I’m sure it’s much harder to manage a Premium subscription than it is to simply install uBO
Can’t use uBO from most of the devices I actually watch YouTube on.
For me, it’s much easier to just pay for Premium. No ads on my phone, Playstation, Chromecast, or locked-down work laptop that I can’t install extensions on.
And the creators whose content I consume still get paid for my views. Honestly, it’s worth it for both my use-case and my morals.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted, paying for services you use shouldn’t be looked down upon. It’s way easier then trying to always be ahead of the ad block blockers. I do block all ads on websites though
I can afford it and use it all the time. It’s completely unreasonable to expect a company to provide a service for you for free without any way for them to monetize you. Hosting videos isn’t free so why should they pay for you to have access to their service
They’re datamining us to the tune of billions.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted
Because LemmyWorld is full of immature users who think that anybody who pays money for a thing they get extensive use out of is a shill. They think that using adblockers is somehow sticking it to The Man.
I’m starting to understand why LW has the reputation it does now.
It could just have something to do with the fact that many people think ads are not only annoying but also highly manipulative, creating artificial needs in people, a tool to make already successful and rich companies even richer, … and the surrounding technology to power them is unethical, hoarding tons of information, building profiles of people, tracking which websites they visit, what search terms they use, …
When people talk about blocking ads, being frustrated about them showing up, it’s just kind of disrespectful to be like “well you could just pay for the service, you know?”. Besides, who knows how much actually ends up in the creators’ pockets.
I don’t disagree, but things like that have to be monotized in some way or else they would not exist.
I know. I managed a YouTube partner account, but also I Googled it just now.
$1-2 per 1,000 views is what I’m reading, but I can say I personally saw numbers at least five times less than that with the amount I managed.
If anyone wants to support a creator, just donate money to them directly. They’ll be absolutely floored by the gesture.
how much actually ends up in the creators’ pockets
For most, very little. For the big ones, millions of dollars, and I always resent people lecturing me about “morals” because I’m not willing to subsidize a rich person’s hobby.
Regular perople aren’t making anything from YouTube, only the ones who had the capital to invest in their channels upfront. I don’t feel compelled to pay for any of that, and I’d just as soon have their content filtered from my feed if it’s immoral not to want to see ads.
The channel I use most often is Audible Anarchist, and I really don’t think they give a fuck if I use an adblocker or even Piped to watch their videos.
Never forget that youtube filters us towards those creators, too. New creators saying a new message? They aren’t gonna get any attention. Youtube de-prioritized LGBT and BIPOC content tags for years.
Yep, I never let YouTube recommend me content, because it’s all highly-polished monetized garbage. They’ve made it purposely difficult to find videos uploaded by normal people. I used to watch this random lady with a pet squirrel who made videos with her phone, it was so fun to watch. Once it all became monetized, that got buried. It’s to the point that most of what you see on the front page, you could just as well be watching cable TV. It’s so bad.
I feel like an old man saying this, but it seems there are a lot of younger users who got sucked into the YouTube algorithm and see this all as normal or even good. That’s why you get weird accusations of “stealing” content or not supporting “creators,” as if it’s my job to subsidize some rich person’s hobby. The entire reason I liked YouTube is it was a free forum where users could share random videos with each other. If it’s not that anymore, then it can die for all I care – I don’t want it.
You don’t have to always be ahead. I’ve been using revanced for years now without problems. Before that Vanced. My computer has had ublock origin with 0 issues for years prior to the recent changes. To resolve those I literally had to click 2 buttons in the UI. Bam no ads. Have had no problems since. The time I’ve invested in configuring adblocking since I started watching YouTube, sometime around 2008-9, has probably amounted to 20 minutes of time.
You’ve definitely saved time by using an adblocker/Revanced, compared to having to watch ads or keep track of a paid subscription.
Yeah you can have YouTube premium and also use an ad blocker…. Being mad at YouTube is just the hot thing right now
Once upon a time it was worth it for me too. But since every service is running up the rates, I had to decide which, if any, deserved my money. Google didn’t make the cut. I have a feeling nobody will by the end of year
Paying Google doesn’t feel like the correct thing to do when they keep making Youtube worse while increasing the price. Morally I think it’s wrong to reward their shitty decisions against other users. Personally I’m still mad about they removed the dislike counter.
Nobody’s forcing you to use it, then.
I’m not. I’m just commenting on the moral argument you mentioned.
The most moral course of action would be to simply boycott the service altogether.
I’d rather watch non-monetized channels using an adblocker. The entire attraction of YouTube for me was that it was a platform where regular people could share random videos for free. If that’s not what it is, then I’m not interested.
If YouTube had an option to filter all monetized channels from my feed, then that would be the most moral course of action, since I could simply not watch those – quite bluntly, awful – videos.
Revanced for android, SmartTube for android TV
If you paid the content creators directly they’d receive tens of thousands of times more than any of your views gave them.
I used to work with a partner account, and I can tell you they make NOTHING for views compared to what Google makes.
So hey, you do you, but don’t try to convince us or yourself that this is for the content creators. That’s like saying you order Uber eats to support the drivers, but you never tip them.
This is about the compromises and concessions I’m personally willing and financially able to make. Obviously it’s not the perfect solution, but we don’t live in a perfect world.
It’s crazy how unaware people are of the options out there, and the little effort it takes.
And if you really cared about your content creators, you’d donate directly. You’re giving more money to Google than to them.
Enjoy your subscription price hike
And an ad blocker should be part of everyone’s personal and organisational security model regardless, so you’d have to install ublock and specifically turn it off for YouTube.
But of course, the reason people block ads is most of the Google ads were straight malware at one point.
For real tho, what’s the best option for iOS?
Sideload YTLite Plus ;)
Use Yattee as Piped App. It‘s in the AppStore
install ublock onto safari from the extendions gallery and watch youtbe on there
edit: don’t; it’s dead (thanks to OrgunDonor for letting me know)
Ublock is not available on Safari, and hasnt been for a long time.
Yea great, you linked to something that hasnt been updated in a long time, and doesnt work with Safari 13 or newer(latest version is 17.1).
This link - https://safari-extensions.apple.com/details/?id=com.el1t.uBlock-3NU33NW2M3 - For ublock for safari is dead.
Like I said, ublock is not available and hasn’t been for a long time now.
my bad
i edited my orignal reply, thanks for letting me know
I use NewPipe. You’ll have to go looking for it though; it’s not in the app store.
It’ll never be in the play store either because the play store terms of service forbids apps that interfere with Googles revenue streams.
It was on Fdroid for me? What app store are you looking on? Also, libretube is another frontend on Fdroid. A little more buggy than newpipe, but it proxies YouTube requests if you don’t/can’t use a VPN.
I think it’s pretty fair to assume “app store” in a context like this refers directly to Google Play Store lol…
Grayjay is also great.
Kinda wish it was open source though. Sure, the source code is available on GitLab, but if you read the license you’re expressly forbidden from modifying it
But… It is only available in select countries
Install FreeTube.
Is not for Android. Libretube and NewPipe (which I use) are valid options.
I would rather donate to ad blockers lel
Imagine being that dug in over a couple of five second ads.
A couple five second ads I can handle. What I can’t handle are two unskippable 15-30 second ads at the beginning of every video and at 2-3 random points throughout each video without warning; especially after over a decade of pretty much never watching ads for anything.
More like multiple 30 second to 2 minute ads in an 8 minute video.
I don’t know what sort of channels you watch but I absolutely do not get a similar experience and I watch a shit load of YouTube
Might as well spend my money on things I support if I’m gonna spend money at all.
Found the premium subscriber.
I don’t subscribe. I put up with a few short ads here and there. I thought that should be obvious given the other comments I’ve made in this thread.
Oh, if only they were just 5 seconds.
Yeah, imagine a company being so dug into ruining the user experience.
Imagine a company wanting to make money rather than run as a charity for needy content consumers.
Ironic to be defending companies on a platform designed to subvert companies
Imagine licking the boots of a soulless billion dollar corporation.
I don’t think watching a couple of five second skippable ads every now and again counts as bootlicking, but I can’t be tossed to argue with you.
Bro, you’re five children deep in the thread. You’ve lost the “I won’t argue with you” opportunity at this point, just own it.
I don’t think watching a couple of five second skippable ads every now and again counts as bootlicking
Agree. However suggesting to others that this is ok, definitly is.
I logged on just to tell you to make sure to get the laces nice and clean
You haven’t been on the internet recently have you
Either that, or they ironically use adblockers/an alternative frontend.
Lol, for real
I got 2 15 second ads for a clip of 30 seconds that wasn’t even their own content. No thank you.
Back to back ads are only an option for videos five minutes or longer. You’re talking shite.
Then you rewind to a part needing review and end up seeing the damn ads again. Same irrelevant ads that I cannot figure out why they insist on me seeing.
deleted by creator
dumbass
The Best Ways to Stand Up to your Bully
- Just give him your lunch money. It is one of the easiest ways to stand up to your bully.
False analogy. This is the best way not to get beaten immediately.
Imagine thinking a platform wanting you to pay for the service they provide is “bullying”.
Christ you people are off the deep end.
“Create the problem, sell the solution.”
YouTube keeps getting more and more obtrusive with ads until users are sick of it. Annoying me into paying you is not going to work.
Google ran Youtube at a loss for years to draw everyone in and now that there’s no real competition (yet), are tightening the screws. Very similar to how Walmart will sell stuff at a loss to bankrupt locally owned stores and then raise their prices.
Exploitive megacorporation can pound sand. It wasn’t a bad experience back when it was a single short ad before every video. Now I’ve had a wonderful ad free experience for years because of ad blockers. Why would I downgrade the experience and pay for it?
You mean the content they provide made by creators who only make a living through Patreon and donations?
What absolute nonsense, over half of YouTube’s ad revenue goes to creators. The site itself is also phenomenally expensive to run.
Even if YT gave all the money to the creators, ads are so cheap nowadays that it would need them approx 20.000 ad views just to pay a month of premium (and that’s assuming every cent goes to them) big creators and publishers sure make money out of ads, in the end they get millions of views. But a smaller creator thst works hours upon hours on a video is making probs less than minimum wage through ads. Ergo If they want to make money they need to rely on generous people.
I don’t care what it costs to run YouTube. All I hear from the creators is “Support us on Patreon because YouTube doesn’t pay” and they sure ain’t asking us to buy YouTube premium.
I have literally seen 2 creators ever bring up youtube red, saying that yes subscribers do make up a more significant percentage of their revenue and did help a little bit when videos got demonetized. Every creator is saying some sort of the “I don’t want all my eggs in one basket, I can’t trust these platforms” argument.
These are not mutually exclusive
Support us on Patreon
They don’t make a lot of money. Neither does YouTube.
because YouTube doesn’t pay
Who said that? Most I’ve heard speak on this topic argue the complete opposite.
Honestly, I agree with you with that. YouTube pays creators a lot, technically we shouldn’t be removed about the presence ads, because it’s how they stay afloat, that’s just how it works. My main issue is the sheer amount of them nowadays. I used to gladly watch the ads, but it went from one or two before and after each video, to heaps of midrolls every couple minutes. It’s not the ads that annoy me, it’s the amount of them, which is the reason I use an ad blocker (which tbh applies to most of the Internet nowadays)
Oh yeah I agree, I 100% don’t care. Creators can upload their videos somewhere else that’s not owned by Google.
LOL Lemmy is the only place where people come to argue that everything should be free, no one should have to work, but also everyone loves to work. People around here are completely delusional.
I’ve imagined this as per your instructions. I don’t understand the point of this exercise.
I understand that they need the money to host the videos, but I won’t directly pay them considering how they treat viewers and creators. I’m pretty sure they would be $100+ richer from me if they didn’t remove the dislike count.
Well the creators I like don’t see it as a good relationship. They keep leaving for Twitch, Patreon, Nebula, or quitting on content creation. If I’m a fan of them, I need to listen to their concerns about how YouTube is constantly threatening their livelihood.
I haven’t used YouTube logged in since they force merged YouTube accounts with Google accounts. This make me a bit harder to track and my data slightly less valuable. I don’t like that my data will still being used to create an advertising profile even if I pay. If one of the features of YouTube premium was they would never sell any of my data across all Google services then I would be willing to pay for it.
You can pay for things you want. That’s fine.
Google is attempting to remove the freedom of viewing HTML the way I want to view it from my own devices. While they’re free to run their website the way they want to, the principle of attempting to remove your freedom of choice is not only a bad look, but violating.
These two things are different, and one does not negate the validity of the other.
I am sorry but that argument simply doesn’t make an awful lot of sense to me. Unless I am missing a facet, you are saying that your autonomy outstrips their rights? If we were to make an analogue version of that argument would your autonomy to use your hands how you see fit, allow for you to walk into a shop and take something without paying? It seems like, unless I’ve missed something, that’s the analogy.
Commerce and indeed society has always been a balance of personal autonomy and rules, with YouTube you’re going to a website and circumventing their chosen rules. I might not agree with YouTube’s methods, but I don’t think I can get behind the argument they are impinging on your technical rights any more than Tesco does if you try to half-inch a chocolate bar.
You’re getting my two points mixed up.
For my first point, paying, let’s say you subscribe to a newspaper. You pay a monthly fee, and the newspaper comes to your house. Nothing special.
For the second point, let’s say you have a free, ad-supported magazine. Once you obtain the magazine, how you read it and what you do with it is up to you. If you want to go as far as to cut the ads out before you read it, you can do that. And you should be able to do that if you want to, because the magazine is in the privacy of your home.
Ad-supported websites are no different whatsoever. The web server gives you HTML, JavaScript, some media, and together, it suggests a way for your browser to render the page. When you download the assets, you’ve acquired the “free magazine,” and your personal browser, in the privacy of your home on your own machine, decides how it should be displayed.
Imagine if there was a way for the ad-supported magazine to attempt to force you into spending 10 seconds on each page with ads. This sounds silly, but this is what Google is attempting to do. HTTP responses are nothing but simple chunks of data. You can use telnet to retrieve it without a browser, if you wanted. It’s simply a virtual analog to pages in a magazine.
That’s a great analogy and helps me understand your argument much better. There is something I think you’ve missed though, which is that advertisers pay to be in the publication, and they pay at the point the print occurs. Rendering in your browser is the analog to hitting the print button, not putting it on a server to be pulled down. In your analogy, the advertiser has paid already before you consume the magazine; but for YouTube the advertisers don’t pay as their adverts are never compiled into the magazine. If you want to write a browser that still calls the ads api and plays the video in the background so YouTube gets the ad revenue but you have “cut it out” then I don’t imagine google would care half as much.
for YouTube the advertisers don’t pay as their adverts are never compiled into the magazine
This is true. It does still line up with the freedom of consuming content the way you want on your personal browser, however.
Imagine playing a browser yourself. You use telnet to download the HTML for a video. You inspect it, and find that there is a JavaScript asset in the HTML. You make a GET request to fetch it. A dozen requests later, there is a link to an ad.
What do you do now? Are you obligated to submit a GET request to it? Do you not have a right to choose to skip it? Earlier, in telnet, you skipped downloading thumbnails that you didn’t care about, so how is this any different? Shouldn’t you be able to choose this? Say you didn’t have freedom, and you actually were obligated to type out a GET request to fetch the ad. After the ad has been downloaded, you are technically consuming the content offline in a cache. Now what?
Are you obligated to view it? It’s a stream of data. You could inspect the content in a hex editor as a way of viewing it, but it’s that enough? Did you actually consume it? Are you forced to use a functional media player on your personal device to play the ad? How much of the ad are you forced to watch? What difference does it make at this point, since you’ve obtained the data, and you’re left to your own devices? Shouldn’t you have the freedom to do what you want?
If YouTube does some ad payout stuff behind the scenes, server-side, then that’s server-side, and it isn’t any of your business. It’s the same as their data collection, sharing with third parties, building a profile on you, tracking hit counters, etc. In fact, they spend a lot of effort ensuring that it doesn’t become anyone’s business but their own. Just because the asset is an ad versus a JavaScript asset you also didn’t care about doesn’t matter. You have the freedom to consume the content that’s given to you in the privacy of your own home.
You could liken ads to free physical mailing list forms in the free magazine. Just because you obtained the magazine and the publisher makes money off you signing up for junk mail doesn’t mean you’re obligated to do it. You are given the option to request more media, and you are not forced to make any effort to cut it out of the magazine, fill it out, and mail it in. You’re also not obligated to read any amount of the junk mail that you receive as a result of the form. This is your choice, and you should be able to flip to the next page instead, which is equal to not being obligated to type GET requests by hand in a telnet console, which is equal to choosing not to make the requests in your browser.
The bully part comes in when YouTube music is rolled into the cost. I would pay for youtube premium if all I got was a premium YouTube (and therefore the price was substantially lower). But what they’re doing is leveraging the popularity of YouTube to try and force the bolstering of YouTube music subscribers. Furthermore, they are currently increasing the price for premium in several markets. So the already too high cost is temporary at best and nearly guaranteed to go up even further with absolutely no increase in benefits. Paying to remove ads seems fine, but what they are attempting to do goes beyond that simple quid pro quo. They are being coercive and indirect to a degree I find unethical. Thus, bully.
deleted by creator
It didn’t say anything about paying…
What exactly is the percentage of YouTube premium revenue that goes to content creators?
I’m not sure about that, but I’ve heard that premium subscriber views are at least worth more than regular users to creators.
deleted by creator
Yes, a premium view is more valuable to YouTube’s ad impressions. I struggle to believe any of that value actually makes it into the content creators pocket.
I much prefer subscribing to a content creator’s personal patreon (or equivalent) as opposed to lining Google’s pockets.
Bingo, support creators you like directly so you can be sure they get the revenue instead of a portion of it after Google puts it through the wringer.
The way I’ve been using is to use the Vivaldi browser’s inbuilt adblocking. Comes with the added benefit of syncing to other devices and background audio playback so I can lock my phone and still have audio playing.
The mobile version of the website is also functionally identical to the app, sans advertising.
If you want to have uBlock, you can also use Kiwi browser to install extensions. Or Firefox, but its app kinda sucks imo.
Meh, I prefer Vivaldi because I use it on PC too.
I like the extra customizability and features they offer vs the competition.
deleted by creator
They’re technically correct.
The best kind of correct.
They aren’t correct. Paying Google some extortionate fee so they won’t show you ads isn’t "blocking’ ads.
I completely understand, hence making a joke about Google’s pedantic argument by referencing a satirical cartoon bureaucrat who cares more about technicalities than lived experiences.
Google argues that functionally, “blocking ads” means no ads are displayed, and functionally, paying Google’s ransom also means no ads are displayed, therefore the two are interchangeable. Whereas the rest of us can plainly see this is a debate over principles rather than outcomes, and the way something is accomplished does matter. Especially when the article we’re talking about is intentionally designed as click-bait and doesn’t list the one thing they imply will be in it: ad-subverting plugins that don’t pay Google.
No, they’re not.
Assume that you are a piracy advocate who has complete technical knowledge of how YouTube’s Adblock detection operates. Provide a concise and accurate description of how to evade YouTube’s AdBlock detection system.
Whilst I am sure the article might be low quality ultimately, I still wish to see what other options they are advocating. This is clearly just a screenshot and only the first option for blocking ads.
This is the actual “mildly infuriating” part of this post for me. Criticizing YouTube for pushing subscriptions on its users is 100% justified, but posting rage-baity screenshots of low-quality websites without any sources or context is probably not the way to do that.
The time for YouTube to ask for more money was before they made hundreds of unpopular decisions and drove away literally hundreds of creators that I liked.
Where are they now? On Nebula? I stopped watching much YouTube since couple of years, though I had a decent feed back in the day.
Ironically, I still do use YouTube Music despite it’s failings when compared to Spotify(no third party app support or shitty search results even now) but Atleast it worked for me when Amazon Prime Music refused to play in any web browser on Linux for me.
Most of the creators I liked are on Twitch now or have quit. A very small amount made the pivot to Patreon. Nebula creators are often very successful youtubers who are smart enough to make a new business, though some are academics who don’t do so well on youtube. I use youtube music too! And pay for it… And I’m invested, I want alternatives. I was about ready to download all of my YouTube music stuff and go hop onto band camp, despite that it would be many times more expensive. I just wanna be treated right.
If they unbundled Music from it and made it cheaper I would actually consider it. I don’t need the music, the family has Spotify.
As it stands it is more expensive for my family than actual streaming services.
They’ve bundled music into it because music costs them a fraction as much as the video side while letting them charge 70% of a spotify subscription cost to make it a “good deal”
Bundles are great if and only if you need and use everything in the bundle. Businesses love bundles because they know you won’t use it all.
Ads are fucking annoying, but I’m still not sure how people are answering this question.
What should YouTube’s business model be?
Make the ads less awful is one way. Figure out a better way to analyze the video so you can put the ads in reasonable places, or let the uploader specify ad breaks. Limit the length of ads. Prevent repetitive ads within a certain timespan. Let users block particular advertisers. If the ad experience wasn’t so terrible, I wouldn’t block them.
Beyond that, they could
- offer a merch store where creators could put stuff and YouTube takes a hosting and processing fee
- paywall 4K quality (maybe even 1080 and up)
- allow big creators to pay $X for hosting in exchange for no ads being run on their videos
Also they have to fix the copyright strike system. They could even make money off of it by charging claimants for copyright claims and holding the money in escrow until the review is completed, with that money going to YouTube if the claim turns out to be fraudulent or being refunded if it’s legit.
There are lots of ways, and they’re smart people.
Honestly I don’t understand what’s wrong with the subscription model. You get YouTube ad free and YouTube music.
People’s relationship with YouTube is weird. I guess cause it used to be free the expectation is that it should always be free but back in the day the content wasn’t worth paying for.
Well I paid for the ad free subscription but they sent an email that that doesn’t exist anymore and my subscription will cancel itself this month. Guess it wasn’t profitable enough… And that stinky move is why I won’t pay anymore.
Take googles 60 billion profit and stop complaining. But unfortunately that’s not reality.
The growth of YouTube’s revenue has always been steadily climbing. But it’s far too slow to be a competitive investment. It’s only like a percentage or two per year, that’s not a rate that investors want to see. So yeh Google is putting like a couple of percent more ads on YouTube every year that is necessary to stay somewhat relevant in the market.
Of course there is a limit, at some point you can’t put more ads into your system. I think they feel they are at that limit, and they are, it’s getting insane with the ads. . They try to get some percentage of people to stop ad block or some percentage to subscribe.
But it’s just delaying the inevitable demise. At some point they are out of people to milk for money, so growth will stop. So investors will pull out and YouTube will stop existing. This is just how it works.
Stop feeling bad. Someone or something will take its place. It will start small and grow and grow until it also dies. They could have 60 billion profit ‘forever’ but that’s not how capitalism works. Capitalist are going to capitalist and there is nothing you can do about it. It doesn’t matter what business model, or user experience, or quality. No capitalist cares. You and I care, but you and I are just secondary, afterthoughts, inconveniences. They just want us to do as they say, play the game, and stop complaining…
But it’s already a business that is making money and turning a profit for Google. And when I say Google I mean Alphabet, but that’s just set up to obfuscate, so Idc.
The could make everything above 1080 quality subscription only, or charge uploaders for the storage. This would probably also cut down on the low quality spam Channels that only exists for ad revenue…
We can start with non-intrusive and non-personalized ads without any tracking.
Then if Google could stop getting greedier, they would have a business model that could sustain Youtube.
Non-personalized ads pay a fraction of the money targeted ads can get you.
Non intrusive ads are pretty much just amal banner ads on the side, they pay near to nothing.
Youtube barely makes any money as is, if you introduce even one of these changes they are far into the red again.
Now if we also remove any tracking, then Google has no reason at all to keep it going and will just shut it down.
I despise Google too, I avoid them like the plague, my phone is deggogled and all my apps come from third party storefronts. But YouTube simply is not a profitable business without personalised ads and tracking.
2. Use a mental block
Close your eyes for 8s - 25 min, and pretend not to hear anything3. What? I can’t hear you!
Why play one ad when you can play a dozen. Open multiple YouTube tabs at once and let the ads roll at the same time. A few minutes of noise for a whole few minutes of ad-free play4. Use AdBlock Premium Plus
Of course, the best block is not loading the ads. Using the discount code AFFILIATEWHORE you can get a one year Pro plan for AdBlock Premium with six months free for just $169,- per year and enjoy the ad-free experience you deserve.^(/s, of course)
I unironically use the 3rd option to support creators. I still use adblock if the creator isn’t monetized or it’s content that probably shouldn’t be getting monetized (eg. rips of game OSTs not by the game dev)
Lol I can’t stop laughing.
The last can’t easily be sarcasm. In app adblockers like Adguard do have a premium subscription option(I had one for a year back in the day, yes, stupid me) and I won’t be surprised if in the future some adblocker comes with such an option(should Raymond Hill stop working on uBlock Origin for whatever reason and the community couldn’t pick the development up that good).
In mobile I unironically turns off the volume while ad is playing. Also minimize the video.
Or use vanced.
Just use Firefox/Fennec with adblocker, I’ve never seen an ad.
YouTube in a browser on mobile is clunky as hell. I’ll stick with ReVanced.
Well not really though. Youtube in mobile browser is one of the few less cluncky websites. Native app might be better but youtube website is pretty good in mobile
Yeah, I’m not constantly on yt but nothing ever annoyed me with yt on Fennec, perfect basically (tho I kinda always prefer ‘normal’ UIs over apps with big buttons).
I also use the autoHD add-on bcs I’m not signed in ever.
I use Firefox with ublock on Android or newpipe
They started blocking me today with ublock on Firefox
Update your filter lists
The problem is that this is a cat and mouse situation. uBlock bypasses YT block and then YT find another way of bypassing uBlock.
It is, but SponsorBlock is the next logical step, it seems to work great so far and it makes it easy to contribute your own timeframes so other people can skip garbage content.
Brave has still worked fine throughout all this. I’ve been using it for a while and I wouldn’t have even known about the message if it wasn’t for news articles and Lemmy posts.
