ripoff site built to confuse people with the "hardware" site.

    My reasons:

    • I don't want a YouTube account, that just makes it easier for Google to track me
    • premium costs too much relative to how much I use it (Nebula is more reasonable, which I do pay for)
    • I can support my favorite creators in other ways (merch, patreon, etc)

    I don't pirate. I buy movies and TV shows and rip them to my media server, I buy lots of video games both physical and digital, and I buy books if my library doesnt have it or I want to keep it on my shelf. I'm not against paying for things, I'm against my privacy being violated.

    I watch a few hours of content a week, and I'd be happy cutting down a bit. I don't follow any of the big names, rarely listen to music, and really only watch videos from a handful of channels, most of which are a waste of time anyway. If Google blocked my ad blocker, I'd be fine just not watching YouTube anymore.

    $14 is too much, I think $5 is about as much as I'd be willing to pay, or $1/channel. Give me that and I'll consider signing up, despite my misgivings about Google.

  • Honest question, but what makes librewolf BETTER?
    In firefox you can easily toggle off the studies telemetry bullshit in the settings. Librewolf is just firefox with those things ripped out right?

    In firefox you can easily toggle off the studies telemetry bullshit in the settings.

    They're abusing the default and making privacy settings require user intervention rather than defaulting to the most private settings and allowing the option of opting in.

    It's abusing consent, so people move to browsers where privacy is the default option.

  • What about the UI elements? Because they take a long time to load too

    Thats fine for me. Just make sure to always "Reject all" on the cookies. If you accept then the whole site sometimes breaks for me.

  • I'm more worried about the updates not happening in a timely fashion. Is it just a passion project by a handful of devs, or is there some kind of funding?

    Update frequency/latency hasn't been an issue in the 2 years I've been using it.

  • This is caused by not allowing the website to access your html canvas data. You can fix this in the address bar by clicking the icon on the left of the URL to grant permissions.

    To add to this.

    This isn't a bug, it's a feature.

    Canvas data gives a lot of datapoints that websites can use to fingerprint your browser. This allows them to track you across multiple sites even if you're blocking ads and pi-holing tracking services.

    There is an unavoidable tradeoff between convenience and security/privacy. Privacy features are inherently less convenient than allowing everyone access to everything.

    You could disable canvas blocking globally (I'm assuming, I haven't looked) and the problem would go away, but you've then weakened the privacy protections that were built in to the browser.

  • I sometimes get a popup warning from YouTube that my account will be blocked from viewing videos if I keep running an ad blocker. But the warning goes away after a while and YouTube still works. I don't see ads except on mobile.

    Oddly, they also keep begging me to "return" to YouTube Premium, though I have never paid for YouTube Premium.

    Oddly, they also keep begging me to “return” to YouTube Premium, though I have never paid for YouTube Premium.

    This is just 'normal' commercial psychological manipulation.

    Returning sounds better than starting, so a small percentage of people would sign up that wouldn't have otherwise if it was worded accurately.

  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 716 Stimmen
    67 Beiträge
    83 Aufrufe
    S
    All the research I am aware of - including what I referenced in the previous comment, is that people are honest by default, except for a few people who lie a lot. Boris Johnson is a serial liar and clearly falls into that camp. I believe that you believe that, but a couple of surveys are not a sufficient argument to prove the fundamental good of all humanity. If honesty were not the default, why would we believe what anyone has to say in situations where they have an incentive to lie, which is often? Why are such a small proportion of people criminals and fraudsters when for a lot of crimes, someone smart and cautious has a very low chance of being caught? I think this is just a lack of imagination. i will go through your scenarios and provide an answer but i don't think it's going to achieve anything, we just fundamentally disagree on this. why would we believe what anyone has to say in situations where they have an incentive to lie, which is often? You shouldn't. edit : You use experience with this person or in general, to make a judgement call about whether or not you want to listen to what they have to say until more data is available. You continue to refine based on accumulated experience. Why are such a small proportion of people criminals and fraudsters when for a lot of crimes, someone smart and cautious has a very low chance of being caught? A lot of assumptions and leaps here. Firstly crime implies actual law, which is different in different places, so let's assume for now we are talking about the current laws in the uk. Criminals implies someone who has been caught and prosecuted for breaking a law, I'm going with that assumption because "everyone who has ever broken a law" is a ridiculous interpretation. So to encompass the assumptions: Why are such a small proportion of people who have been caught and prosecuted for breaking the law in the uk, when someone smart and caution has a very low chance of being caught? I hope you can see how nonsensical that question is. The evolutionary argument goes like this: social animals have selection pressure for traits that help the social group, because the social group contains related individuals, as well as carrying memetically inheritable behaviours. This means that the most successful groups are the ones that work well together. A group first of all has an incentive to punish individuals who act selfishly to harm the group - this will mean the group contains mostly individuals who, through self interest, will not betray the group. But a group which doesn’t have to spend energy finding and punishing traitorous individuals because it doesn’t contain as many in the first place will do even better. This creates a selection pressure behind mere self interest. That's a nicely worded very bias interpretation. social animals have selection pressure for traits that help the social group, because the social group contains related individuals, as well as carrying memetically inheritable behaviours. This is fine. This means that the most successful groups are the ones that work well together. That's a jump, working well together might not be the desirable trait in this instance. But let's assume it is for now. A group first of all has an incentive to punish individuals who act selfishly to harm the group - this will mean the group contains mostly individuals who, through self interest, will not betray the group. Reductive and assumptive, you're also conflating selfishness with betrayal, you can have on without the other, depending on perceived definitions of course. But a group which doesn’t have to spend energy finding and punishing traitorous individuals because it doesn’t contain as many in the first place will do even better. This creates a selection pressure behind mere self interest. Additional reduction and a further unsupported jump, individuals are more than just a single trait, selfishness might be desirable in certain scenarios or it might be a part of an individual who's other traits make up for it in a tribal context. The process of seeking and the focused attention might be a preferential selection trait that benefits the group. Powerful grifters try to protect themselves yes, but who got punished for pointing out that Boris is a serial liar? Everyone who has been negatively impacted by the policies enacted and consequences of everything that was achieved on the back of those lies. Because being ignored is still a punishment if there are negative consequences. But let's pick a more active punishment, protesting. Protest in a way we don't like or about a subject we don't approve of, it's now illegal to protest unless we give permission. That's reductive, but indicative of what happened in broad strokes. Have you read what the current government has said about the previous one? I'd imagine something along the lines of what the previous government said about the one before ? As a society we generally hate that kind of behaviour. Society as a whole does not protect wealth and power; wealth and power forms its own group which tries to protect itself. Depends on how you define society as a whole. By population, i agree. By actual power to enact change(without extreme measures), less so Convenient that you don't include the wealth and power as part of society, like its some other separate thing. You should care because it entirely colours how you interact with political life. “Shady behaviour” is about intent as well as outcome, and we are talking in this thread about shady behaviour, and hence about intent. See [POINT A]
  • Adding Obstacles to Your Ebitengine Game (Tutorial)

    Technology technology
    2
    6 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    R
    This video complements the text tutorial at https://trevors-tutorials.com/0005-adding-obstacles-to-your-ebitengine-game/ Trevors-Tutorials.com is where you can find free programming tutorials. The focus is on Go and Ebitengine game development. Watch the channel introduction for more info.
  • 63 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    34 Aufrufe
    J
    Very clever.
  • 28 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    47 Aufrufe
    H
    Looks like it hasn't exactly been actively developed since 2022: https://github.com/BoostIO/BoostNote-App/commits/master/
  • (azazoaoz)

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    21 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 27 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    125 Aufrufe
    R
    Tech execs when the shortage hits: I just had a brilliant idea! Let's just give untrained junior vibe-coding engineers the power of senior engineers, and even more AI tools. Problem solved forever, bonus please!
  • 2 Stimmen
    19 Beiträge
    139 Aufrufe
    L
    Where and what is texas?