Now I know that many of you will disagree, but why do people still think that "because it's on the internet it should be free". That's pre 2000 thinking. YouTube is great, but the cost of running it is not insignificant. Some of those costs are met by advertising revenue. I think Google is justified in their actions. I run uBlock Origin and Adblock Plus [on a Linux system] When the warnings came up last night I had to make a choice - either turn them off or I could just **** off. These constant demands by people wanting free everything, on their conditions, are not going to end well.
Have never received any notifications to turn off my ad-blocker when on YT ... not a YT paid subscriber & I watch a few videos every week (incl. 4 yesterday for some plumbing advise). Using UBO (all filters enabled), FF 119.0 (Linux). Had a non-UBO filter installed when the crackdown was first announced, so as a test I removed it 2 weeks ago. Still no warnings or threats. Have heard that some YT users who are still being hounded by the warnings have set their VPN to Albania - they say it works!
I agree with @longshots I also didn't want to pay Google and resisted for a long time but I was getting increasingly fed up with the limitations of using YT and YT Music for free so I eventually bought a family subscription which opened the door to the full capabilities of YT and YT Music not only for me but for my family as well. Considering what for instance I have to pay for gas the YT monthly subscription is a ridiculous amount of money. People have no problem paying for Netflix, HBO, Amazon, Disney+ etc. etc. but are reluctant to pay for YT. I think it stems from the fact that YT has been free from the start and people have kind of gotten used to it.
Probably because ISPs are already charging way too much for access. I read an article (too may years ago to still find) that stated that people aren't willing to pay a high price for internet access and more for all of the content. If you pay a fee for cable TV pretty much all of the content is included. This set an expectation that websites probably wish was not in place. After I pay my $85 internet bill the idea that I am going to pay $50 a month (each) for any site that I access isn't going to happen. I'll do without if need be, but I'm not spending $600 a month to use the internet. Also in the case of YouTube they are selling other people's content, while deciding who they will pay and who they will not. But expecting you to pay to watch all of it. You can agree or disagree, but you did ask why.
I'm sorry, but I think you're trying to use oranges to bake an apple pie. ISP's are not content providers but access providers. Again you've gone way off base. That is a legitimate statement. I can only counter with a business comparison - it's like leasing a small shop in a VERY large mall. You are hoping for either walk past or direct traffic to stop, notice, and perhaps even buy your product. Nevertheless, it all begins by having your shop in a high traffic environment. It's the cost of doing business.
That was exactly my point. They are charging content provider prices to only provide access. Internet access shouldn't cost more than $20. Most people have a finite amount of money for such things. After giving them $85 (more than any of my utilities) there isn't another $60 left for YouTube or whatever site.
IF YouTube had relevant SENSIBLE ads it wouldn't be such a sticking point. Yeah i know that they can't or won't break from their big money paying advertisers, but the Lunatic Ads are mostly almost always insane idiot scrapheap (Interruptions) content. As such i just hit the STRIKETHROUGH volume until the stupidity finishes off. That said, no way You Tube is gaining any meaningful subscriptions from that policy they've introduced.
I'm sorry but I don't understand any of that. I had hoped my last post was self explanatory. How is the cost of Internet access, provided by ISP's, even relevant in this discussion?
Isn't Google already making money by collecting user data? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/...r-data-heres-how-company-shares-monetizes-and
I got this for the first time today. I have UBO, AdBlock, AdGuard and other Ad and Tracking Blockers. I ended up leaving them all the way they were except for the Adblock Anti-Circumvention filter. That was the Filter that triggered the Blocking of me on Youtube.
You're free to do so, of course, and if you think it doesn't cause any issues, that's great. But why do you use more than three content blockers if you could use just one with multiple filter lists? I'm just curious.
That's asking for trouble... @gorhill strongly advises against using multiple ad blockers at the same time. https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrig...dblock_and_ads_november_26_2023_mega/kciti27/ https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1033706103782170625
UBO and my Kaspersky A/V do most of the work on Ads, Trackers and Anti Banner. AdBlock and AdGuard don't have the usual filters but just a few other things checked off.
Ah, thanks, I understand. If you mean Adblock Plus, I don't remember if that offers something that uBlock Origin does not. Regarding AdGuard, I don't know, I've never used it. And as I said, if you think it doesn't cause any issues for you, that's good.
It might cause problems that i am not aware of right. I have the AdBlock and AdGuard Extensions. I use the Kaspersky tracking setting instead of the UBO AdGuard tracking Protection because it is not 62,492.
Some problems today in YouTube with my custom rules in UBO. I need to enable the history: I need to accept: I am reminded that it is best to use Chrome: Very annoying.
