![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
I only just started getting the ad block complaints. I did a quick Google (!) search 😄 and learned that the Brave browser is immune to this. So I now use that browser for YouTube.
Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos
I've heard of all my friends having this issue. I am on Firefox using uBlock Origin and it has 0 problem.
If you dont want to use an adblocker, this works well for Chrome-based browsers
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ad-skipper/dinhbmppbaekibhlomcimjbhdhacoael
Total Adblock on Chrome was recommended on an 8.5K comment thread on Reddit, but that stopped working for me a couple of days ago. I wouldn't mind so much if the ads made any sense, but I seem to get mostly ads suggesting I get an Adobe CC account, (I already have a full CC account), and some obvious Snake Oil spam ads. Right now, I think they have ground me down, and $5 a week for Premium is not so much truth be told. One thing for sure, is that the ads are unbearable.
The one thing that I am wondering about is that if people don't get to see the adds if they use a blocker, and if they get fed up with the ads now YouTube is detecting blockers and forcing people to pay for Premium after which they 'still' won't see the ads, what is the point of them?
TLD:Total Adblock on Chrome was recommended on an 8.5K comment thread on Reddit, but that stopped working
MikeB4: I use YouTube premium. I dislike advertising but believe creators deserve to paid for their work.
Exactly this. Either subscribe to get rid of ads, watch adds, or find another service. There are costs to providing the content you are consuming, and costs for providing the platform used to consume that content.
Since I assume you want to get paid for the work you do, then it seems only fair they do to.
Edge with uBlock Origin 1.54.0 is working fine for me, at the moment
I don't watch a lot of YouTube but I do follow occasional links. After a few ads I did a quick search and saw that the Brave browser apparently blocks them. I am now using that for YouTube links and I haven't seen another ad so far.
Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos
SomeoneSomewhere: As long as courts continue to affirm that consumers have a right to skip/hide/not watch ads, I'll continue to do so. It being online doesn't make me feel any guiltier than time shifting and fast forwarding live TV.
I hope someone doesn't take the same attitude to prevent you getting paid for your work.
Just because it's legal, doesn't make it right.
networkn:
I hope someone doesn't take the same attitude to prevent you getting paid for your work.
Just because it's legal, doesn't make it right.
All creators who want to get paid for their work should put their work behind a paywall if they really want people to pay for it.
cddt:
All creators who want to get paid for their work should put their work behind a paywall if they really want people to pay for it.
When there was just Sky:
'boo hoo hoo, I don't want to pay the monopoly for services I don't use'
When there were 10 streaming providers:
'Boo Hoo Boo, I don't like having to subscribe to 10 services to get all the content I want, it's more expensive than Sky'.
Now you are suggesting, that one subscribe to individual content providers? Sounds like it will go swimmingly :)
IF youtube went subscription only, imagine the sreaming.
networkn:
IF youtube went subscription only, imagine the
sreamingstreaming.
FTFY ;-)
There is no law in any country requiring people to watch ads. Businesses that choose an advertising model make a calculation. If they can't make a profit because people don't want to put up with the ads, that is just the cost of doing business. Not every venture succeeds. If people value the content enough, they will put up with the ads. These things have a way of balancing out. But no-one owes any commercial venture a living.
Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos
Rikkitic:
There is no law in any country requiring people to watch ads. Businesses that choose an advertising model make a calculation. If they can't make a profit because people don't want to put up with the ads, that is just the cost of doing business. Not every venture succeeds. If people value the content enough, they will put up with the ads. These things have a way of balancing out. But no-one owes any commercial venture a living.
Have you ever run a business? Doesn't seem so.
There is an implied contract that those who consume the content free of charge, are covering their share of costs by consuming advertising. One would reasonably argue that if you value the content or the platform on which it is delivered, you compensate the creator via a method or another. The two methods available are advertising or subscription. If advertising fails to cover the costs because people feel entitled to block said advertising, then everyone loses, when the creator of the content, or the host of the platform delivering the content, decide they will enforce the subscription model.
Many ads are skippable, some are not. If people continue to breach the T&C's of the platform provider, depriving both creator and provider of a return for their investment, then said provider is likely to take different steps. As was true with Netflix, the overentitled ruin it for everyone.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |