I am extremely insulated from ads online and have been for about a decade. Once in a while I have to browse on a device that does not have an ad blocker or most of the times does not even let you install one. Seeing a website that is SEoptimised and heavily ad supported feels like walking into a crack den. That this is the normal experience for the vast majority of users is sad.

▲ Freak_NL 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Whenever I open Google's Play Store on Android I get this feeling of walking into some dystopic shopping mall. I hardly ever come there (F-Droid covers all utilities for me, so Google's own app store is really only for official apps from banks, public transport, etc.), so its user hostile design always hits me like a wall of visual noise and clutter.

At these moments that feeling that for most people getting bombarded by ads is normal hits hard. I'm always wondering when the ride will end and uBlock Origin can't protect us any longer.

▲

JoshStrobl 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Unless you have a specific reason to use Google Play Store (as in the app, not the distribution medium), I would highly recommend using Aurora Store (which you can handily get via F-droid). I use it on my Sailfish OS phone (C2) to similarly get apps not available via F-Droid.

https://f-droid.org/packages/com.aurora.store/

	▲	lbschenkel 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The problem with this approach is that many "secure" apps nowadays (bank, authenticators, etc.), at least here in the Nordics, are checking (among other things) if the app has been installed from the Play Store. If you install the very same signed APK from Aurora, or another source, it will refuse to work.
	▲	Freak_NL 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That's probably better for the sanity of all concerned. I'll have a look.

▲

mahrain 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What always surprises me is the sheer amount of fake, scammy, apps trying to appear as if they're something else. Trying to steal clicks from users looking for Adblock, VLC or other legitimate apps... it's a mess!

▲

MathMonkeyMan 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Nevermind the fake stuff, the real stuff is scammy enough.

When you select an app to install on Google Play, it takes you to another screen confirming the install. But that install button on top is not for the app you selected, it's for a different, advertised app. You have to scroll down to find the confirmation button for the app you already instructed the store to install.

This isn't going to ruin any lives, but it's gross.

▲

_DeadFred_ 2 days ago | parent [-]

At what point does a small bad thing, but one that impacts billions of lives, rise to the level of not acceptable? Google is stealing how many human years of peoples lives with these little things? Are we losing millions of years of people time a year to Googles slimy practices? That is unacceptable. I can't see how Google employees are OK with that.

	▲	immibis 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's always been acceptable to steal, as long as you're already rich.

▲

const_cast 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, this is exactly why Google's claims of locking down apps on Android for security are such hot bullshit. Its such an obvious lie.

I don't need alternative app stores to download malware and scams, that play store is full of that. And it's advertised front and center.

▲

ainiriand 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If it serves any purpose just today I've published docscandroid.app just because the document scanners out there are really scary and do not really fit my purpose. My app is not perfect but its mine and that is enough.

	▲	hiatus 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The parent poster decries fake and scammy apps, and you post a link to an app that contains absolutely zero information on who controls it, how my data is used, where my data is stored, etc.
	▲	chaosite 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If you built your own app that does exactly what you want for your own use, kudos and more power to you. But otherwise... You're competing with Google. The built-in Drive app does document scanning.

▲

estimator7292 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I love that google removed the search bar from the front page. If you tap where it should be, you get a popup informing you that search has moved to the bottom. So you tap that and it takes you to a new screen with the search bar at the top.

I have never seen such absolute design and engineering genius.

	▲	qwertox 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's as if they are not Android users at all. Maybe someone told an intern to move the button to the bottom, he showed that he did it, and that was it. Nobody actually performed a search with this new layout.

▲

croemer a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've been using NextDNS since I've seen it mentioned here a month ago or so and it's working amazingly well. Like Pihole but no hassle setting it up.

▲

rstuart4133 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I get the same feeling, but from my new Google TV.

I chose it because I liked the previous iterations of Google TV. It integrated with everything else, had a nice app ecosystem, and you could put the stuff you watched within a couple of remote key presses. In this new version you are forced to click over icon after icon of paid content before are allowed to see the icons you are allowed to arrange.

Replacing the TV is out, unfortunately. Finding a different UI is on my to-do list. Google TV used to a checkbox feature for me. They've turned it into "check if a device has it, and run away screaming if it does" feature.

Chrome on Android was their first move in that direction, with it's inability to host ad blockers. It must have been a wild success for them because now many Google products have the same "ads shoved down your throat" feel to them, and yes the Play store is another stand out example.

I assume once the Chinese TV manufacturers figure out Google TV is an anti-feature, they will come up with their own replacement. That day can't come fast enough. That's an odd, because I never thought I'd be cheering Chinese software on, given their repeated attacks on the infrastructure of my country. And the the bastards are still doing it. But Trump has lowered the bar so dramatically on so many things. It's a strange new world.

▲

qwertox 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

They made such a retarded change where you now have the search button at the bottom, instead of at the top, but the actual search box is at the top, so you reposition the grab in order to reach to the bottom, only to then be forced to reposition again in order to reach the top.

I mean, absolutely retarded.

▲ bambax 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm in the same boat. I never see ads anywhere (and not just on the web: I never watch regular TV (I don't even have a TV), never listen to ads-supported radio stations, etc.)

How people put up with ads is a complete mystery.

▲

Vinnl 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> I never see ads anywhere (and not just on the web: I never watch regular TV (I don't even have a TV), never listen to ads-supported radio stations, etc.)

Ads in public places, bus stops, etc. are kinda hard to avoid unfortunately.

▲

rancidcrab 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

But those are ok. They (usually) don't have sound, auto playing videos, shock content or cover something I want to look at.

▲

mauvehaus 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Have you filled a car with gas any time in the last ~5 years? The pumps around here (New England, USA) start playing ads with sound once you start pumping fuel. It's an absolute delight when your pump and the pump on the other side of your island are playing different ads with different audio or the same ad with the audio just out of sync.

Usually, one of the soft buttons on the left or right edge of the screen is a secret mute button. Occasionally, none of them are, and rarely does anyone else seem to even try to mute their pump.

▲

sojournerc 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Someone has put caulking in many of speakers at my usual gas station. Not all heros wear capes.

▲

connicpu 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Pumping gas became pretty infrequent for me once I got a plug in hybrid, but when the closest gas station near me first started playing an ad my immediate reaction was to spam all of the side buttons on the screen until I found the one that muted it. Sweet quiet...

▲

Aurornis 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I rarely see these any more (USA, not a small town). Could be the set of gas stations I visit doesn’t have them, but I do remember them being popular for a while. Now I haven’t seen one in a very long time.

▲

hexis 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is one of the top things pushing me to an EV, so I can charge at home and be done with gas stations. As EVs get more market share, these intrusive ads will only get worse.

▲

grugagag 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wonder what happens if you take a sharp object such a screwdriver and poke all the speakers…

▲

Aurornis 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

While being recorded from 6 different angles while standing next to your vehicle with a license plate on it?

You get arrested. That’s what happens.

Kiosk makers have already thought of all of these possibilities. There isn’t a nicely exposed speaker. It’s behind a metal plate with tiny holes in it.

▲

marssaxman 2 days ago | parent [-]

> You get arrested. That’s what happens.

For petty vandalism? That seems like an expensive overreaction.

Perhaps it depends on your demography.

▲

immibis 2 days ago | parent [-]

People get arrested for petty vandalism all the time, even if they didn't petty vandalize.

The police won't bother to track down who graffitied your fence, but money-making companies are a different matter.

And it definitely depends on demography. I assume they're still using it, but maybe they just plug everyone's face into Palantir now.

	▲	marssaxman 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Maybe cops are different where you live, but here in Seattle, I cannot imagine a crime so trivial as "someone broke the speaker on a gas pump" ever rising high enough on the SPD priority list for anyone to lift a finger about it, no matter how well-documented it may have been. It would not surprise me to hear that someone had committed a crime of that scale while being watched by an SPD officer and still gotten away with it.

▲

nancyminusone 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's no need to. If the unit is older than a few months, you'll find that the speakers have already been perforated.

This usually doesn't stop them from working, because people don't break the voice coil at the center.

▲

AlecSchueler 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You probably get a visit from the police.

▲

MisterTea 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

At one point I was so infuriated that I would feel for the speaker and punch the pump so hard it would knock the speaker out of place (many pumps flimsy plastic.) I did that as many times as I could until the service company started gluing them in better. So I upped and ante by ripping open the front of the pump and tear the speaker out with my bear hands and smash it. Did that a bunch of times until the volumes were turned down.

> Usually, one of the soft buttons on the left or right edge of the screen is a secret mute button

I found out that's the help button and sometimes a clerk will come out and ask what I need help with and I tell that it stops the annoying noise coming from the pump.

	▲	nahkoots 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That's pretty unhinged, but I'm glad there's someone out there vandalizing annoying pumps. It's important work, I think.
	▲	Anthony-G a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I’m reminded of the film Falling Down but I’ve given you an Internet point (upvote) for fighting the good fight. If good people do nothing, evil will triumph. In Ireland, we don’t (yet?) have such devilish instruments of torture but I imagine my cortisol levels would be through the roof if I had to deal with them.

▲

account42 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No, they are far from OK. You've just become used to that part of the dystopia like others have become used to online ads.

All ads are designed to psychologically manipulate you into acting against your best interest.

▲

skeeter2020 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

billboards are still pretty obnoxious, especially when they block the view on say, a highway through a relatively undeveloped natural environment

▲

Theodores 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Get a bicycle and learn the car free routes into town and to your work. Nobody puts up adverts on cycle paths. It isn't against the law, it just makes no commercial sense to do so.

By making the bicycle however you get about, you cut down on seeing ads.

▲

skeeter2020 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

this feels like a ridiculous sub-optimization, and I ride my bike pretty much everywhere

	▲	Theodores 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It depends on where you live, however, I noted my 'ad free life' whilst in London. I went from the usual commute on trains and tubes with the odd bus thrown in for good measure to just riding my bicycle along the Thames. I went from seeing everything with adverts to seeing everything with herons, gulls, squirrels, trees and flowers. Rather than being tuned in to the latest junk to buy, I became tuned in to the ever changing seasons and what was in blossom.

▲

Vinnl 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Incidentally almost all my trips are already by bicycle, with on foot and with public transport numbers 2 and 3. Unfortunately, since almost everybody uses these modes of transportation here, there actually are ads everywhere still.

(Besides the idea of me having to adjust my route to -for now- not see ads being somewhat offensive to me too.)

▲

CHB0403085482 2 days ago | parent [-]

Do you live here? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-TuGAHR78w

	▲	Vinnl 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I do live in that country, and I have cycled (and walked and trained through) there yes :)

▲

creer 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Ads in public places, bus stops, etc. are kinda hard to avoid unfortunately.

These are very different - and largely interesting to me in their colorfulness and often whimsy. (The cities around here are otherwise NOT visually interesting).

This is something that web sites have always had at their disposal: use static locally-hosted images as ads and respect my screen real-estate, don't try to track me with 20-200 trackers, and I WILL allow them (and do). I will even allow some animation if it respects my bandwidth.

But no, very few web sites feel satisfied with this so multiple ad blockers they get. A few sites do small static image ads. I don't block these and even frequently follow their links.

▲

lakkal 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Barber shops and doctors' waiting rooms are hellish for me, since I can't not-hear the radio/TV they usually have playing.

	▲	bambax 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		In France I have yet to go to a waiting room with a TV with the sound on; I think people would get upset. I went once to a dentist with a TV above my head (sound off); I refused to sit in the chair until it was turned off. The assistant sighed and said "everybody asks the same thing, I wonder why we installed this".

▲

reify 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Hey Vinni

Ditto

I dont see any ads online.

I dont have a TV either, I stopped watching that ad infested garbage in 2005.

too old to walk to the bus stop, too much of an introvert to hang out near pulblic places with other people

▲

vbezhenar 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't use adblock. That's not a problem for me. May be I don't visit those ad-ridden websites often enough.

	▲	rcxdude 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You do also get used to it. Banner blindness is absolutely a thing (and something that still trips me up where I miss the most important information on a page, despite using adblock most of the time)
	▲	driverdan 2 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Try uBlock Origin. You'll notice the difference immediately.
	▲	abustamam 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Last night my wife clicked on an article in her news feed. It wasn't this article, but it was this site. https://3dvf.com/le-realisateur-philippe-vidal-dumas-nous-qu... Never mind the dozens of pop-up ads and banners on the site. Random words in the article turn into ads that popup while you're scrolling. And it's easy to accidentally click one because there's more pixels covered by ads than not. I've been telling her to get an adblocker for years because she, like you, feels like she doesn't need one. But that article last night made her rethink her stance on ads. For me, I don't mind advertisements. I scroll Instagram a few times a week and there are ads there. I get more ads than actual posts. They're easy enough to ignore. And honestly, sometimes they're interesting. It's when the ads disrupt my browsing session that pisses me off. If sites didn't have shitty ads that cover your screen and just get in the way, I wouldn't have an adblocker. I also use adblocker to get rid of shitty non-ad pop-ups, like "you have to install our shitty mobile app to use this site!" Yeah, fuck that. Ublock origin zaps it away.

▲

mock-possum 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Have you noticed that being around other people who choose to consume media with ads lowers your opinion of them a little?

Like if you’re at a friend’s house and they’re listening to pandora with ads, or watching Hulu with ads?

	▲	recursive 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Even worse, being at a restaurant where they're playing commercial FM radio or a music stream with ads. I won't go back.

▲

recursive 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm almost there. I haven't figured out how to block billboards yet.

▲

brador 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Flick the bean once a month to see which products and services you’re missing out on.

Picked up a nice cleaner and hiking boots that my ad blockers were denying me last month.

Life changing.

▲

Y_Y 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flick%20the%...

Interesting choice of phrase

▲

GLdRH 3 days ago | parent [-]

A real donkey punch of a metaphore

	▲	nyarlathotep_ 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Hello fellow 2000s era Urban Dictionary reader.

▲

Diti 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Equally life-changing would be to keep the ads blocked, and visit the “Buy it for life” subreddit, which has recommendations for the best products and services that will last you a lifetime.

	▲	brador 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		ADHD means I’m not maintaining anything and everything on that reddit is maximised for maintenance. Nice Reddit if that lifestyle appeals, but not for me.

▲

nemomarx 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you really needed those things, you would have thought of getting them on your own time. Being tempted into it is consumerism and kinda why we're in this mess

▲

brador 3 days ago | parent [-]

The ads apply focus to a problem and suggest a possible solution.

That focusing is the key to the benefit of letting them through the keyhole irregularly.

	▲	AlecSchueler 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Could I interest you in a bridge?

▲

spaqin 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Are you sure you needed them? What was stopping you from doing the research without a third party shoving whatever they will make money on?

	▲	brador 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Attention. The ads sent it to the front and kickstarted the research phase which led to purchase. I didn’t need them. But it’s like walking on a cloud and the fit is perfect. Mostly chance, but that ad started the push.

▲

cammikebrown 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Dropship instagram ad products are famously high quality and not a scam!

▲ rs186 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have DNS based adblocking on home router, plus adblock extension.

Every time I use the web using 5G data or public wifi, I regret the experience. Then I immediately turn on an adblocking VPN.

▲

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Mullvad has a free DoH service, FYI. It can potentially replace your self-hosted service, at least for your phone, so you don't forget to set it up when you leave home.

https://mullvad.net/en/help/dns-over-https-and-dns-over-tls

▲

driverdan 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Firefox Mobile + uBlock solves this.

	▲	Larrikin 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Firefox + Tailscale + setting the DNS server to your AdGuard/PiHole is actually the better solution overall. I use AdNauseum instead of plain uBlock as just an added layer of protection but it's rarely needed.
	▲	rs186 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Can't help with ads in embedded web content, e.g. nytimes app.

▲ pea 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wonder if you could spend a few million on promoting adblockers to justify a short position on Google or Meta.

▲

kelvinjps10 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Brave did this they ran ads on Facebook and YouTube where they would show ads telling you how to install brave to stop receiving them. Also they criticized because brave themselves was showing ads

	▲	port11 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		People love a good black-or-white purity attack on companies that try to do better. Yes, they show ads, but at what cost for your personal privacy? We have to be able to handle nuance rather than absolutist positions.
	▲	sidrag22 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		eh, thats tough to critique imo, it might be an end, but the end result is considerably less ads in the future. only thing that makes it a little odd of a spot is that its THEIR product, but i think a nice person randomly trying to spread the word of ublock or something through ads is more than justified. i guess its also a bummer they are financially supporting facebook/youtube, but maybe the end result would be break even if they get enough people to utilize adblocking. thats pretty crazy compound interest over time for even just like 3 people

▲

jbstack 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You'd have to be very careful not to run afoul of insider trading and/or market manipulation laws. Whether you would or not would depend on all the details and the jurisdiction.

▲

loeg 3 days ago | parent [-]

Not in the US. There's no insider trading angle at all, and it's not fraudulent market manipulation to attempt to persuade consumers to cease supporting a business you're shorting as long as you're not lying about it.

▲

jbstack 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Hence why I qualified that it depends on the details and the jurisdiction. I didn't say it is insider trading, just that you need to be careful to avoid that.

> There's no insider trading angle at all

Such a blanket statement would definitely be wrong in the UK for example. Insider trading is defined at Section 52(1) of the Criminal Justice act 1993 as: "(1)An individual who has information as an insider is guilty of insider dealing if, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3), he deals in securities that are price-affected securities in relation to the information."

Whether you trigger the offence depends on a number of factors such as whether the information is "inside" information and whether you were an "insider" (these terms are defined in subsequent sections of the Act). As an example, if you were an employee of a listed company (not such an unlikely scenario given the capital requirements to pull this off) that was about to engage in the proposed scheme (publishing pro-adblock adverts) and it wasn't yet publicly known (which would be necessary if you want the scheme to be fully effective), and you shorted Google shares, you could easily fall foul of insider trading.

I'm not particularly familiar with the US legal system so I can't claim you're wrong there.

▲

loeg 2 days ago | parent [-]

IMO you don't need to be particularly careful to avoid insider trading if you were never at risk of doing it. It's pretty obvious when you have a duty of confidentiality and when you don't (again, in the US). The hypothetical scenario upthread just doesn't have any of the elements.

> As an example, if you were an employee of a listed company (not such an unlikely scenario given the capital requirements to pull this off) that was about to engage in the proposed scheme (publishing pro-adblock adverts) and it wasn't yet publicly known (which would be necessary if you want the scheme to be fully effective), and you shorted Google shares, you could easily fall foul of insider trading.

Yeah, that isn't the scenario described earlier at all. Here's what was proposed:

> I wonder if you could spend a few million on promoting adblockers to justify a short position on Google or Meta.

In this sentence, the entity performing the short and performing the advertising are one and the same.

	▲	jbstack 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Realistically, the vast majority of people don't have a "few million" lying around that they can just casually risk on a huge gamble like this. It's likely you have at least several tens of millions but more likely hundreds of millions before the risk/reward would even come close to making sense (because you wouldn't want to commit most of your resources). The most plausible scenario is therefore something like a hedge fund. You're reading "you" to mean the reader (highly implausible), I'm reading it as the generic/impersonal "you" (as in "one could spend..."). So sure, there are a tiny percentage of people who might consider doing this themselves and they don't need to worry about insider trading (although we're still pretty close to market manipulation where the sole purpose of the adverts is to crash the share price and profit from that). A much larger percentage of people who might consider such a thing would need to at least examine whether they might trigger insider trading laws. Blanket statements don't work here.

▲

immibis 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

IIRC insider trading is any trading based on any non-public information. Everyone knows you're running ads because they can see the ads, but not everyone knows how long you're going to run them for, or how much you're paying for them, and that would be enough. Also if you do it before you start the ad campaign, that's non-public knowledge, similar to a pump-and-dump.

▲

loeg 2 days ago | parent [-]

Wrong. Insider trading is about breaching your duty of confidentiality to some other party who owns the information (your employer, some other business you have an NDA with, etc). The owner of the non-public information is fully allowed to trade on it.

Pump and dumps are fraud because you lie about the target stock in order to achieve the pump. The lying is a crucial element to make it fraudulent.

▲

immibis 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Insider trading is the trading of a public company's stock or other securities (such as bonds or stock options) based on material, nonpublic information about the company.[1] In many countries, some kinds of trading based on insider information are illegal. The rationale for this prohibition of insider trading differs between countries and regions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading

▲

loeg a day ago | parent [-]

The context of this thread[1], which you replied to, is specifically the US law. You are wrong on the US law. Wikipedia's general statements about what some countries do is not authoritative or specific to the US.

US law does not generally prohibit insiders from trading. It prohibits doing so only in breach of some obligation to keep that information private[2] ("in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence").

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45178318

[2]: https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-ba...

	▲	jbstack 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> The context of this thread[1], which you replied to, is specifically the US law. That's not correct. I started this particular sub-thread, and in my original comment I specifically said that the answer is jurisdiction dependent. Your reply may have been US-centric but the overall topic was not.

▲ moolcool 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The quality control of even mainline ad platforms is abysmal as well. Like on YouTube, I used to get deep-fakes of the Canadian prime minister trying to sell some crypto scam. You'd literally click through to a phishing site disguised as a Canada Revenue Agency page.

▲ jollyllama 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah. I use brave on all my devices. When somebody shows me a YouTube video on their device and three ads play before the video, or loads a local news page with all the ads, my reaction is "Wow! They sure are bombarding you guys to make up for us free-riders!"

▲ jdprgm 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I really can't comprehend how aggressive ad blocking isn't the norm and at 90%+ at this point. Whenever someone just doesn't seem to care i'm concerned something is wrong with them. Youtube ad blocking was briefly not working for me recently and the volume of ads just while doing some chores which forced interrupting flow to go manually skip was astounding and enraging. It's like if I was at a quiet library and every 30 seconds someone randomly started screaming yet half the people have a reaction of "meh, doesn't bother me".

▲ nananana9 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Most people don't use the internet at a whole - if you just stick to the 10 biggest apps/websites, the experience is acceptable without an adblocker.

As for YouTube, blocking their ads is basically a part-time job at this point. On the desktop it breaks once a month, on Android NewPipe stopped working recently, and soon you won't be even able to install third party clients.

▲ ahofmann 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I hear this often. My experience is totally different. I've installed ublock origin and I'm using Vivaldi as my blink engine wrapper. I've never seen a YouTube ad since years. I wonder why anyone has to fight for an ad free YouTube.

▲

nananana9 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

They often release new "features" in a A/B fashion to a small percentage of users. It's most obvious with UI changes, where a portion of users will get a disfigured version of the site for a month, but it's probably true for their ad-blocking endeavors as well.

▲

orthoxerox 3 days ago | parent [-]

I wonder if they're testing the new useless cinema mode on me because I'm running an adblocker.

	▲	OkayPhysicist a day ago \| parent [-]
		Is cinema mode new? Or did they change it somehow? Last I checked all it did was resize the video to take up most of the width of the browser. That was a pretty happy medium between "video for ants" and "take over my entire monitor in full screen mode"

▲

NGRhodes 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't even think YouTube is anywhere near the worst advert offender. My local newspaper website is stuffed full of adverts. Between a large picture, article heading and advert, you often don't see a signle line of new content above the fold on a 1080p screen.

I do not regularly visit such sites. I do unblock websites that I return to often.

▲

discomrobertul8 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> I wonder why anyone has to fight for an ad free YouTube.

90% of my YouTube use is on my smart TV. There's not really a straightforward way to block ads there. Used to be many years ago that a PiHole or similar would work, but they clued onto that years ago.

▲

zettabomb 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

If it's a Google TV, there's an app you can sideload called SmartTube, which doesn't play ads and has SponsorBlock built-in. I went from often using my laptop just to play videos without being interrupted constantly, to actually enjoying using the TV app.

▲

hdgvhicv 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There’s a very simply way to avoid ads on YouTube tv — pay some money.

I spend less in nominal terms, let alone inflation terms, for my tv entertainment now than I did 20 year ago, even with Disney, Netflix, bbc, Paramount and YouTube subscriptions.

▲

Spare_account 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have a Chromecast with Google TV, and it allows sideloading of APKs. I installed SmartTube which is a YouTube client that incorporates Adblocking and also SponsorBlock.

It periodically has issues loading videos when Google change something, but the app gets updated every time within a day.

▲

account42 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you are using an internet-connected smart TV you already decided you don't care about ads. No one is forcing you to make that choice though.

▲

master-lincoln 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

SmartTube works reliably for me on the smartTV for years now

▲

fragmede 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The straightforwards way is to give Google money to get rid of them.

▲

animuchan 3 days ago | parent [-]

Paid YouTube still shows some ads, so no, it's just a way to give Google some money.

▲

immibis 2 days ago | parent [-]

Not ones run by YouTube.

	▲	animuchan 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Not sure this is correct. For example: https://vanced.to/posts/youtube-premium-shows-ads-users-conc... There's also this email from YouTube support: https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/1gnaetv/paying_to_... It reads: > While YouTube Premium provides an ad-free experience for most content, promotional ads can sometimes appear for specific partnerships or limited-time offers. These promotions are often targeted based on various factors, including your location, viewing history, and account settings.

▲ happymellon 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Firefox and UBlock Origin has never broken for me and works effectively.

▲ dns_snek 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Consider yourself lucky. Some of their A/B tests seem to be designed to psychologically torment you with videos "buffering" for 10-60 seconds before they start playing, navigation taking 15+ seconds.

If that happens to you, this thread [1] is sometimes updated with manual workarounds that sometimes work:

    www.youtube.com##+js(nano-stb, resolve(1), *, 0.001)
    www.youtube.com##+js(set, yt.config_.EXPERIMENT_FLAGS.web_enable_ab_rsp_cl, false)
    www.youtube.com##+js(set, yt.config_.EXPERIMENT_FLAGS.ab_pl_man, false)
    ||googlevideo.com/videoplayback$xhr,3p,method=get,domain=www.youtube.com
    www.youtube.com/watch##+js(set, ytInitialData, undefined)

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1jbv1xn/youtu...

▲

everdrive 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

>to be designed to psychologically torment you with videos "buffering" for 10-60

I don't mean this as an attack on you. I find it perplexing that this could be such a difficult thing. If a video isn't worth waiting 10-60 seconds for, is the video even worth watching? Consider a comparison to reading a book or watching a DVD. With the DVD you must stand up, walk to the DVD, remove the plastic wrap, turn on the DVD player place the DVD in the tray, wait for the tray to close, load the DVD, wait for the main menu to load, and finally press play to watch your movie. (potentially after navigating through settings to configure audio / subtitles / etc)

The DVD experience could obvious be _better_ (and if you don't care about picture quality you might be shocked how much more convenient a VHS tape is) but this hardly strikes me as any sort of real problem.

Youtube might actually be doing you an accidental favor here; it is the extreme reduction of friction which degrades your impulse control, and is part of what keeps you on the platform too long. By imposing an small but perceptible cost, they might actually keep from your zoning out and watching and instead intentionally watching only the videos you care the most about.

	▲	dns_snek 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> If a video isn't worth waiting 10-60 seconds for, is the video even worth watching? I won't know that until the video starts playing. I'm not watching a 90 minute movie here and I don't know if the video I'm about to play is the one I want. Spending a minute setting up a 90 minute movie is very different than spending a minute waiting for a video to load that I'm likely going to spend <30 seconds on. Maybe I'm learning how to use certain software and I'm trying to find a video that demonstrates how to use a specific feature. In that case I might be clicking through 10+ videos to find the niche thing I'm looking for. If I was just vegging out on Youtube this wouldn't bother me nearly as much. And don't forget that the time penalty doesn't only apply to the initial load, it would pause and fake-buffer every time I jumped around the video.

▲

kelvinjps10 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Although what you describe seems annoying, still no ads

▲

dns_snek 3 days ago | parent [-]

No ads but it's far worse than just annoying — for me. I get annoyed when a video buffers for 10 seconds due to a technical hiccup. Being made to wait for up to a minute with pretend-technical issues and mocking messages like "Why am I seeing this?" that try to convince me that they're not doing this on purpose is insulting and enraging.

I would gladly pay for an independent alternative but I will never pay for Youtube Premium on principle [1]. If these workarounds stop working I'll just use third party clients all the time, I already use SmartTube on TV.

[1] If I give you my money, I want you to respect me as a customer. Google will continue tracking me, abuse my personal information, and almost certainly re-introduce ads at some point in the future in pursuit of infinite growth. It's never going to be enough, the only winning move (with them) is not to play.

▲

kelnos 3 days ago | parent [-]

On the other hand, I'd rather sit for 10-60 seconds waiting for (fake) buffering, than sit through a 10-60 second ad.

	▲	dns_snek 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It doesn't stop there, it would also fake-buffer when you jumped to a different point in the video, it would be stuck in a broken transitional UI state for 10-30 seconds any time you navigated to a different page. Clearly they want people to get pissed off enough that they turn off the ad blocker, it's been getting worse over time.
	▲	dotancohen 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		With ads, at least you know that they will end. And when.

▲

mrheosuper 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>videos "buffering" for 10-60 seconds before they start playing

Thanks, that explains a lot, why i sometime have trouble with youtube, while having perfectly fine internet connection.

	▲	psd1 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I've noticed a big increase in time-to-first-content over the last few years, even on ever-increasing bandwidth and decreasing latency. I should sniff traffic to find out why, but my assumption is that it's a mix of CRL bloat and code bloat.

▲

bambax 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Hit F5, buffering gone.

▲

dns_snek 3 days ago | parent [-]

Don't you think that was the first thing I tried?

	▲	bambax 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Works for me.

▲ nananana9 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I use the same setup, on Windows Linux and Android. It will break when they decide to roll out their aggressive anti-adblock measures more widely, currently they seem to be A/B testing and turning it on and off at random.

I'm surprised they haven't gone for the "refuse to serve the video stream for 20 seconds or however long the ad would take" card yet, although it's probably a matter of time.

▲ chithanh 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You were just lucky, because YouTube uses A/B testing and does not roll out anti-adblock-measures to everyone simultaneously. This gives UBO some time to react.

	▲	selcuka 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I haven't seen any ads for years either. I use uBlock Origin, plus I've configured my Firefox to open YouTube always in a dedicated container, that logs me out of any Google-related stuff as I never upvote or comment anyway. Browsing YouTube anonymously might have helped.

▲ kelvinjps10 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have stopped ads in everywhere for YouTube and they haven't broke: Mobile revanced so far good new pipe it broke but I only use it for downloading videos. On Firefox I use ublock and it has never failed me. Then on tv I'm using smartube

▲ bambax 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This isn't really true. Firefox + uBlock origin works fine on the desktop and on mobile. You don't need to use the official YT app. (It is true thought that NewPipe is often broken).

▲ nyarlathotep_ 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> On the desktop it breaks once a month, on Android NewPipe stopped working recently, and soon you won't be even able to install third party clients.

yeah, I often download things via yt-dlp to watch later and I'm encountering frequent failures that I assume are related to the whack-a-mole yt has been doing for the last two years or so.

NewPipe has been working for me as of late though, and I've not updated it in some time (although my use is infrequent)

▲ baud147258 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

On mobile I use Youtube with Firefox and Ublock Origin never had any issue with it.

▲ VTimofeenko 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Consider using dedicated NewPipe repo in F-droid, fixes land much quicker

▲ froglets 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I hate ads and avoid them, but haven’t had to install an ad blocker yet. I only really notice them when searching for recipes, and if I had to go through that multiple times a day I probably would get an ad blocker. I do pay for YouTube to avoid ads, and don’t watch much user generated content because it’s too ad-like imo. I quit podcasts 3 years ago, because those ads made them become unlistenable just like terrestrial radio and I just can’t go back to that kind of listening experience. I started listening to audiobooks instead and don’t miss podcasts at all.

▲ ryandrake 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think people are just hopelessly used to their lives being saturated with ads. On TV, on the Internet, on radio, on billboards, at restaurants, at the airport, at the gas station, in stores, out of stores, almost every surface that could have an ad on it either does now or will one day. This saturation has been so complete and normalized that people are blind to it.

▲

BLKNSLVR 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Indignant Fry: But not in dreams! No siree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPGgTy5YJ-g

▲

timw4mail 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ugghh, gas stations. I remember being able to use a pump without ads :(

	▲	joquarky 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The second button down from the top right usually mutes them.

▲

kelvinjps10 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I wonder if they're effective at all at this point

▲ port11 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's a tragedy, when it comes to digital and specifically web literacy, but most people don't know they can.

I sat on calls with teachers at my previous job and they had no extensions installed. My own sister (a milennial) wasn't aware. Before that, I was at a place where devs could join UX interviews; it was even worse given the generational divide: older folks couldn't even tell when a link was obviously malicious.

We either install good browsers/extensions for our relatives, or let them be easy prey to the current state of affairs.

▲ tonyedgecombe 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The solution for me was to not watch YouTube anymore, no ad-blocker required.

	▲	sidrag22 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		i took the route of only allowing myself the youtube search bar, everything else is not displayed. if i want to watch a video its because im seeking it out, i dont get fed anything. hearing friends and family discuss youtube now, it sounds like they are being held prisoner. its snuck up on a lot of people, the slow push of shorts is what really made me realize youtube was becoming a major issue in my life, despite not seeing ads or anything.
	▲	EbNar 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		A wise man.

▲ const_cast 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I really can't comprehend how aggressive ad blocking isn't the norm and at 90%+ at this point

Mr Krabs voice: money!

No but seriously, if the FBI is telling you to use an ad blocker, use a fucking ad blocker.

My workplace doesn't allow ad blockers for security. Except ads are a MUCH bigger security concern and everyone knows it.

I'm so sick and tired of everyone playing dumb and acting like it's fine. No, it's not fine. Its not okay that Google is serving you a phishing ad that drains your bank account. They should be held liable. Why is everyone acting like their balls have been chopped off?

Do something about it. Minimum is run an aggressive ad blocker. MINIMUM!

▲ pjc50 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It can't survive as the norm. That would cause the economics of sites to collapse. We have to accept that the people clicking on the ads (and sometimes getting scammed) are funding the sites for the rest of us. Like gatcha games are F2P because of whales.

	▲	ozgrakkurt 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Change is good, maybe it will be better if there is no ads and sites monetize in a sensible way
	▲	immibis 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Then let them collapse. It isn't the end of the world. And then we can see what was formerly unable to grow because it was stuck under their canopy not receiving enough light.

▲ Kiro 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The fact that you don't just pay for YouTube Premium makes me think something is wrong with you. A Premium view gives much more money to the creator but I guess "just let me pay" is only relevant when you can't.

▲ soganess 3 days ago | parent [-]

  > ...something is wrong with you.

Are ad hominems back in vogue? (that is partially snide and partially serious. I feel like I've also/unconsciously been doing more of them recently.)

Regardless, your argument surrounding the insult was well worn 20 years ago. And so was the first response; why would I pay into some nebulous system where I don't know how much is really going to whom?

One of the nicer things about the hellscape that is the modern internet is the low-friction ability to pay creators directly.

...oh, I know why! Because if I pay Google, then Sundar pinky swears not to mercilessly track and monetize everything I do on youtube. \s

	▲	ninkendo 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> > ...something is wrong with you. > Are ad hominems back in vogue? GP was simply mirroring the language of its parent post: > Whenever someone just doesn't seem to care i'm concerned something is wrong with them. Which IMO is indeed way out of line. Speaking for myself, no, nothings “wrong” with me. I watch YouTube enough that I consider it a valuable service. So do what you may think is insane: I pay for it. And it gives me no ads.

▲ 1vuio0pswjnm7 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"I am extremely insulated from ads online and have been for about a decade."

I am insulted by the so-called "modern" browser controlled and distributed by (a) companies that sell internet advertising services or (b) their business partners

The ad annoyances would not be possible but for these bloated, sluggish, omnibus programs enabling data collection, ads and tracking by default^1

Every time I have to use one of these programs to access the web it is a terrible experience. Never having visited a crack den, I cannot say whether it is similar. In any event, it's bad

Sometimes I use these browsers to access files offline or on own local network, such as MP4s and PDFs; I think maybe that is all they might be good for

As "ad blockers" depend 100% on the so-called "modern" browser I would be very surprised if "ad blockers" remain effective for much longer, maybe 5-10 years at most; I dislike making predictions but I believe the end of the "ad blocker" as browser extension is inevitable

Already this prediction is starting to come true in Chrome

1. "The message won't be shown in browsers that don't support JavaScript, because those don't need adblockers to begin with." Even just a browser that did not enable Javascript by default would suffice

	▲	1vuio0pswjnm7 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		s/insulted/insulated/ But I'm insulted, too

▲ Jzush 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Indeed seeing ads almost feels like I’ve been physically assaulted. Using YouTube in our streaming devices reminds me of the old Cable days where you watch 2minutes of something and get slapped in the face with 5 minutes of ads.

It really feels like being assaulted. Watching chill content only to have some ad scream at you, does not make me want to buy your product. I actively go out of my way not to buy things advertised to me on YouTube.

▲ darkwater 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

With uBlock Origin you can actually click on the first Google results for any search, scroll down a bit the initial yadda yadda and find the actual answer to your search even in those webSEOtes that are usually just ads over ads.

▲ ruined 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

funny thought: i would speculate that the demographic intersection of web users and crack users has a higher utilization of adblock than all web users

▲

teiferer 3 days ago | parent [-]

... as well as all crack users.

	▲	ruined 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		idk those hardcore offline guys do A LOT of billboard vandalism

▲ Yeul 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have visited websites that are literally unusable because of ads.

Do companies even care anymore? Is everyone THAT desperate for advertising revenue?

▲ bearbearbear a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]