The NewPipe project recently had a few debates on advertising, its ethics and how Team NewPipe decides whether or not a certain form of advertising is acceptable. In this article, we present our position on advertising in general, show the difference between ethical and unethical advertising, and explain why we do not intend to support technologies like SponsorBlock.

I disagree. So, back when I used to watch commercial TV broadcasts, I was being immoral because I avoided all ads by watching something else or just going to bathroom in the meanwhile? Ads are brainwashing, it doesn’t matter in which form they come. So I’ll do whatever I can do avoid them.

You’re right on point. Don’t watch YouTube. Problem Solved

Indeed, I don’t. But that was not my point. Should I watch it, I would skip sponsored video segments, exactly how I would do whilw watching traditional TV. It’s exactly the same.

You’re free to skip sponsored segments, NewPipe devs simply decided they didn’t want to play the anti-brainwashing heroes: it’s not in their scope.

No they didn’t. Not bothering to implement it because you don’t believe it’s important? Fine. Throwing away the work someone else has done for you? Pathetic.

It’s not something they want to have into their app, as simple as that. If you have any problem with their mission, then switch to the fork.

Sure, it’s up to them at the end of the day, but I can still explain why I think it’s a terrible decision


Then why is it a terrible decision?

Because it means there will be a fork, which will divide the development of the app in two and waste developers’ time.

Not immoral, but just… Not supporting monetarily anyone. No ads on videos, skipping promos, no YT Premium. Simply not helping anyone’s pockets

They can have their beliefs, but once it’s available I’ll be switching straight over to the sponsorblock-enabled version thank you very much

keep in mind, that fork author is investigating how to enable google login, pushed with requests from ex Vanced users… See my comment about it below:

People already made a fork, search Newpipe Sponsorblock

Unfortunate. I really wish that content creators would create pages on Patreon or Liberapay and just see how many people would financially support their content. If the Patreon model works in keeping political commentary and tech-focussed channels up, I don’t see how it would be any different for channels making other kinds of content.

My opinion on Sponsorblock is mixed. I like the idea that content creators have the freedom to choose who they can partner with, but at the same time I really hate having to see companies like Hello Fresh all the time knowing how they treat their workers, or other sponsors like GFuel where it takes a stupid amount of effort to get them to stop sponsoring terrible people.

If the Patreon model works in keeping political commentary and tech-focussed channels up, I don’t see how it would be any different for channels making other kinds of content.

Even for crowd-supported creators, many still seek sponsorships to diversify their income streams. Maintaining a steady income in online video is precarious enough, so I don’t blame creators for sponsorships.

I don’t have anything against sponsorship, as long as the relationship is transparent to the viewers and does not impact the content. These people have to pay their bills somehow.


They’re deciding on the fork name still, to then, have a fdroid repo I’d guess. It already supports notification updates:

BTW, I just mentioned it as the fork the provided blog URL talks about. I’m concerned with the direction it might take, since several ex Vanced users are pushing for getting to login to youtube, as Vanced did:

And it seems their requests will be heard at some point:

So, not sponsoring polymorphic newpipe. If only it remained as newpipe with sponsorblock…

I felt I needed to provide additional information about polymorphic newpipe, :)


We could always fork a specific commit of the NewPipe SponsorBlock project.

A fork to the fork, which sync with the original repo, :) You’re right of course, just wanted to have some fun about it, :)

I don’t agree with this position but I also don’t agree with the attacks against them for having this position. It’s not “pathetic” that they don’t implement features you want. The point of free (libre) software is that you don’t have to share the position of the upstream developers, as you can make a fork that has the features you want. That is what has happened with NewPipe.


I thought the same thing.

Worst of all, driving people away from official releases puts them more at risk of downloading malware, and wastes the time of developers. By all means turn it off by default, but refusing to include a feature IS an anti-feature.

Kohen Shaw

Yep, this fully makes sense.

Why not include a perfectly useful feature into an open source app? This just creates unnecessary division. By all means turn it off by default and hide the enable in settings, but don’t just try to throw away someone’s hard work.


Why not include [Sponsor Block] into an open source app?

  • The implementation of SponsorBlock is not in the dev team’s goals; and not everyone wants SponsorBlock. (This may be hard to believe for some, but some people don’t want sponsorships to be blocked.)
  • There could be too much cost added for little benefit. (An enable-disable option can be added; but there is still cost to maintain the feature.)

People can fork NewPipe anyway; it is free and open-source.

If you want SponsorBlock in Newpipe, then fork NewPipe, or use a fork if you can find one.. If you don’t want SponsorBlock in your NewPipe instance; then use the base application.

If people don’t want it, it should be possible to disable. It should probably be disabled by default.

Oh jeez that’s a shame. It at least makes me feel better about not being on Android anymore…I missed NewPipe, but if it holds a weak stance like that as a project then I’d rather use something better anyway.

There is no ethical advertising.

As the reply here said: The absolute statement is completely wrong, since hearing of a product from someone else, even a friend, is advertising. Talking positevely about a movie, tv show can be seen as advertising that show. Seeing an ad that is not targeted is also ok. And finally people need to eat and earn money on the internet, either you sell a product (which needs advertising) or you are the person who does that promo or advert. Not everyone can live off Of Patreon or Donations.

And finally people need to eat and earn money on the internet, either you sell a product (which needs advertising) or you are the person who does that promo or advert.

Ignoring the nitpicking of what “advertising” means, no they don’t. The internet doesn’t have to be an avenue for people to make money. You may prefer that to be the case, but it is not an absolute requirement. Personally, I would prefer this ad-driven web collapse entirely so that the only web pages are small sustainable passion projects.

I disagree with the absolute statement there

Advertising that sticks to accurate facts (free of exaggeration and lies), and is displayed only based on what you’re currently looking at (not a profile created from your past behaviour) seems pretty ethical to me

When we read the news, we care not just about accuracy but relevance. It’s no good presenting a bunch of true facts and reporting nothing about the most important issues of our time. In fact, doing so is misinforming people.

Advertising is the same. Just because a company has the most money doesn’t mean their products are deserving of our brain space.

What you’re referring to is a “lie by omission”, which is a form of lying, which I believe I already covered

In my opinion it’s possible for advertisements to be ethical, but they would be nothing like the ones we see today. I had a comment on a philosophy-post about that. It would come down to two criteria, namely neutrality and consent. That means the advertisements are more like honest reviews, not made or paid by the company that sells the product, but independently and voluntarily made. And consent means the ones who consume the advertisements genuinely want to experience them. One could argue that YouTube advertisements are not like that, as they are promoted by the companies and people generally consume them only since they thought they had no choice in order to watch the video.

Advertising is inherently biased. What you describe, “not made or paid by the seller” is NOT advertising.

Imagine I came to you and say “would you like this sandwich?”. You might take it, if you felt hungry or liked the filling. Now imagine I come up to you and say “I’ll pay you 100 (insert currency) to eat this sandwich”. Suddenly, the sandwich becomes decidedly less appealling…

The sandwich is advertising, and eating it is exposing it to your brain. If it were really beneficial to you, no one would be getting paid.

If what i described is not advertisement, then how would you call it? It sounds like a very important thing to define. Not everything is commercial or meant to be. And do you at least agree that advertisements should have consent? That was the other criterium.

Advertising is by definition sponsored. If I tell you I think a product is good, and I’m not getting paid, that’s just called advice.

I have searched just now “define: advertisement” on the duckduckgo search engine. This is the first result. It states that an advertisement is just “a public notice”, no sponsorship required.

I read freetube could be installed through flatpak, or similar, on pine64, though I don’t know if freetube adapts well to a phone form factor. A QML/Qt newpipe like front end sounds missing on mobile gnu+linux, :(

deleted by creator

I would be down for donating to content creators on Liberapay. The only thing I’m worried about is the legal status of “free videos”. To my knowledge most creators aren’t licensing their videos with CC etc. What rights do you actually hold over a youtube video for example?

Apparently Youtube allows authors to distribute CC-BY licensed videos on their platform. The lack of Share Alike clause is unfortunate but I suppose it’s better than nothing.


Understandable. I fully agree. I’m not a fan of advertising and sponsorship, but money doesn’t grow from trees, and the devs are right by limiting NewPipe’s scope rather than playing the anti-capitalist heroes.

It’s nothing to do with capitalism. Marketing is not an area unique to capitalist economies.

Kill all the n3g3rs

Subscribe to see more stories about technology on your homepage

  • 0 users online
  • 31 users / day
  • 69 users / week
  • 163 users / month
  • 478 users / 6 months
  • 6 subscribers
  • 1.62K Posts
  • Modlog