Current Events > sites banning adblockers is YOUR fault!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Adblockers are basic cybersecurity and it should be illegal to ban them

Firefox is effectively useless for me now. I'm thinking of switching to Vivaldi, but since it's Chromium I doubt I'll get back to the way it was.

I'm on Vivaldi and am thinking of switching to Firefox because Vivaldi is so bloated it can take over a minute to load a page.

Youtube, Facebook and a few other critical sites hit me on Firefox with the "remove your adblocker" full page takeover now. I need to refresh 3-4 times and or delete cookies/cache and reload the link just to get one video or story to play now. It'll repeat on the next video regardless.

If you go to UBO settings > Filter lists > clear cache, update filters, apply, then install Privacy Badger and Ghostery, it shouldnt bother you, at least for now.

Find a better way to ad.

If you go to UBO settings > Filter lists > clear cache, update filters, apply, then install Privacy Badger and Ghostery, it shouldnt bother you, at least for now.

I didn't use Ghostery since it's kind of fallen off over the years and gets you banned or soft locked on some sites. Funny enough, this one included. But I followed the rest of your instructions and installed PB and it seems to be running smooth on youtube with some testing. Thanks bud.

Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one who points this out.

So I haven't bothered reading every post, but has anyone explained how the websites you want to experience without ads are going to continue being available to you if the ad revenue is how the website itself is supported?

The world wide web was made as a passion project to share ideas and information with others and has no need for "revenue".

That's an absurd answer that completely falls apart under the reality that humans typically don't work for free, typically expect compensation for their work, and servers cost money. How many Youtube creators would remain on Youtube if they weren't making any money, and how long would Youtube persist as a site if it couldn't pay for its own server space?

Sounds unsustainable. I hope they all fail.

Amazing how in two posts, you go from some whimsical fantasy about an internet with no revenue, to immediately noting that it crumbles without it.

Nah YouTube can go fuck themselves. Their websites back then didn't have ads and was happy with that. Now you get like 2 vids of an ad and take forever to skip.

I'll continue to keep using adblockers

I accept your concession.

Adblockers are basic cybersecurity and it should be illegal to ban them

Referring back to my original post, so do you want access to Youtube, or do you not want access to Youtube? Because you're saying you want to use Youtube, but you also want it not to exist.

Referring back to my original post, so do you want access to Youtube, or do you not want access to Youtube? Because you're saying you want to use Youtube, but you also want it not to exist.

Shut up bootlicker.

Stop having annoying and malicious ads then.

The world wide web was made as a passion project to share ideas and information with others and has no need for "revenue".

Do in-stream ads, like the tubers themselves are doing. Adblockers can't block that.

i abhor advertising, but you absolutely positively need either some source of revenue, subsidization, or deep pockets to operate the infrastructure required to power web services at scale. servers run on energy which costs money, and their maintenance requires labor which costs money. it's basic economics.

the reason why so many web 2.0 services operated for free for so long was because they were subsidizing their operations with venture capital funding. in youtube's case, it was long subsidized by google. some web services sold customer data. i would be completely unsurprised if these companies also thrived on the subzero interest rate regime that ended this past year, which allowed for companies to operate with large amounts of debt and other financial shenanigans.

but i typed this all out before finishing reading the thread, so some of this has already been articulated in some way or another.

consumers are getting smart and developing workarounds, and i wouldn't be surprised if ai tools simplify the process in the near future.

They make shittons of money collecting and selling your data. That alone is more than enough to run YouTube, and its not even counting what they make from YouTube Premium, ads from the people who arent tech savvy enough to block them, and all the other things that make Google a trillion dollar company.

they're just trying to squeeze the rest for every possible penny that can be made off them

I'm pretty sure the plan is to just annoy the "my nephew put this adblocker on my laptop" crowd into paying for youtube red, or whatever it's called now.

Referring back to my original post, so do you want access to Youtube, or do you not want access to Youtube? Because you're saying you want to use Youtube, but you also want it not to exist.

They come up with a better way to advertise, without all the malware, spyware, and other crap our PCs don't need, and we can talk.

I dunno, why are you simping for a bunch of greedy pricks? They come up with a better way to advertise, without all the malware, spyware, and other crap our PCs don't need, and we can talk.

Until then, they can bugger off, and so can you. The adblocker stays ON.

I'm not "simping for greedy pricks". I'm presenting the pragmatic reality of the internet, which is that servers cost money, employees are only employees if they get paid for their work, and websites need to be funded to operate. Your position is that we should all drain what we can from websites we claim to like, and leave the shuttered in our wake.

they can come up with another method to make money other than a known malware vector. Its not my job as a site visitor to concern myself with their profit margins

"Soneone think of the poor rich people!" tho

Literally nobody is saying "think of the poor rich people!". What is being said is that the internet requires funding, and cannot exist at zero cost. If the internet doesn't generate revenue, including revenue for content creators, then nobody is going to put the effort into maintaining it.

I'm not "simping for greedy pricks". I'm presenting the pragmatic reality of the internet, which is that servers cost money, employees are only employees if they get paid for their work, and websites need to be funded to operate. Your position is that we should all drain what we can from websites we claim to like, and leave the shuttered in our wake.

What incentives would Youtube Premium even provide for me? I don't care for shows that they try to promote. I immediately put anything that they promote as something I'm not interested in, and all the other so called perks are never something that perk my interest. The ads for movies are always pointless since I don't go to the movie theatre. I do my own research on a game I may want on my own. So, those ads are pointless in the end. So, I'm essentially wasting $14 a month.

I pay for the premium service on Nicovideo. It's like $6 a month with them. If Youtube provided such a price, I'd may consider going through with it.