Windows Phone gets revenge on YouTube from the grave by helping users bypass its ad-blocker-blocker::Windows Phone to the rescue. A lot of YouTube users want to know how to get around the new annoying YouTube pop-up telling viewers to disable their ad-blocker.
I don’t know what voodoo magic I’ve pulled. But I’m still not getting pestered by YouTube to turn off ad block and I’m still watching 5 - 10 videos a day. FF w/ uBlock Origin and piHole
Probably just A/B testing.
Possibly. Does seem a little long for that being they’ve been doing this for a couple weeks at least. Maybe I should try it on some of my other devices / computers.
Sadly, I am getting the warning even whitelisting YouTube on Ghostry. I have to turn off Ghostry altogether to do away with the warning.
FF w/uBlock Origin and + PiHole = No YouTube disable adblocking pestering here also…
Same here, I have YT watch history turned off and have ads blocked through Brave (I know I know, I’m trying to find a better browser) and haven’t seen anything at all yet, on my pc or phone.
Any particular reason to not use Firefox with addons like ublock? Just curious
I just don’t trust Firefox. The Mozilla Foundation is just a front for their corporate side, the Mozilla Corporation which somehow reaps in millions in profits despite being a free browser. I read that most of their profits come from letting Google integrate search and other features into Firefox. I’m currently migrating to Librewolf for PC which has the same framework but lots more privacy functionality. For iOS, Brave collects a lot less information about you than Firefox- check the App Store pages for each browser and compare.
And Google updating this old code in 3, 2, 1
Try grayjay… it’s an AWESOME new app, open source, and supports all video networks you can think of as plugins.
It’s available on: grayjay.app
Yes and no. Cool project but I gotta be honest I’m not a big fan of Louis Rossman / FUTO’s "open source but not free " stance.
It’s open source and it’s free. You’re free to pay too if you want to support them. Software costs money.
What Louis is protecting against in his license is repurposing the app with malware and ads like was repeatedly done with new pipe. Pick your poison.
No! Libertarian GPL or DIE!
.
/s, kinda
I’m not sure I understand your philosophy there or you’re joking. Why is GPL so important? Isn’t the purpose of open-source to validate that no funny business is happening?
That is a purpose of open source.
First, I was wrong in linking libertarian with GPL, I was thinking of permissive licenses like MIT. GPL is a CopyLeft license, in that it forbids proprietization. MIT is more like, do whatever the hell you want, you just can’t sue me.
The joke should have been “Libertarian MIT License or DIE!”
I think MIT is actually a pretty rough license, because it allows someone to come along, take the open source work, add anything, or virtually nothing and then start selling it as their own while keeping any new code secret… when they got it for free. I’m mostly against that, but there are people who believe strongly in that type of license.
I’m more in favor of GPL like licenses (not prescriptively, but preferentially) because they force the work and its derivatives to be shared by the community, for the work to continue to be open source.
Free as in price, not as in freedom.
I mean it’s not NewPipe’s fault that Google Play hosts malware.
Based on what Louis Rossmann said it does seem the more restrictive licence comes from a place of good intentions:
[11:19] If you download this application and you decide that you want to modify the source code so you can run a build that’s a little bit more amendable to your use case on your phone, we have no problem with that. However if you modify the source code of this application to insert advertisements trackers or malware in it and then try to redistribute our application with maare ads or trackers in it in a deceptive way we will come after you. That is why we have a license that is not as permissive as NewPipes’.
But idk if that’s also what the license actually means legally-speaking. I’m no expert but section 4 seems pretty dubious:
FUTO TEMPORARY LICENSE:
This license grants you the rights, and only the rights, set out below in respect of the source code provided. If you take advantage of these rights, you accept this license. If you do not accept the license, do not access the code.
Words used in the Terms of Service have the same meaning in this license. Where there is any inconsistency between this license and those Terms of Service, these terms prevail.
Section 1: Definitions
- “code” means the source code made available from time, in our sole discretion, for access under this license. Reference to code in this license means the code and any part of it and any derivative of it.
- “compilation” means to compile the code from ‘source code’ to ‘machine code’.
- “defect” means a defect, bug, backdoor, security issue or other deficiency in the code.
- “non-commercial distribution” means distribution of the code or any compilation of the code, or of any other application or program containing the code or any compilation of the code, where such distribution is not intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation.
- “review” means to access, analyse, test and otherwise review the code as a reference, for the sole purpose of analysing it for defects.
- “you” means the licensee of rights set out in this license.
Section 2: Grant of Rights
- Subject to the terms of this license, we grant you a non-transferable, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license to access and use the code solely for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution.
- You may provide the code to anyone else and publish excerpts of it for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution, provided that when you do so you make any recipient of the code aware of the terms of this license, they must agree to be bound by the terms of this license and you must attribute the code to the provider.
- Other than in respect of those parts of the code that were developed by other parties and as specified strictly in accordance with the open source and other licenses under which those parts of the code have been made available, as set out on our website or in those items of code, you are not entitled to use or do anything with the code for any commercial or other purpose, other than review, compilation and non-commercial distribution in accordance with the terms of this license.
- Subject to the terms of this license, you must at all times comply with and shall be bound by our Terms of Use, Privacy and Data Policy.
Section 3: Limitations
- This license does not grant you any rights to use the provider’s name, logo, or trademarks and you must not in any way indicate you are authorised to speak on behalf of the provider.
- If you issue proceedings in any jurisdiction against the provider because you consider the provider has infringed copyright or any patent right in respect of the code (including any joinder or counterclaim), your license to the code is automatically terminated.
- THE CODE IS MADE AVAILABLE “AS-IS” AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED GUARANTEES AS TO FITNESS, MERCHANTABILITY, NON-INFRINGEMENT OR OTHERWISE. IT IS NOT BEING PROVIDED IN TRADE BUT ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS ON OUR PART AND IS NOT MADE AVAILABLE FOR ANY USE OUTSIDE THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. ANYONE ACCESSING THE CODE MUST ENSURE THEY HAVE THE REQUISITE EXPERTISE TO SECURE THEIR OWN SYSTEM AND DEVICES AND TO ACCESS AND USE THE CODE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. YOU BEAR THE RISK OF ACCESSING AND USING THE CODE. IN PARTICULAR, THE PROVIDER BEARS NO LIABILITY FOR ANY INTERFERENCE WITH OR ADVERSE EFFECT ON YOUR SYSTEM OR DEVICES AS A RESULT OF YOUR ACCESSING AND USING THE CODE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE OR OTHERWISE.
Section 4: Termination, suspension and variation
- We may suspend, terminate or vary the terms of this license and any access to the code at any time, without notice, for any reason or no reason, in respect of any licensee, group of licensees or all licensees including as may be applicable any sub-licensees.
Section 5: General
- This license and its interpretation and operation are governed solely by the local law. You agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the local arbitral tribunals as further described in our Terms of Service and you agree not to raise any jurisdictional issue if we need to enforce an arbitral award or judgment in our jurisdiction or another country.
- Questions and comments regarding this license are welcomed and should be addressed at https://chat.futo.org/login/.
Last updated 7 June 2023.
Is it better than ReVanced?
Try it out and decide for yourself.
#TeamLouisRossmann and #TeamFUTO represent!
This is a battle google will lose miserably.
By what metric will they lose miserably? They do not care about you if you block their shit. This policy will do 3 things:
- Make a miniscule amount of people who generate no revenue stop using the platform (basically noone).
- Make existing adblockers slightly inconvenienced for a little bit (again, google doesnt actually give a shit)
- Make some of the less tech savy people who block ads either whitelist or premium up (this will happen and is the intended outcome).
Google only gains from this.
I’ve been using YouTube Premium (née YouTube Red) for so long that I totally forgot that there are ads on YouTube and was surprised by all of this news popping off.
Same here except I’ve always used adblocker. The contrast between YouTube with adblock + sponsorblock compared to stock, cannot be overstated. The site literally becomes unuseable. It’s awful.
I doubt it, unfortunately.
Like many other online services they’ve saturated the market so the only way to increase profits is to extract more money from individual users.
They are also a quasi-monopoly for a reason - hosting and streaming video is resource-intensive, so I wouldn’t hold my breath for a free alternative that would scale. AFAIK, piped and such are only frontends to youtube which will be killed off by ToS or through technical means.
Maybe there are free video sites that also host their videos, but as I said, since it quickly becomes very expensive, I don’t see anyone being able to do that for free for long.
Unfortunately, if anyone is going to “disrupt” youtube, it is going to come from a silicon valley startup and like youtube they will only burn investor capital for a limited time - until they have saturated the market (or failed). Then they’ll have to monetize as well.
My only hope is something like a torrent approach where everyone who streams also hosts. But since that is technically difficult to perfect, needs a huge user base to succeed while not promising any commercial gain for the initiating party, nobody will throw a ton of money at the problem, so I wouldn’t hold my breath.
My prediction is that people will either pay for premium or see ads in the mid- to long-term.
We need to think about what people did before YouTube. It was already gaining traction around 2006, but before that you could still watch videos on different websites, it was just decentralized and videos were hosted on smaller pages. You might even see a website dedicated to a single video. YouTube’s incredibly convenient, but internet video can and will survive without it.
I am sure other platforms / personal hosting will continue to exist in the future. They simply won’t be relevant in terms of video streaming market share.
The network effect of youtube is massive. They have a huge amount of content creators and audience. That means the audience will stick around for the creators and the creators go for the biggest audience and hence the most views.
Being google, they have data centers all over the globe, provide a fast app / browser access for any OS, can cast to a TV with one click - all these equal convenience which cannot easily be beat by any individual website.
Some huge youtube brands like linus media group are trying with floatplane as their own paid video hosting service, but I’m sure their view numbers are insignificant compared to youtube even though they are the biggest players.
Nebula is pretty decent. It’s like if you took all the best content off of YouTube that would also fit in well at The Discovery Channel.
Thanks for the reminder. I’ve been wanting to try it out.
Also, lots of the younger generations didn’t really mind the ads. After this news showed up, we had a discussion going on my company discord. Most of the older people started sharing workarounds but most of the younger people said that they’ve been using YouTube with ads and didn’t see any problem with it.
I’ve seen the same. I wonder if the older you get, the more you value your time.
I remember seeing lots of ad breaks on TV when I was a kid and it didn’t stop me from watching a show. Now if an ad break happens, I am reminded why I don’t own a TV and turn it off.
In my case, it’s less of a “value my time” and more “I’m just tired of being advertised to constantly and want a break”
I agree that the sheer quantity of resources required to host videos is hard to be able to compete, but there’s also Invidious, which is the fediverse equivalent. As with other fediverse applications, it will largely depend on the people running the instances and how much they storage they can support.
deleted by creator
The only reason I still use YouTube is to post to lemmy and download videos so I never have to use their crappy platform
I just use NewPipe. Screw Google & YT.
or LibreTube, it looks more modern imo
I miss windows phone. The user interface was much cleaner and user friendly than any other phone OS I’ve seen. The only problem was it didn’t have the ecosystem of Android or iOS.
Same here. I hate the standard rows of icons look on most Android launchers. Since i had to part with my Lumia 950 because off failing app support i have been using Square Home as my launcher on my Samsung S8 and now the Pixel 8.
I’m pretty sure there’s a launcher for Android that mimicks the look and feel of the Windows phone
Just use noscript
I think I had this phone lol
A lot of YouTube users want to know how to get around the new annoying YouTube pop-up telling viewers to disable their ad-blocker.
Have you tried paying for it?
It absolutely is not worth £17 a month simply for no ads.
Then stop using it 🤷♂️ That’s a personal value. I find yt+music for the family for$22 a steal.
The entitlement of you all is crazy.
Oh won’t somebody think the billion dollar company
Lololol you are directly stealing from creators. There isn’t even some thin connection. They get paid on ad views and subscriptions. You are straight up taking money from creatives.
I’m under no obligation to watch advertisements. They can try to advertise to me if they want, I can avoid it however I want. Did you ever grow up with linear TV? Did you just eventually piss yourself because it would have been unfair to the commercial broadcast company to not pay attention to the ads? You mook.
You’re under no obligation to watch anything.
You are under an obligation to maximize your shareholder value as a consumer, anything against that violates the prime directive and will send bots from the matrix to simp for it. Thanks for the reminder, I don’t have to watch anything. What a revelation of information I did not know before this.
They get paid by YouTube regardless, and YouTube makes enough from data harvesting alone.
Content creators don’t make as much from ads as you think. Apparently selling merch and sponsorships is where most comes from.
Who would buy stuff from a person they never heard of? How did they get popular?
Might not be brand new companies. It might be an existing company with a new product.
Imagine thinking content uploaded to a proprietary platform is still yours
What rights does yt take from the content owner?
With the amount of telemetry and trackable data they’ve collected and potentially sold, and the quality of both the service and the content being in a constant decline, I consider my malware-free access to the service to be paid for life.
Shit, considering the way they handled recent controversies, I see it as a moral obligation to hit them in the wallet.
They still show ads even when paying. So your argument is moot from the start.
No, steal from them as much as possible. Stealing from corporations is morally good.
You are stealing from creators, collateral damage I guess 🤷♂️
If you’re worried about creators, support them via their patreons or what means they determine. They aren’t making much directly from YouTube, and their support streams are more certain that way.
I think the YouTube copyright and claim system will take care of that more than a couple thousand viewers can.
I will never ever pay for youtube and I’ll never stop blocking ads. Theres always a way, and if the day comes where ad blockers actually become iniffective then thats it for me, I’ll find somewhere else. I’m already a reddit refugee since they blocked 3rd party aps and charge a subscription fee, I can’t figure out a workaround yet so I dropped reddit altogether.
Sure, just throw money at the corpos, but please don’t act surprised when they suddenly double the premium fee, or when they start sneaking in ads for premium users. That’s the problem with corpo greed, it just never ends, and the moment you give in to it, you lose.
Why should I pay some extortionate fee each month on Google’s monopoly? Even if I do that they’re still hoovering up all the data they can get from me.
U-block Origin on desktop, revanced/newpipe for mobile.
IMO the money is much better spent on directly supporting content creators rather than padding the coffers of a 1.75 trillion dollar anti-competitive, monopolistic, tax-dodging, privacy-destroying company like Google.
Exactly, I whack out almost GBP 20 per month to content creators I like.
Spend the money where it will make a difference!
Remember when streaming services boasted about ad free viewing, only to then Continue to charge you AND serve ads to you WHILE collecting and selling your personal information? These companies can smd.
Tell me, how many cups of Pumpkin Spice Latte Chai Frappucino we are not drinking then?
👌
