• SymphonicResonance@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    192
    ·
    1 year ago

    I actually didn’t care when there was an ad in the beginning of the video or what not. It was when I had to start watching multiple ads in the middle of a 10 minute video as well. Like come on, not even broadcast TV is that annoying.

    • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      1 year ago

      Shorts are such a stupidly blatant way to start showing more ads than content, and they make navigating channels impossible. Hell you can’t even get away from ads in search results with premium.

      • MasterBlaster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Noaw I understand why so many people hate shorts! I never use the official app or browser to watch, so I don’t see the advertisements.

          • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You know those videos with a crazy thumbnail and title? You know, some stupid idiot BS clickbait nonsense like guy wrestling with a crocodile, but in reality that frame doesn’t even exist anywhere in the video. Oh, and then there’s the big red arrow and a wild title like: A CROCODILE BIT MY HEAD OFF!!!111!!!

            Well, dearrow can fix all that. Users can select are more representative frame for the thumbnail and write a better title such as: “collection of random cat videos stolen from other people”. People get to vote on which thumbnail and which title text should be there, while dearrow shows that to the next person. If you care about cat videos, you might click that one. If you’re more interested in crocodile wrestling, you won’t be deceived to click something you don’t want to watch.

    • dan80@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Adding an insane amount of ads is a dark pattern to convince you into joining Youtube Premium. Which is crazy expensive by the way, 13,99 $/month

      • Acid@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Honestly I bought YouTube premium through a VPN to turkey for that price for the entire year. Seems worth it.

        • jarfil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mostly wanted YouTube Music for my bedroom speaker, but if they’re throwing in ad-free YouTube along with it, so be it.

          • Acid@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            AD Free YouTube is great tbh, it is generally a good experience no matter what device you use then throw in the claim it supports the content creators more seems like win win

        • madcaesar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Absolutely. Infinite growth demands more and more. Always. Fuck the customer, increase shareholder value this quarter!

        • Raz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Tired of ads? Upgrade to YouTube Premium PLUS to get rid of all ads!”

    • Luvs2Spuj@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Same here. I was listening to a beautiful violin piece being played by a soloist and an ad interrupted it. I would be fine with watching the ad before. I immediately went and watched it elsewhere.

      Later, I came back to YouTube for something unrelated and had a message/popup that said ‘tired of being interrupted? Upgrade to premium here!’

      They know exactly what they are doing, trying to make it unbearable to use anything other than premium. They can get fucked.

    • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Normal TV is infuriating enough that I can’t be bothered to watch any of that stuff. Watching videos on a computer is just so much nicer. If TV broadcasting stopped tomorrow and everyone around me was in a conspiracy of hiding it from me, it could take me years to find out.

      YouTube has been going downhill for many years now, and there have been many incremental steps towards becoming as bad as TV. If they take that final step, I’ll start treating YT the same way I treat TV.

    • whileloop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      113
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If I understand correctly, there’s nothing about Firefox that makes ad blockers any harder to detect. What can Firefox and uBlock do to stop Google from blocking adblock users on the site?

      That said, I use Firefox and uBlock myself, and I’ve yet to see YouTube stop me from using the site.

      • AProfessional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        101
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They don’t care about Firefox. Chrome is the browser market, they have weakened extensions, they implemented DRM, and here we are.

        • Fester@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          116
          ·
          1 year ago

          Coming to you later… “Your browser violates YouTube’s Terms of Service.”

            • Sami@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              64
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              They can just phrase it a little differently and argue semantics in front of a bunch of 70 year olds who don’t know what a browser is in a hearing or two. Maybe a couple campaign contributions through completely legal channels and that’s that. Anti trust enforcement has been falling in the US for decades.

              • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I am cautiously optimistic of that new gal heading the FTC, she’s preparing suits I to Amazon and Google, so we’ll see how that goes

          • callyral@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            You could use an extension that changes your user agent but I’m not sure how well that’d work

          • DrQuint@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            They’re TRYING, but for now, it would be a user agent extension matter.

      • AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        65
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It doesn’t matter if YouTube can detect uBlock. The great thing about uBlock is you can just block the anti-adblock script. Since Javascript is executed on the user’s computer, it’s trivial to just tell your computer to ignore it. And moving it to server side would cost them too much money in processing power.

        That’s why they want everyone to adopt their DRM, so they don’t have to worry about it.

        • PeachMan@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          42
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          This logic is so flawed lol. It’s also completely trivial for them to detect when their anti-adblock script has been blocked. If it gets blocked, then they can just stop serving you videos.

          There are websites that already do this; it’s not theoretical. The website just doesn’t work if it detects an adblocker.

          • Zikeji@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Whether or not it’s trivial to detect depends on the method used to block it. It already is an arms race, and said race will continue.

            • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Didn’t Spotify do this a while back, they made threats of account bans as well. In the end it was bypassed and you can still use Adblock in the browser or adfree clients on desktop (or just block ads across device with Adguard or Portmaster), though honestly Spotify kind of sucks in my opinion (usually doesn’t have the music I want and has UI unresponsiveness).

          • AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            OK, show us an example. I’ve never run across a website that adblockers just didn’t work on, but maybe you know of one. Give us an example, and we’ll see if we can bypass that. Then we’ll know which of us understands how Javascript works, and which doesn’t.

      • Goodie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Firefox currently enjoys protection from being “relatively niche” in the browser market (aka not Chromium based trash).

        But if I had to place a bet on which browser would put effort in to protecting your privacy, including which extensions are installed, my bet would be on Firefox over Chrome.

      • ares35@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        i think it’s mainly the list maintainers staying on-the-ball with changes to sites. they can move quicker than a giant corporation can develop, test, and roll-out potentially site-breaking changes that could adversely affect ‘billions’ of users.

      • Name is Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        It has always been my understanding that uBlock and uBlock Origin were two totally different extensions for ad blocking. Is this not correct? Back several year ago when ad blockers were new, I recall seeing two different Firefox listings for them, and people would caution users to get uBlock Origin and not the other truncated named one

            • SimplePhysics@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, it is metamorphical lol. Gorhill is the creator of both uBlock and uBlock Origin. However, he gave the uBlock github repo to another dev, who sold it to adblock plus. Do not download uBlock.

              However, he did fork uBlock and continued to develop his own version, now named uBlock Origin. Do download uBlock Origin.

              PSA: ublock.org is not related to uBlock Origin.

      • Fades@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The difference is Firefox is not a chromium based browser and thus not subject to googles fucking bullshit, esp when we come to things like web drm

      • klyde@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just another Firefox fan boy. They do this shit when as blockers get brought up too as if Brave, Vivaldi, etc isn’t going to strip out the ad blocker nonsense when they build their versions. Just because these versions use Chromium as a base in no way means they have to use their code. Firefox fan boys are too busy talking about Firefox to understand this.

    • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      You know why it’s called revanced? Because youtube came after vanced. They wont ignore it forever, unfortunately.

      • Alimentar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        72
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        YouTube Vanced was shut down because they tried to monetise it by releasing their own crypto NFTs, sparking Google to shut it down. I think for now Revanced is safe.

        • Czarrie@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          1 year ago

          Every great project always seems to have that one dude who is like, “But what if crypto?”. Really hoping we are moving past that phase.

      • whileloop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        51
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The thing is that Revanced follows a new distribution model. Rather than distributing a modified app, they instead distribute patches for the normal YouTube APK so that the user modifies the app on their own device. Thus, ReVanced never distributes any of Google’s IP. It’s kinda like game modding. ReVanced will be a lot harder for Google to kill.

        The one downside for ReVanced is that it’s harder for ordinary users to install, so that will limit its popularity.

      • Mrduckrocks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        I know if I’m not wrong vanced got in trouble for using YouTube logo and reverse engineering the YouTube app. Revanced technically not breaking any law as it not directly modifying YouTube like vanced.

        • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, but YT can change the terms, and now blocking ads, its clear they are stepping up the aggression in chasing profitability.

          • ares35@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            they’ve captured as many paying customersproducts as they could under the ‘old’ system, so now they’re trying to squeeze more cash out every other source they can.

            • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I don’t fully agree. I buy premium. As long as they keep it ad-free, it’s a vote for a better business model, for platform, creator, and user alike. YT has had that option for years. Up to now, it was essentially voluntary.

              It’s time to leave the ad-funded internet entirely behind us, and move to platforms like Nebula, Floatplane, Proton Mail… And yes, even YT Premium. I’m just keeping my fingers crossed they don’t pull a hulu and try to double dip on both a sub and ads.

              If that happens, YT is dead to me.

              • Efwis@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                I just can’t agree with the $73/month price for something I rarely if ever use. My grandson loves watching Elmo’s world on it on the tv, ads aren’t too bad yet, get like 10 mins of video before 2 30 second ads. But I refuse to pay google any money, they make enough off the android phones and all their ads they shove down your throat via websites, YouTube and google search engine

              • Hiccups2go@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I mean even if you pay for premium, they don’t give you the option to not have shorts shoved down your throat. This is a “feature” that has been added after premium was a thing. It’s also not too hard to figure out shorts are an optimized method to harvest more user data on interests.

                While I don’t disagree with leaving the ad-funded internet behind us, I also don’t trust Google to be a pioneer in reducing ads on the Internet— considering they’re an ad delivering company above all else at this point.

                • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t have premium and I don’t see shorts either. I’m not sure if some of my addons is blocking those or I just clicked “not interested” enough many times.

                  EDIT: Yeah. Enhancer for YouTube blocks them

                • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  No one said we should trust a corporation to do anything, much less google. I’ve ditched chrome and encourage others to do the same every chance I get. But I also think Premium, YT Music, Android and Pixel, Google drive/office suite, are all reasons for google to rely less and less on their ad business.

                  The challenge they now face, is the unwillingness of customers to pay. Due to google having relied on ads for so long, people are more than used to accessing their services free of charge. Just looking at the ad-block-blocking situation, they demand that they be able to do so. All the while rejecting even the ads.

                  Ads will never be the long term play. Sooner or later legislation will step in, as people who actually use the internet and it’s services like youtube, start getting into government.

    • porkins@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or, you could buy YouTube TV, which gives you YouTube Premium as a undisclosed bonus I’ve found. A great option because it helps content creators and allows you to cut cable. I may have some bias on the topic of paying for media content services, but in general pirating hurts the creators. I hate that I’m old and wise enough that I might have been more receptive to Metallica’s arguments during the Napster era. I do feel though that it is in the best interest of creators for certain content to be previewable. The problem with YouTube video monetization are that most are not going to be rewatched.

      • Jeff@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wait what? I have YouTube TV and pay for YouTube Premium so would love to not do the latter. Where might I find this undisclosed bonus?

        • porkins@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I simply find that when I am logged into YouTube with my same account that purchased YouTube TV I receive no ads. I am not using an add blocker or anything. I assumed that was because of my purchase of YouTube TV. It might be a bug with my account because I still get a splash occasionally to buy premium, however no ads ever.

  • Nougat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    121
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    People who choose not to watch ads are far more likely to not spend money based on ads. I know that when I see the same crappy ads over and over, yeah, I remember the name of the product, and I remind myself every time never to buy it. I’m more likely to buy from that seller if I don’t see their ads.

    • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I operate this way too. There must be literally dozens of us.

      In all seriousness, I do find it somewhat surprising that some of these companies think saturating everything with ads is a good idea. As a simple matter of brand recognition, I get that the power of suggestion is a helluva drug. But all that stuff does eventually glom together in my head as general advertising nonsense – as a result I see companies that advertise less / not at all and rely on a quality product and word of mouth as a better buy.

      • Wogi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        They don’t just think it’s a good idea, marketers have convinced themselves they’re doing you a favor by pummeling you with advertisements day and night.

        How else could you learn about their valuable product if not for constant, unending advertisement?

        • drekly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I work in Google Ads every day.

          It’s more likely that they’re incompetent and haven’t checked/manually set up their video / display ads, and have let Google decide how often to show their ads. Google then decides to show their ads as often as possible because it gets clicks (even if they’re accidental) and nets them more money each time.

          The best trick Google ever pulled was telling advertiser’s to trust them with their money and “leave it up to the algorithm”.

          Fuck no, you set it up so Google doesn’t abuse their platform and spam your ads everywhere, ignoring everything Google tell you to do.

          The shit I’ve seen in people’s accounts because Google told them to do it…

          You can and should limit the amount of times your adverts are shown per day to someone. There’s a not-so-fine line between brand awareness and pissing off potential customers.

    • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I can list a ton of products I by principle will never use. Athelic greens, casper mattresses, simplisafe, express/nordVPN, Honey … Some people may see a pattern there.

      Ironically I might actually buy your product even if you spam annoying ads as long as you do it on a platform I block ads on.

    • teamevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Chumba…Jordan Peterson and the stupid best fiends game, I’ll NEVER use

    • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t remember which creator said it but basically by donating them even one dollar they’re profiting more than if you sit thru hours and hours of ads. I guess objectively one can claim the moral high ground by watching ads but that really is like tossing bread crumbs to a beggar.

      I’d really like platform like YouTube to come up with a subscribtion model that you pay like $10/month of which 20% goes to YouTube and the rest is split between the creators of which videos you have been watching. Even better if there’s a way to prioritize the ones that you really want to give your support to.

      • zobatch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’ve just described YouTube Premium. Except it’s $14/month now. And I don’t know the numbers for how much of that goes to creators.

        You can also “join” a channel, assuming that channel has it enabled.

    • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Imagine believing you get paid to make videos on a video sharing platform. Who do those people think they are?

      /s

  • wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen the word “allowlisted”. Did someone forget “whitelisted” is a thing, or is that term finally cancelled?

    • tleb@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      83
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Whitelist and blacklist were indeed cancelled despite having no racial origin.

      • tonarinokanasan@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        30
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are cultural traditions of using colors as symbols, many of which are harmless – red for anger, blue for sadness, green for envy. Whitelist and blacklist come from the very long-standing theme of using white to represent good and black to represent evil.

        Regardless of how you feel about the origin of those themes, it makes sense to start moving away from them now. Whether intentional or not, they can be harmful and aren’t really necessary.

        • Reliant1087@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          37
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Let’s also start removing phrases with white, yellow and brown as those are used to refer to people’s skin colour as well.

          The only reason I would even contemplate not using blacklist or white washing is if an actual person of that skin colour says that it is not okay for them, or there’s an actual consensus among people of that community that it isn’t acceptable.

          I can tell you as a person with brown skin, with brownie or whatever used as a derogatory name, almost everyone I know isn’t even concerned with terms like brown out or brown note.

          Online outrages or articles aren’t an accurate depiction of reality.

          Even more dangerously, shit like this drives outrage and diverts attention from actual, real issues faced by people of different races. Like not having stuff to eat or indoor plumbing or mental health infrastructure or access to health care.

          • shiii@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            27
            ·
            1 year ago

            The only people being outraged are people like you when someone is using a different word.

            I watched an ig reel that said people react to anything different to them either with fear or judgement. Get over yourself, have some empathy, and move on.

            • Skates@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh shit, well if you watched an Instagram reel then it’s probably true.

              Note though how I’m here reacting to something different with neither fear nor judgement, just with sarcasm.

            • Reliant1087@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s your take reading a post talking explicitly about how a person won’t be outraged about something without actually taking into consideration how the people who the issues is about feel or act?

              Maybe you should stop for a moment, think over what you’ve said and read, and consider that many of these discrimated groups can actually think for ourselves and doesn’t need to be told what to be outraged over?

        • kameecoding@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          not only that but whitelist-blacklist are just bad names.

          even greenlist-redlist would be better (at least while we have light signals at intersections) as green means go red means stop are more universally understood.

          but allowlist and blocklist are just plain better, they are self explanatory words. you don’t need to learn what they mean since it’s right there in the name.

          whitelist-blacklist are names where you need to learn the meaning of them, sticking to them just because they were used in the past is not the best argument.

          • Hello Hotel@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Words often work like unique signifiers “symbols”, often by using them you learn them and dont question it. Thats a neutral phenomenon. It has advantages and disadvantages. Mainly, redlist is as disconnected from meaning as much as blacklist is. Requiring the understanding of what a “car” is, and why they cant “wheel their way” thru a cross shaped road becuse of a colored light being there. (Mabe even “across” may make no sense anymore in the future) It sounds really stupid when put like that, but accessability is important.

            • kameecoding@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              it isn’t though. you don’t need cars to learn red means stop, we literally had miniature roads, crossing and signs at my pre-school (or whatever it’s called in English, the one you go at age 3 till 6, you start school at 6).

              Stop sign is red, pedestrian crossing are just red - stop, green - go. you learn that from a very young age so the association is natural.

              Also, just to be clear, I didn’t say redlist is good, just that it’s less stupid than blacklist.

              • Hello Hotel@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Fair, the idea of “going” will be there and hopefully, likely its symbols will stay relivant.

              • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                How is blacklist stupid? Green and red aren’t natural, in fact black/white makes more sense because it represents a binary choice (true/false, off/on).

          • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            They came from voting in ancient Athens were people had a white ball and a black ball. You put one or the other into a jar, a black was a no vote, white was yes. It has never had anything to do with race. If it bothers you change the words for skin color instead then.

            “whitelist-blacklist are names where you need to learn the meaning of them”

            You could say this about every word. All language is based on past usage.

        • Hello Hotel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Never liked these debates as “making the words comfortable (to myself, others or both)” (from both sides) matters most.

          I find that usimg that soundbyte results in people (including me) to not knowing the cultures your refering to and most without being informed assume that their irrelivant (Hence the original reactionary response). Since the debate has in bad faith on nobody’s intent became about “comfort”, ill give that perspective.

          Personally, Allowlist and blocklist “just work” (no discomfort). Blacklist and Whitelist are natural feeling and I fully understood the soundbyte reason. For that I can respect depricating the word but banning it (if thats even the goal) is uncomfortable. Ill happly abandon my position if a good argument is given. For now I subconciosly use what word was already there.

          Edit: boilerplate is way too harsh, dont like conforntational tone.

          • tonarinokanasan@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Honestly I haven’t heard much rhetoric around anyone banning these terms. But if moving away from them IS good, and the entire catalyst for this conversation is “YouTube chose to use newer, more preferable terms”, then isn’t that a good thing?

            • Hello Hotel@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Thats what I wanted to communicate, deprication is a fairly normal part of software. Computer interfaces in all their forms are just contracts of expectation, social contracts are simmlar. Deprication is marking an expectation as a mistake or somhow unhelpful.

      • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Blocklist and allowlist are much more intuitive, so if we ignore all the cultural baggage, these changes are rather sensical.

        • finestnothing@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Cultural baggage? Neither term has any roots in racism, blacklist came from a play and whitelist came about as the opposite of blacklist

          • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            It comes from the act of voting using a black or white ball. Black was a no vote, white was yes. It goes back to ancient Greece.

            • finestnothing@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Where did you find that that is the origin of blacklist and whitelist? The first use of the term blacklist came from a 1630’s play called “The Unnatural Combat” where the people who executed the king were put on a so called “black list” to say that they were suspicious and would be punished, it later came to mean (through use in other plays and texts) people who were to be excluded or had wronged the person, which is why computing blacklisting uses it (i.e. this ip is suspicious or not to be trusted, so add it to the blacklist and don’t let it access anything). Whitelist came around in the 1840’s as an explicit opposite of the term blacklist

        • src@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not everything is related to skin color Jesus. The world isn’t so black and white.

    • towerful@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not been cancelled.
      I’m sure someone raised concerns over racist origins, or that they were uncomfortable with the terms. Or perhaps programmers did it themselves as a part of introspection that came around with GitHub changing from “master branch” to “main branch”.

      Which likely lead people to realise that blacklist and whitelist aren’t really descriptive.
      Blacklist came from the 1600s, regarding regicide. And the opposite of that is obviously whitelist.
      But it doesn’t actually describe what it’s doing, and ultimately it is an idiom.
      Removing idioms in coding is generally good practice.
      And you can have other things like “FilterList” or “AdminList” or whatever.

  • AcidOctopus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Two days ago I noticed when watching through the app on my phone that I could no longer just skip ads, and the trick of reporting them to skip didn’t work anymore either. I effectively had to just sit and wait.

    That same day I got NewPipe, imported my subscriptions, and honestly even if this is just a phased trial or something, I won’t be going back to the standard YT app.

    Creators make pennies from ad revenue. If I want to support them, I’ll make a donation or subscribe to their Patreon or something.

    I won’t just sit and suffer a slew of ads while my data is harvested under the false pretense that it’s all to support the creators.

  • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    1 year ago

    So, alphabet can rip off the creators but we can’t? What a crappy double standard.

  • GustavoM@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m unironically considering ditching any online interaction(s) on the internet and use my PC solely for offline content (write documentaries, texts, play retro games). Because I really don’t want to use the internet with that level of intrusion in my pc.

    • Packopus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Take any cybersecurity class and you’ll want to burn your tech in a dumpster. In most cases it’s security by obscurity from sheer numbers that hackers/sites don’t give a crap about you alone.

      Additionally, every site you have ever visited tracks your browser, IP, OS, location, and more. This AdBlock tracker is just observing that you have a plugin for ad blocking. That’s the least intrusion that YouTube does.

      In summary, there’s no need to be paranoid, but only because everything that can be stolen or observed already has been.

      • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is like people freaking out over giving out their phone number and SS number. I guarantee you that info is already out there in countless databases.

    • aCosmicWave@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’ve had the same thought before but then I don’t want to become one of those older out of touch people. I think each generation feels like the world was in better shape when they were younger. But the truth is that many of the young kids today will look back on 2023 with the same fondness and nostalgia as I do when I think about the 1990s. Back in the day older people would warn us that video games and television would rot our brains. Now we warn our kids that TikTok will do the same. Everything is always getting faster and faster but young people are adaptable and I think they’ll find their way.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    1 year ago

    Aw that’s so cute, they think they’ll be able to stop adblockers from working for more than a few days. Just like everyone else before them. Good luck with that guys.

  • Cryptic Fawn@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Desktop replacements: FreeTube and Piped. I personally prefer FreeTube; the UI is way better than Piped.

    Android: LibreTube (it also works with Piped but I just imported my youtube subscription list instead). There is also NewPipe too!

    If you’d rather dump YouTube entirely, there is Odysee and PeerTube. Though for most people they’re just not viable, total replacements. Only you can decide for yourself on that matter.

    Enjoy!

    Edit: If you want to export your YouTube subs and playlists you’ll have to do Google Takeout; but after that it’s super easy to import/export them from Freetube and Piped whenever ya want.

    • s38b35M5@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You might like NewPipe for android. Same flexibility with importing subs, but cleaner and less errors, in my experience, but as long as you’re not using the YT app…

    • TheChancePants@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Vinegar is a Safari extension for iOS that turns the YouTube media player into a generic iOS one, completely bypassing all of these restrictions. I’m not savvy enough to know if it’s something Google can kill or not, but it’s working great for me right now. Even lets you do PiP and background play.

    • Fangslash@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      For IOS peeps: I’m using Orion browser, which supports some firefox entensions like UblockOrigin that blocks ads. Brave also works.

      Downside is they’re missing a good number of features, and changing playback speed messes up the audio

  • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just yesterday they stopped allowing me to see home page and recommendations unless I turn on watch history, which I am not doing ever. So they can keep forcing my hand and see how far it goes. If anything am stubborn enough to enjoy this kind of petty behavior from major players. They keep thinking “oh they will just do what we ask them to”, but I’ll do the opposite out of spite. I’ll just use !videos or similar communities to find my recommendations until the day comes where I stop using it completely. I quit Facebook this way, quit Reddit and Twitter, quit WhatsApp. Keep at it guys, let’s see who’s more stubborn.

    • PR_freak@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Actually watching only what you search for or are subscribed to is a great way to stop wasting your time on stupid shorts you used to watch for hours a day (at least for me)

      Plus I don’t want an algorithm to feed me stupid things it thinks I would like, that’s what leads to polarization and countless other negative aspects in social media

      Also I suggest to everyone readinh to watch “The social dilemma” a masterpiece that exposes these problems