[HN Gopher] NewPipe - Lightweight YouTube experience for Android
___________________________________________________________________
NewPipe - Lightweight YouTube experience for Android
Author : vyrotek
Score : 692 points
Date : 2023-11-04 19:38 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (newpipe.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (newpipe.net)
| random_ wrote:
| Amazing app, I hope it will last for a long time.
| kosolam wrote:
| Yes! Awesome app
| scosman wrote:
| For iOS users, check out "yattee" for a similar setup
| comprev wrote:
| "musi" is also a great advert-free YouTube client for iOS.
| tomrod wrote:
| Highly recommend using F-Droid-capable phones/mobile support
| systems. Perhaps one day the iOS ecosystem will recognize the
| economic value of democratizing the platform, but until that
| day it's better to use open source software and as open of
| hardware as possible.
| alwayslikethis wrote:
| I think they are going to be forced to open the platform
| soon, per the new Digital Markets Act by the EU.
| tomrod wrote:
| Once again, the EU does something right for it's citizens
| in the face of exploitative practices.
| jrflowers wrote:
| This is good advice. If you own an iOS device you should
| consider not owning an iOS device.
| rplnt wrote:
| I would love not to, but there is not a single human-sized
| (as in can be operated by human hand) android phone on the
| market that is also not a slow budget ohone. Now there is
| no iphone either, but the last minis should last a while.
| tomrod wrote:
| Apple's moving away from them as well, to the detriment
| of their design edge.
|
| [0] https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/12/23868428/iphone-13
| -mini-l...
| sneak wrote:
| As a long time iOS user, I used a Pixel with Graphene for a
| whole year.
|
| Android has so many rough edges, and the Pixel hardware is
| still a few years behind the iPhone. I switched back.
|
| I miss syncthing and being able to install the apps that I
| want, but my phone is too important a device for rough
| edges.
| lrvick wrote:
| GrapheneOS did not meet my needs for sovereign control of
| my own device, and iOS is worse in this regard, so I gave
| up cell phones entirely 2 years ago. Turns out they are
| not as necessary as we convince ourselves they are.
| crashmat wrote:
| Interesting. I'd never used an android before, and
| recently got a Pixel 7a on which I am running lineageos.
| Haven't found any rough edges other than that the home
| screen sometimes hangs fixed by turning the screen off
| and on again which takes less than 5s. What rough edges
| did you encounter?
| hxii wrote:
| The parent comment was a suggestion for an iOS alternative.
|
| Why did you feel the urge to push unsolicited advice? I
| honestly don't get it.
| tomrod wrote:
| Currently, iOS is a substandard platform for software
| freedom. While it has done a fairly decent job implementing
| a good user interface, it comes at the cost of freedom on
| mobile devices, leaving users and developers to the
| capricious whims of a single company. When that company
| decides to break encryption for any external group, is
| eventually hacked, or other myriad of other single single
| failure node situations occur, the collateral damage is
| massive.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Mobian et al is the alternative, not surveillanceOS.
| davkan wrote:
| You can also use altstore to sideload uyou+.
| pzmarzly wrote:
| I am very happy with Vinegar for Safari - a simple adblock +
| PiP + background play extension
| riku_iki wrote:
| No mentions about ads?..
| spuz wrote:
| The site mentions: "without annoying ads"
| BuildTheRobots wrote:
| No ads. Also play in background or popout window.
|
| GrayJay is a new contender on the block that might be worth
| looking at too.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Indeed but that also lacks sponsorblock :(
| g-b-r wrote:
| Just be careful that there are many clones filled with ads and
| sh*t on the Play Store; Play Store where they, the real app,
| cannot be
| Nux wrote:
| Shhhhht!
| OldGuyInTheClub wrote:
| My first install on getting a new phone.
| gala8y wrote:
| My first install on every phone of any friend who wants this
| after a short pitch.
| jaquesy wrote:
| I've been using this for years to download YouTube videos when I
| go on trips, it makes it super easy since you can just share the
| link directly from YouTube to NewPipe and it'll pop up a neat
| download UI to select quality and threads to use.
|
| Really great app for that purpose, although I will say I just
| used ReVanced for general YouTube browsing on my phone.
| chii wrote:
| I believe the one thing i see lacking for newpipe is viewing
| livestreams. Revanced is the way to go for a good youtube
| experience, but i use newpipe for downloading and saving a
| video offline.
| autoexec wrote:
| I've watched livestreams in newpipe. A few hours after it
| ended I used new pipe again to download the whole thing to
| see the parts I missed (new pipe wouldn't let me rewind to
| the start of the livestream after I joined)
| 1una wrote:
| v0.26.0 (the next release) should support viewing
| livestreams. See
| https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe/issues/10471
| pmontra wrote:
| I can view live streams in NewPipe 0.25.2 and I think I
| airways did.
|
| This is a live stream I just watched to check that it works
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydYDqZQpim8
|
| It's a water pool in the Namib desert, so safe for work
| argiopetech wrote:
| Confirmed, with seeking.
|
| There were times in the past where this was not the case,
| but it was likely 0.24 or before.
| DrNosferatu wrote:
| Also, checkout NewPipe with built in SponsorBlock functionality:
|
| https://github.com/polymorphicshade/NewPipe
| seqizz wrote:
| Yeah this is an absolute gem. Sad that original NewPipe didn't
| include the functionality, even optionally.
| aloisdg wrote:
| well we tried to argue about it back in the time
| wkat4242 wrote:
| It annoyed me so much. Just let the users make their own
| choices.
|
| But anyway I had too many issues with newpipe anyway even
| the fork.
| micw wrote:
| Honestly, I do not understand why one should use this. I have
| recently seen some high quality YT videos, each of a length of
| 30-60 minutes. In those videos where some sponsors mentioned
| which took only one or two minutes. Seems perfectly OK for me
| to support the creators. I guess if many people block sponsor
| content, this kind of vids will die.
| Bishonen88 wrote:
| So what are we paying premium for if the creator pushes their
| own ads? Anyhow, when I was watching TV year's ago, I hardly
| ever stayed on a channel during the ads break. I won't
| sacrifice my time being sold on mostly rubbish which I
| wouldn't buy anyway (vpn, brilliant etc.)
| ndriscoll wrote:
| I see two scenarios:
|
| 1. The computer doesn't know whether you skipped the ad, and
| won't feel bad when you do.
|
| 2. The computer does track whether you watch the ad segment,
| and that information makes it back to the advertiser.
| Personally, I wouldn't want to support "creators" spying on
| me in this way.
|
| In either case, the creator has no costs for you watching,
| and youtube has lower costs if you skip the sponsored
| segment. If you choose not to watch the video in the first
| place, it can only hurt their sponsorship.
| gsich wrote:
| At least for Youtube the 2nd statement is true. You can see
| it in videos with the spike after an ad segment.
| autoexec wrote:
| > In either case, the creator has no costs for you
| watching, and youtube has lower costs if you skip the
| sponsored segment.
|
| I'm pretty sure the youtuber gets money from google for
| views even if you don't view their sponsored content
| section (if someone knows better please let me know) and
| Google makes money by collecting data on what you watch,
| how often, when, using what device, from what IP address,
| etc.
| endisneigh wrote:
| People want content without any inconvenience, it's that
| simple.
|
| If they use ads they will block.
|
| If they ask for payment they will pirate.
|
| Luckily these people are the minority or there would be no
| content to begin with
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > If they ask for payment they will pirate.
|
| If the price & convenience is right, a significant chunk
| (enough to offset the impact of freeloaders) will pay.
|
| Movie piracy used to be the norm before Netflix came along,
| yet movies were still made.
|
| Music piracy was the same until Spotify came along, yet
| there's more music than ever being produced.
| endisneigh wrote:
| > Luckily these people are the minority or there would be
| no content to begin with
|
| The vast majority of people do not pirate, and most
| people who pay would probably find piracy unethical to
| begin with.
| southerntofu wrote:
| > The vast majority of people do not pirate
|
| I would be happy to see a serious study about this. What
| you call piracy has been the norm for centuries and
| millenia for spreading culture and reinterpreting
| music/shows produced by other people.
|
| In the vast majority of the world (including in the
| global north), the budget you have for culture is low (if
| any) and when you have people with a computer, copying
| stuff is very common. For example El Paquete in Cuba was
| well documented, but even growing up in France i remember
| so many examples of just sharing with friends (before the
| Internet but still).
|
| Even for the newer generations, Youtube & Spotify started
| as pirate services hosting a myriad of copyrighted
| content. I don't know about Spotify, but i still see
| people watching whole movies/shows pirated on Youtube
| rather often when going to places with shared computers.
|
| Sharing is the norm. Restricting sharing is delusional
| desire for control. Still, it's important that people
| making art & science make a living, although it's not
| _just_ them who need to make a living in this crazy world
| and we 'd be all better off with UBI or abolition of
| private property (one can dream). So you may find it
| interesting that HADOPI, the law that criminalized non-
| profit file-sharing in France actually ordered a study on
| piracy and media consumption back in the early 2010s, and
| their own study acknowledged that there was no economic
| loss from piracy (as people don't reduce their budget due
| to pirating) and the bigger pirates were also the bigger
| buyers.
|
| I dare you to find a single person who "does not pirate"
| in any sense of the world and actively respects copyright
| laws. If only, someone who doesn't sing "happy birthday"
| song because that's actually copyright infringement. Or
| doesn't watch music videos on Youtube because they might
| be pirated. I bet that person doesn't exist, or at least
| that they are not the "vast majority".
| eldaisfish wrote:
| this is a misleading reply because you ignore the speed
| and scale at which the internet allows sharing to happen.
| In the past, the speed of sharing was limited by
| communication at the time, either word of mouth, the
| speed of printing books etc.
|
| If what you describe truly was the norm, then creating
| any sort of content for any reason would generate
| negative returns. This was and is rarely the case. I do
| not see it as unfair for content creators to be paid and
| to demand that you consume their content on their terms,
| within reason.
| autoexec wrote:
| > If what you describe truly was the norm, then creating
| any sort of content for any reason would generate
| negative returns.
|
| Piracy doesn't always hurt creators, and often it helps
| them make money. The people who pirate the most, also
| spend the most money on the things they pirate
| (https://torrentfreak.com/pirates-are-valuable-customers-
| not-...). Just because something is pirated that does not
| mean there was a loss of income for the creator. I've
| pirated things and enjoyed them enough that I purchased
| them later, and I've purchased physical copies of things
| and later pirated digital copies. I've also pirated
| things I'd never have purchased at all which means there
| was never any chance of any of my money going to the
| creator.
|
| The vast majority of people today pirate all the time.
| Posting a meme that contains a copyrighted character or
| image, or listening to a song on youtube from anything
| other than an official channel, sharing a webcomic over
| social media, creating a GIF from a movie or TV show,
| streaming a video game playthrough, and downloading a
| youtube video to edit into a reaction video are all
| technically violations of copyright law. Copyright law is
| so draconian that what most people consider totally
| normal activities online are violations.
|
| > I do not see it as unfair for content creators to be
| paid and to demand that you consume their content on
| their terms, within reason.
|
| I agree that creators have a right for a chance at
| payment for their work. I disagree that I have no right
| to choose how to consume that content. Most of the
| restrictions on how media is intended to be consumed
| comes from the corporations who own the copyright and not
| the creators themselves.
|
| When creators make it known that they want their content
| consumed in a certain way I'll take it into
| consideration. Musicians who ask that you only ever
| listen to their albums in their entirety and never listen
| to a single track I ignore. When Dave Chappelle asked
| fans to not watch Chappelle's Show I agreed and didn't.
| poink wrote:
| > Luckily these people are the minority or there would be
| no content to begin with
|
| There is a whole galaxy of content creators who make great
| stuff but clearly aren't making a living directly off
| content.
|
| People like making content for tons of reasons.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> People like making content for tons of reasons.
|
| _
|
| Pretty much yeah. Just remember back to the first few
| years of youtube. Nobody was making any money from that
| but they were still doing it out of passion/hobby.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Total nonsense. Before all this advertising nonsense, the
| web used to be literally full of people who had enough
| intrinsic motivation to create without compensation. People
| used to literally _pay_ to have their own website in order
| to get their ideas out there.
|
| Open source is literally proof of this. I make software in
| my free time simply because I enjoy it. I publish it out
| there in a variety of licenses with zero expectations. I
| got a GitHub Sponsors profile with zero sponsors and I'm
| not even mad about it.
| freshhawk wrote:
| When your job depends on it you tend to work really hard
| at believing that advertising is necessary and actually
| it's good, actually actually relevant ads are helpful!
| After all, if it wasn't then what am I doing with my
| life?
| autoexec wrote:
| In the case of advertisers that'd be mostly lying and
| manipulating people while hurting them by enabling a
| dangerous system of surveillance that threatens
| themselves and their families along with the rest of us.
| If I were an advertiser I'd probably want to lie to
| myself too.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > Luckily these people are the minority or there would be
| no content to begin with
|
| Most authors write books without making any money for
| years. They write because they enjoy writing. Not because
| they need it to make a living. So your statement is easily
| invalidated by reality
| carlosjobim wrote:
| They write because they enjoy writing, but they also need
| to make a living. Those things are not exclusive.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| Besides skipping sponsor segments, it has many other useful
| features such as marking/skipping intros and outros,
| filler/jokes, and marking the timestamp of the video
| highlight which is useful if you want to skip 20 minutes of
| filler and jump to the part the thumbnail promises.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| If you watch YouTube enough you'll basically become aware of
| all the sponsors pretty quickly (and may even be a customer
| of some already!), so any exposure beyond that is a waste of
| time for all involved - if I didn't buy the product after
| seeing it 10 times, I won't buy it after seeing it the 11th
| either.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >if I didn't buy the product after seeing it 10 times, I
| won't buy it after seeing it the 11th either.
|
| There is still value to the sponser in keeping a brand
| fresh in your mind
| smegsicle wrote:
| well then fuckem
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Oh I'm so sorry, in that case I'll watch every single
| NordVPN sponsorship spot.
| SkipperTool wrote:
| People forget that over-advertising can be more damaging
| than no- or under-advertising. Take Ryan Reynolds and
| Mint Mobile. I genuinely love his acting (to each their
| own for sure) but after being constantly bombarded with
| commercials for Mint Mobile, I legitimately am tired and
| lately avoid not just him, but Mint Mobile, Ryan
| Reynolds, and anything associated with him.
|
| The problem with YouTube is not that they have ads...it
| is that the platform sprays for effect while claiming to
| care about what they are doing when any reasonable user
| can tell that they are simply flooding the pipes with ad
| content.
| TerrifiedMouse wrote:
| > The problem with YouTube is not that they have ads...it
| is that the platform sprays for effect while claiming to
| care about what they are doing when any reasonable user
| can tell that they are simply flooding the pipes with ad
| content.
|
| From what I heard, Google's sells ad space via an auction
| system. They collect information about a viewer then when
| said viewer watches a video/visits a website, all the ad
| space on the video/website goes on auction with the
| viewer's characteristics attached in real time.
| Advertisers will look at the viewer characteristics and
| decide if they want to bid. The winner of the auction
| gets the ad spot and has their ad shown. All this is of
| course fully automated and over in just a few
| milliseconds.
|
| What this means is, advertisers have full control over
| what ads you get. Ad space goes to the highest bidder. If
| you have money, you can spam a specific demographic to
| death with your ads. Google does not in anyway try to
| protect the quality of life of its users.
|
| Google's system is both amazing and disappointing at the
| same time. It's an amazingly efficient way to maximize
| the value of ad space but disappointing in the Google
| doesn't do any kind of advance user behavior modeling to
| see what ads the user would be most receptive to (i.e.
| would not frustrate the user, high probability of
| engagement with what's advertised, ...) instead they
| leave it to the "free market" (i.e. the advertisers) to
| figure that out.
| dvaletin wrote:
| It's an amazingly efficient way to maximize the google
| profit. Google for google case, when they faked their
| auction in order to get more revenue...
| djtango wrote:
| I'm actually relatively chilled about ads. I like to see
| who is advertising what from a macro POV but one thing
| online was super bad at was spamming ads at you. The most
| egregious was Crunchyroll back in the day where you might
| see the same ad back to back 3 times in a row for every
| ep you watched.
|
| Maybe the fix is actually to adjust and make the ad lower
| energy and more bland to target the subliminal more,
| assuming the online ad networks don't sort themselves out
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Sponsors don't get to hijack the caches of our brains.
| Our minds are ours, we alone will decide what information
| is or isn't "kept fresh".
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| That's why when you see an advertisement and recognize it
| you should make a deliberate effort to remember why you
| dislike the brand. If the advertiser gets to wish for
| awareness, I'm entitled to be the monkey's paw.
| wiseowise wrote:
| Not for me.
| jlokier wrote:
| I don't agree. I watch YouTube tech, math, and science
| content every day and that's not my experience.
|
| There are a small set of products that seem to be
| everywhere for a while, occupying a minority of sponsor
| segments. But in most sponsor segments I see one-off
| products that I'll never see again on any channel.
|
| On the rare occasions where they show something that looks
| really useful to me, I'd have to take a note because it's
| so unlikely to be a product I will encounter again.
|
| I don't take those notes, so I've seen a lot of great-
| looking products that I'll never buy due to forgetting they
| exist by the time they would be useful to me. When I need
| something I tend to browse for what's available and/or look
| at reviews with a skeptical eye, as I'm sure many people
| do.
|
| So the sponsor segments aren't that effective for me. But I
| wouldn't call them repetitive, except for a few products
| that come up a lot.
| bozhark wrote:
| This kind of sponsor*
| trolan wrote:
| Sponsorblock can also skip theme songs, recaps, and other
| parts of content you may not want. I also enjoy being able to
| show my children certain content from regular YouTube without
| having them subjected to the ads or me scrolling around.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Try using sponsorblock for a few weeks and then report
| back...
|
| I think it's one of those things like shoes... Nobody thinks
| they need shoes till they try them, and then they tend to
| wear them all the time.
| posterboy wrote:
| it'll lead to more hidden advertisement
| poink wrote:
| If you're not going to buy the sponsored product you're just
| wasting time and bandwidth by watching the sponsor segment
| happytiger wrote:
| Really? They will die? Are you suggesting that long form
| video didn't exist before YouTube sponsors?
|
| Innovation requires disruption, which requires competition,
| which YouTube has none of. If you want long form video
| content to survive _in the medium to long term_ it needs to
| be possible to make a living in a diversity of ways and not
| be dependent on just one provider. So in that sense
| supporting the existing system only serves to reinforce the
| failure of long form content, as eventually a system without
| substantial competition will move to reduce cost and
| eventually focus only on the more profitable short form
| content (which is what's happening).
|
| The current war between YouTube and its users wouldn't be
| possible _if there were any viable alternatives at all_.
|
| I would think if you really cared about long form creators
| you'd support platforms that paid properly and didn't keep
| 45% of their revenues. Even Apple only keeps 30% and they get
| deeply criticized, but whenever YouTube comes up people come
| out defend them. And all of this happens before subscription
| revenue, and it doesn't include any of the other revenue
| Google takes off the top like landing page ads, sponsored
| promotion, etc.
|
| Long form is in _danger_ because of YouTube's shift towards
| short form video. We should be pushing for competitors and
| not allowing them this insanely dominant position to an
| entire Internet content type.
| darkwater wrote:
| Are you saying that YT takes 45% of the money a YouTuber
| negotiates directly with a sponsor to talk about them for
| 1-2 minutes in a long-form video?
| pretzel5297 wrote:
| I have it configured to not skip ads on a few creators who:
|
| 1- Makes good, useful content that I watch often. 2- Doesn't
| abuse sponsorship sections. Sponsor segment at the beginning
| of a video? Auto-skip. Half the video is about the sponsor?
| Auto-skip. Constantly gets sponsorship from
| spam/fraudy/irrelevant companies? Auto-skip.
|
| For all the channels that doesn't fall into these categories:
| tough luck.
| nfriedly wrote:
| Despite the name, it actually blocks a lot more than just
| sponsors. It can be set to automatically skip intros, outros,
| recaps, like and subscribe reminders, non-music sections of
| music videos, and other "fluff".
|
| It significantly boosts the signal to noise ratio, and makes
| YouTube a much better experience.
| deadfece wrote:
| That sounds very useful on the non-ad improvements, and
| oddly enough I might try it for these areas. The sponsor
| mentions don't really bother me and I just skip them if
| they're not relevant. Sometimes it's kind of neat to see
| one and think "Oh, this creator got sponsored by <big deal
| tech product>, that's cool, get paid!", or if they're
| sponsored by bs snake oil companies, then I may discount
| the creator's input a great deal on account of them not
| having any discernment.
|
| It's a small data point about the content, so it can
| sometimes be helpful if I'm trying to decide who to pick
| amongst forty different 2hr lectures on the same thing.
| crashmat wrote:
| Maybe they accept the bs snake oil sponsorships because
| they need the money and assume their audience is smart
| enough to not get tricked.
| ropable wrote:
| The human ability to rationalise blocking out sponsored
| advertising is basically infinite.
| skydhash wrote:
| Why would people watch things they don't like?
| ekianjo wrote:
| The human ability to justify ads is apparently also
| infinite but has much less valid arguments
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > I do not understand why one should use this.
|
| Because we don't want to be advertised to. There is no need
| for any further justification.
|
| > I guess if many people block sponsor content, this kind of
| vids will die.
|
| Let them die.
| dawidpotocki wrote:
| On my laptop alone SponsorBlock has skipped 5225 segments,
| which equals to 1d 20h. That's a lot of time I would waste by
| watching all of these.
|
| Also, if you are fine with sponsor spots, you probably would
| have to also be okay with watching ads, so no adblocking
| either then.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > In those videos where some sponsors mentioned which took
| only one or two minutes. Seems perfectly OK for me to support
| the creators.
|
| There is no good reason to force ads on anyone. I dont care
| if the creator needs to make a living out of youtube. Thats
| their problem and they should use stuff like patreon instead.
| capybara_2020 wrote:
| In most cases sponsored content has the same problem as
| traditional ads but because it is coming directly from
| someone people see as more reliable viewers might fall for it
| quicker. With the added disadvantage of those ads having no
| real regulation and opaque quality checks, if any by the
| creator.
|
| One example that comes to mind is how a lot of financial
| creators pushed crypto products.
| Roark66 wrote:
| I really don't care about sponsor block (I mean I don't mind
| these parts of the videos), but adblock on YouTube is
| absolutely essential. And these apps usually when they have
| adblocl this includes sponsor block.
| adrusi wrote:
| _I do not understand why one should use this_
|
| I don't care to sit through sponsor reads, nothing more to it
| than that. When I'm viewing on a client that doesn't support
| sponsorblock, I'll manually seek to the end of the segment.
| Supporting the creator is great; I pay for YouTube Premium,
| though thanks to uBlock Origin I wouldn't see the add if even
| if I stopped paying. To a couple creators, I send a regular
| donation. If I could spend another $10/mo to make up for any
| revenue my sponsorblock usage loses other creators, I'd do
| that, but I'm less enthusiastic about regularly listening to
| sales pitches for the same products over and over again.
|
| Also: I'm not sure how common it is for YouTube sponsorship
| contracts to have payment contingent on the view count for
| the section of the video with the sponsored segment, and I'm
| not sure if the way sponsorblock skips such segments is
| visible to YouTube's analytics. With at least some of the
| most prolific sponsors of creators I watch (Audible,
| Brilliant, etc) the payout is based on how many viewers sign
| up for a trial through the affiliate link. And YouTube has no
| incentive to make it easy for creators to share their
| detailed analytics with third-party sponsors, since
| independent sponsorships cut YouTube out of the deal. YouTube
| would prefer creators replace their independent sponsor reads
| with mid-roll ads.
| Funes- wrote:
| >I guess if many people block sponsor content, this kind of
| vids will die.
|
| Then so be it. I miss when people uploaded videos for the
| sake of it, not to make money by way of exploiting the users'
| cognitive vulnerabilities. I remember the days when I could
| search for a video on how to replace my dirt bike's
| carburetor and it was less than two minutes, didn't include
| any ads, and was straight to the point, all first person POV;
| you wouldn't even see the guy's face. Nobody was trying to
| get rich off it. It was all about sharing it with other
| people.
| m-p-3 wrote:
| There is also LibreTube that comes with SponsorBlock
|
| https://libretube.dev/
| karlzt wrote:
| And PipePipe
|
| https://codeberg.org/NullPointerException/PipePipe
| BJxdr wrote:
| And Clipious
|
| https://github.com/lamarios/clipious
| rjzzleep wrote:
| LibreTube has a feature that no other piped/invidious client
| has, which is to have one auth instance and one view
| instance.
|
| Sometimes videos are not viewable on a specific instance, but
| this way you can keep all your subscriptions and other
| settings even when switching to a different instance.
| mastazi wrote:
| > that no other piped/invidious client has,
|
| If I understand what you are saying, Piped has this. For
| example I can stream from instance-1.com but at the same
| time I'm logged into instance-2.com so that I can keep my
| favourites and settings. See "Instance" section here
| https://piped.video/preferences particularly the option
| "Use a different instance for authentication"
| kaliqt wrote:
| Currently, I think for many users Piped is completely
| unusable due to errors that consistently occur preventing
| the video from loading.
| mastazi wrote:
| In my case at least, I can solve this by changing
| instance in the settings, as explained in my previous
| comment. Based on my experience, it seems that the less
| popular instances tend to have less frequent errors. Your
| mileage may vary though.
| k8svet wrote:
| Huh, quite a choice to not include screenshots.
| microflash wrote:
| LibreTube also allows you to directly stream from YouTube
| without any Invidious or Piped proxy which might be handy
| when these proxies are slow.
| IMSAI8080 wrote:
| And FreeTube for desktop (just has regular adblock). It's an
| alternate client with a nice UI with a similar layout to
| YouTube.
|
| https://freetubeapp.io/
| mrln wrote:
| FreeTube also has SponsorBlock built in, actually. I highly
| recommend it!
|
| Also, I would not call it "adblock". It just comes without
| ads out of the box, just like most comparable apps.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Yeah this is the best version. I liked newpipe but their
| attitude to sponsorblock is tiring.
|
| But I moved to libretube now. Newpipe kept throwing up errors
| when I jumped around a video.
| bisby wrote:
| I use sponsorblock on desktop, and sometimes I find the parts
| that they skip annoying. I don't fully agree with where and
| when they skip things. Watching Hot Ones today, they had a
| segment about how they have Hot Ones Hot Pockets now. and it
| skipped over it. But also, the hot pockets were a big part of
| the episode. For LTT videos, they skip the entire segue,
| instead of leaving the segue and then skipping the sponsor.
| The segues are a meme. They aren't sponsorship. Another
| channel I watch tests microphones and uses ad read to demo
| demo different mic quality. At that point skipping the ad
| read is skipping the actual content of the video. There's a
| few channels that mix the ad read into the context of what
| they are doing, and skipping those sections skips over
| important context for the rest of the video, and then i have
| to rewind into the sponsor part to see what is going on.
|
| I actually agree with newpipe to some degree. There is very
| bad sponsorship, and there is light mentions of sponsorship
| or sponsorship adjacent content. not everything is black or
| white. Sponsorblock makes it all or nothing (they have
| different categories but I often disagree with what they put
| into the categories).
|
| I wish I could turn it on per channel. because some channels
| I hate the 2 minute long brilliant ads, but on other channels
| Im fine with a 5 second "we're building this thing using X
| company parts because X company is sponsoring the video"
|
| I still use it, but i find it just as frustrating as it is
| helpful sometimes.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| You can configure sponsorblock with various options. End
| credits, sponsored sections, lots of things
| bisby wrote:
| Right. My issue is that I disagree with what they
| consider "sponsored sections" sometimes. "Only skip
| sponsor segments longer than 30 seconds" isn't an option.
| Long ads that make up most of the video: bad. A brief
| passing comment about "And thanks to our sponsor for
| supporting this video" dont need a cut.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| that entirely depends on the user contributions. you know
| its people manually submitting these snippets of what to
| skip and not automatic?
| bisby wrote:
| Yes, I'm aware. I suspect the users who contribute tend
| to fall into the category of "The host saying 'and now a
| word from our sponsor' or explaining that 'today we are
| using product X so don't be surprised when the video is
| different' is part of the sponsorship" because I expect
| that people who contribute self select into people who
| are very anti-anything sponsor related ... I prefer
| having that left in, so that the sudden cut is at least
| expected.
|
| My issue is less with the tool and more with the user
| contributions. But until there are alternative sources
| for sponsorblock that fit my preferences, it seems like
| the options are "don't use it at all" or "use it and be
| frustrated from time to time". I don't really care who is
| at fault, I'm not trying to point fingers, I'm just
| saying that I understand where NewPipe is coming from.
| Not everyone has to agree on whether all sponsor spots
| are good or bad.
| DoktorDelta wrote:
| Sponsorblock does allow you to whitelist specific channels.
| Should be in the settings somewhere, I've only ever done it
| via the ReVanced app but it should still be an option on
| desktop.
| bisby wrote:
| By "on desktop" I mean FreeTube (and simply not via
| NewPipe or on mobile). It has options for the different
| types of things to skip, but my issue is with disagreeing
| with how overly strict they can be about flagging things
| as sponsor segments.
|
| Some of it is per channel settings (some channels have
| way too long of sponsor segments), and some of it is just
| disagreement about how granular to be (on LTT they cut
| out the entire segue to the sponsor, and not just the
| sponsor spot, i dont want the LTT sponsors, but not being
| serious is their whole thing, I don't mind watching the
| segues)
| crashmat wrote:
| users mark the segments to be skipped.
| ryncewynd wrote:
| What's the channel that does ad reads to demo microphone
| quality?
|
| That's such a simple and genius idea
| addandsubtract wrote:
| Not the channel that OP meant, but Tom Scott recently did
| a video on decibel and loudness, where he reads a sponsor
| message during a mic check: https://youtu.be/Is_wu0VRIqQ
| bisby wrote:
| The tom scott one was one example I was thinking of...
| With the sponsor segment clipped out, that video lacks a
| LOT of context.
|
| The main one I was thinking of was Senpai Gaming. He does
| reviews of microphones and streamer equipment. He just
| released a video of the new Shure SM7dB mic where he does
| the sponsor read on the new mic.
|
| Recently, he reviewed the new Elgato teleprompter. During
| which he read the ad read from the teleprompter as a
| means of demonstrating how the eyecontact looks/feels
| while reading text from the prompter. It feels like a
| legit test for a teleprompter to be able to demo it as
| such. The problem is. He says that he is going to demo 4
| things about the prompter and the first one is simply
| reading text. And then he starts to say "And we're going
| to do that by sharing the sponsor of today's video"...
| But it sponsorblock cuts it as "And we're going to" and
| then it cuts to point 2. Had sponsorblock cut that after
| he said "sponsor" I would have at least known what was
| going on, but a random mid sentence cut... I feel like
| the Sponsorblock contributors self select to be the most
| rabid anti-sponsor people out there. Sponsorships are
| pure evil and we shouldn't have to even hear words next
| to the sponsorship. I understand why NewPipe disagrees
| and wants to differentiate between good and bad and not
| just "everything bad".
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Sponsorblock depends on the users specifying which parts
| are which of course. It's not some kind of AI.
|
| It's not perfect but I want to have the choice.
| bisby wrote:
| Wasn't trying to suggest it was AI. I'm aware it's crowd
| sourced. But in the end, I disagree with the crowd
| sourcing most of the time, so regardless of if it's a
| single person, crowd sourced, AI, or anything else... it
| doesn't cut things where I want it to in a lot of cases.
|
| And I'm pretty sure that the type of person who would
| spend time submitting the timestamps is probably a person
| who also is aggressively anti-ads/sponsorships, so is
| probably aggressive in their timestamps, which is fine,
| but it makes me gravitate towards agreeing with NewPipe
| on "not everything is pure evil" more than the
| sponsorblock submitters.
| Rastonbury wrote:
| I actually like it being aggressive, the fewer minutes of
| my life I spend on content of questionable value the
| better, I already watch too much youtube for my own good
| and never find rewinding back through a skipped section
| worth it
| echelon wrote:
| This is a good perspective.
|
| What did you actually miss? Is your life worse for it?
| Rastonbury wrote:
| Realised this when Reddit removed 3rd party apps I never
| installed the official one, my life is no worse and they
| lost a user. We are just animals driven by brain
| chemicals, I never thought app timers were for me but I
| use them now
| weeblewobble wrote:
| Might as well skip the whole video!
| echelon wrote:
| In the limit: might as well tune out everything and skip
| life.
|
| The other limit: all things must be consumed exactly as
| delivered, and we must consume everything we can. (I'll
| disregard selection / filtering algorithm.)
|
| The healthy medium is to consume, analyze, and synthesize
| how it makes sense for your particular style of
| traversing the information topology. Climb the gradients
| you want. Go as deep or as shallow as makes sense to you.
|
| If you can derive value from skipping video played at
| double speed, good. If you want to or need to watch the
| whole thing twice, also good. You do what you need to do.
| No one prescription fits the bill for all people and all
| circumstances.
| Tams80 wrote:
| While they are aggressive, it is optional and you are
| trying to avoid their revenue source. So there's reason to
| be so picky.
|
| I just fast-forward or the the sponsorship segments out if
| they are too annoying.
| prmoustache wrote:
| which is exactly the same wuth sponsorblock.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > I liked newpipe but their attitude to sponsorblock is
| tiring.
|
| What do they mean? They dont even want to provide it as an
| option?
| WithinReason wrote:
| Yes, also including the "restore downvotes" functionality
| WD40forRust wrote:
| Also check out BraveNewPipe, which is NewPipe x SponsorBlock
| with proper search options NewPipe also refuses to implement as
| nofix!
| chasil wrote:
| I use Skytube; I wasn't aware that Newpipe had a download
| feature.
| jakeogh wrote:
| skytube is nice for search since you can ban chans, and
| therefore skip the spam.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| This is the default player on https://e.foundation/e-os/
| noman-land wrote:
| NewPipe is the best. Dunno how people watch YouTube without it.
| You can also subscribe to channels from it without a YouTube
| account.
| grudg3 wrote:
| Agree, but unfortunately I still can't use it to stream to my
| Chromecast so I need to go to the YouTube app when I want to
| play stuff on TV
| Zambyte wrote:
| Can't you just display your screen using chromecast? I use
| newpipe on my tv all the time by juat plugging my phone in
| via HDMI.
| m4rtink wrote:
| SmartTube supports Chromecast/Android TV:
| https://github.com/yuliskov/SmartTube
| actf wrote:
| To be clear, it doesn't support casting, which is what the
| previous commenter was asking for.
|
| It runs directly on android tv. The app even says that
| there is no support for phones or tablets so casting isn't
| going to work.
|
| I also agree that casting is the major missing feature from
| all these apps. Mirroring might be a substitute for some
| but, again to be clear, it isn't the same as casting and in
| most cases the quality is going to suffer significantly.
| m4rtink wrote:
| Sure, but I think thats still a viable workaround -
| especially as SmartTube plays the video natively on the
| device with maximum available quality.
|
| Sure, if you have the video link in your phone, you might
| need to get it to the TV/Chromecast somehow, but I think
| that is usually manageable.
| endorphine wrote:
| I'm watching fine on Firefox with uBlock Origin. I mean, I
| don't get ads. What else am I missing by not using NewPipe (I
| don't care about downloading videos).
| fwn wrote:
| The parent wrote
|
| > You can also subscribe to channels from it without a
| YouTube account.
|
| This means that losing your Google account does not mean
| losing your playlist.
|
| Big tech accounts can be surprisingly fragile.
| ceuk wrote:
| FYI Google takeout lets you set regular, automatic exports
| of any of your Google data (e.g. you can have a backup of
| your YouTube subscriptions, playlists etc emailed to you
| every month).
| mxmbrb wrote:
| One can't switch to a different tab, out of the browser or
| lock the phone while continuing listening to the
| video/podcast/music.
| winwang wrote:
| It's extremely simple: I pay for Premium.
| yard2010 wrote:
| How can you disable tiktok on youtube? I've been a paying
| customer for years and I would happily pay more to remove
| this cancer.
| docmars wrote:
| Do you mean their Shorts feature?
| tux3 wrote:
| If the war on ablockers continues things may escalate, and the
| next step will soon mean deploying stronger DRM, in the same way
| that was tried in the fight against piracy.
|
| There's a real parallel between the two. Streaming killed piracy
| for a while because the service was easy and convenient, with
| everything in one place. Then, streaming added more and more ads
| all while it became more fragmented. Now if you pay for a
| service, you will still see ads, and you have an increasingly
| limited catalog (even on Youtube, as creators move extra content
| on Nebula or Patreon)
|
| The more Youtube squeezes and pushes ads, the more demand there
| will be for adblockers.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| The end game is encrypted DRM stream (which is decrypted in the
| display) with encoded ads (so you can't block it tinkering with
| JS).
|
| I guess that only abundance of devices without DRM is stopping
| this scenario.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Only general purpose computers are stopping this scenario.
| richwater wrote:
| > encrypted DRM stream
|
| Widevine already exists and is increasingly difficult to
| crack, especially the key levels required for 4k content.
|
| > encoded ads
|
| Only a matter of time before hardware encoders can do this on
| the fly
| tomrod wrote:
| > The end game is encrypted DRM stream
|
| That's not the endgame -- Digg:Reddit::YouTube:Vimeo is the
| end game, IMHO.
| alkonaut wrote:
| How are the ads even skippable on YouTube? I have never
| really had a good answer to that. I mean, why is the ad even
| a different stream or detectable on the client? Shouldn't the
| ads just be spliced into the videos if you really want to
| make sure people watch them? Is it because it would be
| prohibitively expensive to do that kind of live encoding for
| each viewer?
| jack_pp wrote:
| You wouldn't even need live encoding because every YouTube
| video is normalized and if you have two streams that were
| encoded with the same parameters you can cut and
| concatenate without re encoding
| meindnoch wrote:
| Because you could just seek over them?
| alkonaut wrote:
| Yes, but the server knows exactly what frames it has sent
| you and when. If you don't want to watch the ad frames
| there's nothing the server can do, but it can make sure
| to not send you the frame that comes after the ad, until
| the 10 seconds of the ad has passed since it sent you the
| last frame before the ad.
| tux3 wrote:
| That works for pre-roll ads, forcing the client to
| silence them and wait at best (I believe the Twitch
| streaming service does this)
|
| For mid-stream ads, that doesn't work. You could pre-
| fetch the ad and surrounding video early, so that you can
| watch buffered content while the server thinks an ad is
| playing.
| alkonaut wrote:
| The server would need to not allow buffering further than
| the next ad.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Multistream client, continually skipping around, and
| stitching together buffers?
| meindnoch wrote:
| Ok, but now you see, it would be a bit more involved than
| just splicing together static byte streams that even a
| dumb CDN can accomplish.
| meindnoch wrote:
| So basically you would disallow pre-buffering more than
| an ad's worth of video? I'm not sure about that...
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Right now (or few months ago, when I tinkered with it) ads
| are different streams, so to skip them, ublock intercepts
| and alters API responses, stripping ad info. Why they're
| not embedded into video stream, that I don't know.
| m-p-3 wrote:
| And with Microsoft pushing TPM requirements with Windows 11
| it's just a matter of time before thing are locked down even
| further.
| judge2020 wrote:
| What is it with the disdain for paying for services people use?
| People often don't feel like paying for it even if they use
| YouTube more than other streaming services combined.
|
| Maybe the issue is that people got so used to a decade of
| unlimited high-quality videos for absolutely free?
| arcbyte wrote:
| Actually I'm very predisposed to paying for YouTube. My
| experience with it however is that it presented me with ads
| for YouTube premium every 5 minutes and put ad screens in my
| way that were waaayyyyy to easy to click dozens of times a
| day. It wouldn't take a hint that I was interested but not
| ready to buy. I was trying to show someone a quick video on
| my phone, not revisiting my financial relationship with
| Google. After being treated like that, as much as I have the
| money and willingness to pay, I don't want to give them my
| money for a purely emotional reason. Some product manager
| somewhere at Google needs fired. Probably a lot of them.
| lapinot wrote:
| What is it with the disdain for mental health, privacy or
| political mindfulness? Big tech don't feel like paying
| attention to people even if people use Youtube more than
| other streaming services combined. Maybe the issue is that
| big tech got so used to a decade of unlimited high-quality
| tracking for absolutely free?
| friend_and_foe wrote:
| It's not disdain for paying. Netflix proved that. It's
| disdain for getting nickel and dimed and fleeced and losing
| access without warning.
| ertian wrote:
| Well, and there's a difference in usage. When I use
| Netflix, I'm usually either at my desktop computer or
| sitting on my couch, selecting a movie for myself to watch.
| It feels like a good old traditional media experience.
|
| YouTube pops up everywhere, on every system I use.
| Sometimes I'm sitting down to watch something longer, even
| a movie, but often it's just links from friends or
| coworkers, or from news articles on Reddit or Hacker News.
| Sometimes it's lessons, sometimes it's breaking news,
| sometimes it's 5-second meme videos. I use it at work and
| at home. I might be on my wife's iPad, or my work phone, or
| some library computer.
|
| I'm not viewing all those videos on my personal devices
| logged in using my own personal account. I don't feel
| _comfortable_ logging in with my personal account
| _everywhere_.
|
| And there's something especially annoying about constantly
| seeing ads on a service I'm paying for.
|
| On top of that, logging in everywhere lets Google track
| everything I view--every random Reddit click--and Google's
| the single biggest data collector & exploiter I know. I'm
| _paying_ them to let them track me.
|
| All told, paying for YouTube feels kinda icky in a way that
| paying for Netflix does not. I _do_ pay for YouTube
| Premium, but I still prefer to watch videos without logging
| in, (ed:) _with_ an adblocker.
| radicality wrote:
| What I do have a disdain for with Netflix, is paying for
| the version with 4k access and then struggling to actually
| get the service I paid for.
|
| Around two years ago I wanted to watch Squid Game on my
| MacBook Pro + external 4k monitor, and iirc still couldn't
| get it working in 4k after various yak shaving. Perhaps
| it's now supported, but it felt pretty ridiculous to me
| that I can't even access the full service I'm paying for.
| k8sToGo wrote:
| I don't mind paying. I do mind paying $15 and then see still
| ads (Thanks to NordVPN for sponsoring this comment). Plus the
| algorithm keeps getting worse and worse.
|
| I'd prefer to pay like $5. I don't need YouTube music.
| shric wrote:
| Sponsorblock is 95%+ effective against these
| Bishonen88 wrote:
| Whole point of youtube premium is getting rid of ads on
| mobile/tvs
| shric wrote:
| Sure, and there are sponsorblock solutions for both
| mobile and TV
| mulmen wrote:
| The hilarious thing about all the VPN ads is that they are
| collecting all the same tracking information as Google and
| Facebook and aren't even protecting you from that existing
| tracking.
| davkan wrote:
| $5/mo without YouTube Music would be an easy buy for me.
| I'd gladly pay that to support creators, remove ads on my
| tv, and to stop having to sideload uyou+ on my phone. I
| have zero interest in YouTube music as Apple Music has
| great offline support on the watch for my backcountry
| rides.
| endisneigh wrote:
| I don't understand this logic. Why do you think it would be
| cheaper without YouTube music? YouTube music literally is
| just YouTube. Every song on there can be found on YouTube,
| the only reason it's even a separate app and included in
| premium is due to the lack of ads facilitating a better
| music listening experience.
| lazycouchpotato wrote:
| Because YouTube themselves considers Music as an add-on,
| and was willing to have a cheaper Premium tier without
| Music in certain countries before they discontinued it.
|
| https://9to5google.com/2023/09/26/youtube-premium-lite-
| shut-...
| month13 wrote:
| I was happy paying for YouTube Premium, but they just doubled
| the price in my geo. So yeah, i'm considering not paying.
| rglullis wrote:
| I don't mind paying for services.
|
| I mind paying to get the privilege my data exploited.
|
| I mind paying to a company that use its infinite bags of
| money to outspend any competition unfairly.
|
| I mind paying after getting blackmailed to accept a new deal
| when they made sure they left no other choice in the market.
|
| I mind paying for a service that is optimized for
| "engagement" instead of my own well-being.
|
| I mind paying to a company that doesn't know the time to stop
| growing and wants to crawl into every aspect of my life.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| +1
|
| And I mind that paying forces me to give my credit card to
| a companies that have proven to work against me.
|
| I mind that google will take over my entire phone if I
| connect to any service with a google account because I paid
| for it and not just login to that single service.
|
| I mind that it will collect all that data if I don't have
| an adblocker anyway, just not show me ad, and then give it
| to gov entities (see PRISM).
|
| What I don't mind is paying. I pay for spotify, for neflix,
| for dynalist, for kagi, for chatgpt, for codepilot, for
| github...
|
| But I do mind that many people like you on HN accuses us of
| being dishonest.
| spuz wrote:
| > I mind paying for a service that is optimized for
| "engagement" instead of my own well-being.
|
| > I mind paying to a company that doesn't know the time to
| stop growing and wants to crawl into every aspect of my
| life.
|
| It's worth recognising that as an ad-supported service,
| YouTube has an incentive to maximise the watch-time of its
| users and that this incentive goes away when a user starts
| paying monthly. But until they begin to earn more from
| subscriptions than ads I can't see how this changes. Maybe
| there's a universe in which the adblock crackdown actually
| accelerates the decline in ad-viewership and YouTube
| becomes incentivised to stop cramming cheap ad-friendly
| content down our throats and becomes a platform for actual
| high-quality content. For now, it's probably better to
| support platforms that actually already work on this model
| such as Nebula.
| mulmen wrote:
| Google has dumped so many gallons of urine into my cheerios
| over the years that I will never, ever pay them for a
| consumer service. They have spent literally decades now being
| absolute assholes to consumers. If they charged for Youtube
| from day 1 then maybe. But at this point the reputational
| harm is permanent.
|
| I do pay for Patreon and Nebula. But Google will never get a
| cent from me.
| colordrops wrote:
| The person you are replying to answered in their comment:
| even the paid service has ads, and a lot of the premium
| content has been moved off of the platform.
| swayvil wrote:
| Digital media can be copied infinitely for free. Thus
| delivering any benefit to infinite consumers. Thus
| multiplying that benefit infinitely.
|
| They want to choke that? May as well tell the wind to stop
| blowing.
| gaganyaan wrote:
| Lack of trust. Google will find ways to enshittify YouTube
| even if you pay for it.
|
| I spend a lot of money at Bandcamp because in exchange I get
| bits that I do what I want with. For some reason that's not
| as popular for video, but it would solve this issue pretty
| well.
| asimops wrote:
| I have zero issues with paying in general.
|
| What I don't see, is me paying for the worse service.
|
| Youtube Premium is 12.99EUR a month for me. For that small
| price I get to create a Google Account, accept their TOS, let
| them track and profile me, keep logging in everywhere
| (because I delete all local storage in the browser routinely)
| and replace the small and efficient NewPipe with the Youtube
| app. Futhermore I cannot download a video now and play it
| next month without connecting to the internet, or move it to
| my small dedicated video player that doesn't even have
| connection to the internet.
|
| What is Googles CPM (revenue per 1000 clicks)? I don't think
| it comes down to more the a low cent amount. I do not watch
| enough video to justify the price of premium and I will never
| watch ads, because those are psychological warfare and
| completely underregulated...
|
| If Google and all the others make a nice micro payment
| platform for the browser, which work anonymously and without
| much hassle, I will by all means pay them the amount of money
| which me watching the ads would have generated plus 10%
| service fee since they build the platform.
|
| But not like this!
| judge2020 wrote:
| Those are the terms YouTube sets out when providing you
| with the service. You can either pay for it (as the terms
| set out), watch with ads (as the terms set out), or not
| watch it. All other use is effectively piracy, and they
| have the legal and arguably moral* right to block you for
| not following it.
|
| * Yes, it does cost them money to serve and store videos,
| and no that doesn't disappear with scale. YouTube ingests
| hundreds of thousands of hours of video a day, and chances
| are every single video is on at least 2 continents at any
| given time. They don't get some insane volume price on the
| enterprise HDDs they use.
| etedor wrote:
| What terms? I don't recall agreeing to any?
| judge2020 wrote:
| > Your use of the Service is subject to these terms, the
| YouTube Community Guidelines and the Policy, Safety and
| Copyright Policies which may be updated from time to time
| (together, this "Agreement").
|
| https://www.youtube.com/t/terms
|
| Even if you don't think you have to follow them, they can
| still ban you for not following their terms, or not
| agreeing to them. They are not under an obligation to
| serve you video unauthenticated and/or without receiving
| what they expect to receive in return (agreeing to their
| terms and thus paying via ads or money).
| etedor wrote:
| There's a terms.txt on my desktop that says by sending me
| data my browser can choose whether or not to render it.
| By sending me video data you agree to these terms.
| judge2020 wrote:
| And they're blocking you from receiving video? That's the
| whole point of this post.
| etedor wrote:
| Not sure what you mean. I can view them just fine.
| judge2020 wrote:
| I mean them blocking you from viewing it due to using an
| ad-blocker (or otherwise not using an official client).
| The OP comment was about "the war on ad blockers", which
| is what this thread is about.
| eur0pa wrote:
| I haven't agreed to any of that; don't remember signing
| anything. This stuff does not hold up in EU. My device,
| my rules.
| judge2020 wrote:
| This is in the situation they block you from watching if
| you don't watch are. They are under no obligation to
| serve you/your device, so they can institute any amount
| of technical requirements to gain access to the content
| it hosts, those requirements being plainly laid out in
| the terms.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Of course they get insane volume discounts. All big tech
| companies do. It makes me cry to see how much we pay for
| a ThinkPad. I wish I could buy one for that :')
|
| Regarding morals I don't don't care. Not worth a
| discussion :)
| rglullis wrote:
| > watch with ads (as the terms set out)
|
| There is nothing there forcing me to watch the ads, or
| that forces the _user agent_ (aka the browser) to behave
| in the way that server running the application wishes to.
| endisneigh wrote:
| People will always rationalize their not paying. Tracking,
| ethics, whatever. Anything other than abstaining from use,
| lol.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| Nope. Thanks to this site i (finally, and only about an
| hour ago) got newpipe from fdroid, subscribed to all my
| channels, and sod youtube, I'm not going back. An
| appropriate ad occasionally, no problem. But recently??
| With newpipe there's a way out: i will happily contribute.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Using New pipe is not abstaining from YouTube, lol.
| xigoi wrote:
| I'd gladly not use YouTube if the creators uploaded their
| videos somewhere else.
| judge2020 wrote:
| YouTube is too lucrative of a platform to pass up. It's
| not just hosting, but literally sending droves of viewers
| their way, and making sure those viewers are paying to
| watch in a way that enables those creators to earn a
| living. Take any large creator and 95-100% of their
| regular fanbase probably wouldn't follow them to another
| platform (unless it's so big that all/most of their
| favorite creators also go to the same platform).
|
| Any other platform not only needs to offer cheap/free
| video hosting, but also send tons of users content
| similar to their interests in a way that enables new and
| up-and-coming creators to grow, and it needs to provide a
| way to pay out those creators, or there's a negative
| incentive to send any viewers to the other platform that
| strictly makes them no money.
| occz wrote:
| Plenty of creators upload their things both to YouTube
| and Nebula, and I choose Nebula for the ones that do. The
| app isn't perfect, but it gets the job done.
| zlg_codes wrote:
| Youtube's free to block whoever they want. People will gain
| access to what they want, independent of economic or
| governmental forces.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| > Maybe the issue is that people got so used to a decade of
| unlimited high-quality videos for absolutely free?
|
| Or the videos aren't that high quality, and are just barely
| at the level of value where people feel like the time spent
| watching (or leaving it on as background noise) was worth it,
| but not at the level of value where time spent+ads or money
| are worth it.
|
| Like I've watched a LTT video before. I suppose I was very
| bored. Would I ever pay to watch it? No. Do I even think it
| was worth the time I spent watching? Probably not. It's like
| listening to some stranger at the pub tell a story. You might
| listen if it's interesting, but you probably wouldn't pay
| them for it.
|
| There's tons of low quality, low effort stuff on there like
| vlogs, clean/cook/shop with me, hauls, etc. It's a hobby for
| the creator. People don't want to pay for it because it's not
| worth anything.
| nfriedly wrote:
| I think part of the disdain is that YouTube was ad-free until
| they ran all the competition out of business.
| jsnell wrote:
| YouTube hasn't been ad-free for over 17 years.
| zlg_codes wrote:
| Did you consider there's a population of people outsdide HN
| who don't make 6 figures and have to budget?
|
| I'm sure there will be lovely things this community has to
| say about that demographic.
| lacrimacida wrote:
| Anything like this for Ios? Im now downloading vids or sound
| files from youtube for offline use with invidio.us
| haunter wrote:
| Yattee, needs a bit more tinkering to setup though (it's a
| general network videoplayer not an alternate YT client like
| NewPipe)
|
| https://apps.apple.com/us/app/yattee/id1595136629
|
| https://np.reddit.com/r/Yattee/comments/13d3lj7/how_to_set_u...
| eur0pa wrote:
| Sideload uYouPlus / uYouExtra with Altstore
| bkm wrote:
| Newpipe is great for background listening and PIP (window can be
| resized/moved). For downloading, Seal reigns supreme. You can
| 'share' a video to the app and it downloads the video right away.
|
| Link: https://f-droid.org/packages/com.junkfood.seal/
| Gerard0 wrote:
| Awesome app. I send them money from time to time when possible!
| sigmar wrote:
| I've been using this on android for more than 6 years. Love being
| able to quickly download a local copy of video or music as I'm
| boarding a flight or train. Highly recommend getting it using
| fdroid instead of apk because there have been points when youtube
| made changes that break the app and you'll need to get the latest
| update
| clort wrote:
| Highly recommend the NewPipe upstream repository within
| F-Droid, they usually fix breakage right away whereas F-Droid
| repository version can be a few days behind.
| fariss wrote:
| This is exactly what I used it for last time; downloading
| videos before boarding a flight.
| tomrod wrote:
| We use it daily. We love quietly streaming music during meals. It
| supports subscriptions (though no account integration to Google,
| obviously).
|
| Well done NewPipe, you're showing how web applications should be
| done.
| wg0 wrote:
| If you tube blocks their API, would it be game over for such
| clients? Or how does it work?
| sigmar wrote:
| iirc it loads the page as if it were a browser, then scrapes
| and downloads the video.
| alok-g wrote:
| What prevents YouTube from sending ad and the actual video in
| a single video download/stream?
| master-lincoln wrote:
| Probably the cost of creating that stream realtime while
| ads spots are being bidded on
| lapinot wrote:
| They don't use official APIs (if you do you need to register a
| dev account and this sort of thing would most likely be against
| the TOS), just like yt-dlp they reverse engineer all sorts of
| apps youtube has (the webpage, the mobile webpage, the TV app,
| the android app, ...) and thus get all sorts of undocumented
| APIs to scrap from.
| anoncow wrote:
| I can't find a source which has all the financial figures for
| YouTube, but YouTube had a gross revenue of 29 bn USD in 2022.
| Alphabet had 55 bn USD in net income in 2022 of which how much
| was YouTube's share in the net income is unknown (or at least I
| couldn't find it).
|
| Let's use some assumptions to get to a number.
|
| 1. Let's assume that out of the 29 bn USD revenue that YouTube
| brings in 55% is shared with creators. Thus we are left with 13
| bn USD.
|
| 2. We know that YouTube's share in the overall revenue of
| Alphabet was 10.5%. Let's assume that all of Alphabet's
| properties were proportionately profitable (highly incorrect
| assumption). If the properties were proportionately profitable,
| YouTube's would have bought in a net income of 5.75 bn.
|
| 3. In the past it has been reported that YouTube has been
| breakeven from a profitability perspective.
|
| This means that YouTube's net profit is in the range of 0 to 5bn
| USD. This is at best a gross profit margin of 17% which is not
| good for an internet services company.
|
| I strongly believe technology like NewPipe should exist and
| companies shouldn't push for more DRM. But end users should not
| misuse open technologies so much so that companies end up with no
| other option but E2E encryption for video.
| namrog84 wrote:
| I wonder if a torrent style equivalent for bandwidth sharing
| for things like YouTube content creators could work. Like you
| get ads unless you seed enough and then no ads when you
| consume.
|
| I think it'd only work as a near seamless ui experience and not
| actually using torrents or any extra setup or complications.
| Probably branded a bit differently.
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| Bandwidth costs money, YouTube can probably do it cheaper
| than end users at scale. But this isn't about reduced
| bandwidth expenses, this is about maximising profit
| extraction.
| chii wrote:
| > But this isn't about reduced bandwidth expenses, this is
| about maximising profit extraction.
|
| Arent these goals one and the same?
|
| Profit maximization is required under a capitalist system.
| By optimizig bandwidth expenses, you are achieving profit
| maximization.
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| No, the cost of bandwidth is less than their subscription
| value, presumably providing this option would result in
| less profit despite lower server costs, but they already
| have a global CDN so I assume it's cost is relatively low
| anyway. I imagine if this was a path they wanted to go
| down, they could crowdsource it via chrome directly,
| without providing any positive value for users.
| davkan wrote:
| The problem with p2p for video is that the storage and
| bandwidth requirements are enormous most platform consumers
| are using mobile devices with limited storage and bandwidth
| which would have difficulty contributing to the network.
|
| Maybe some type of appliance one could run out of their home
| to buy in or something? But a lot of home users have terrible
| upload or no internet at all.
|
| Peertube is great but could never keep up with the sheer
| volume of data uploaded to YouTube.
| wolfskaempf wrote:
| Exactly what you described exists and is called PeerTube.
|
| https://joinpeertube.org
|
| https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube
| AnonHP wrote:
| > Let's assume that out of the 29 bn USD revenue that YouTube
| brings in 55% is shared with creators. Thus we are left with 13
| bn USD.
|
| That's a very poor and totally off assumption to start with,
| and makes it seem like YouTube is extremely generous. I'd guess
| YouTube shares, at best, 20% of the ad revenue with the content
| creator.
| drbacon wrote:
| It's 55%. This is the first non-Google result from a Google
| search:
|
| https://www.yrcharisma.com/the-youtube-revenue-split-who-
| kee...
| crashmat wrote:
| Yes but this is only for creators who are large enough.
| Smaller creators still get ads on their videos, but dont
| get paid for it
| Animats wrote:
| Installable via F-Droid, always a good sign.
| FrenchyJiby wrote:
| Absolutely, though the default F-Droid repo is a little slow to
| update (in case of the twice-a-year "Youtube changed their UI,
| breaking the world" update), so Newpipe team recommends their
| own (third party) F-Droid repo[1], where the updates are fresh
| off the press.
|
| [1]: https://newpipe.net/FAQ/tutorials/install-add-fdroid-repo/
| globalnode wrote:
| f-droid website says "This app promotes or depends entirely on
| a non-free network service" -- whats that all about?
| maxhille wrote:
| Because YouTube itself is non-free as in proprietary software
| globalnode wrote:
| right, i knew that -- thanks max :D
| bluGill wrote:
| You should use peertube instead. Saddly there isn't much
| content there, but try to look there first and reward those
| who post there with your eyeballs.
| Animats wrote:
| Peertube is useful, but so little used that I have 3 of the
| top 20 videos on Hardlimit, and they're tech demos of a
| rather obscure program. The most popular has 2,500 views.
|
| What might be useful is some way to use PeerTube
| distribution on any .mp4 file. Peertube is only a caching
| system, not a replicated hosting system like BitTorrent.
| You have to host one copy of the file somewhere. You should
| be able to put that master copy on any low-end web server,
| generate a Peertube URL for it, and let Peertube spool it
| out. Peertube works by mooching bandwidth off the people
| watching, so as viewership goes up, so do serving
| resources.
| rekado wrote:
| I disagree with f-droid on using the term "non-free" for
| network services, because it conflates the issue of software
| freedom with SaaS.
|
| See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-
| really-s...
|
| > Many free software supporters assume that the problem of
| SaaSS will be solved by developing free software for servers.
| For the server operator's sake, the programs on the server
| had better be free; if they are proprietary, their
| developers/owners have power over the server. That's unfair
| to the server operator, and doesn't help the server's users
| at all. But if the programs on the server are free, that
| doesn't protect the server's users from the effects of SaaSS.
| These programs liberate the server operator, but not the
| server's users.
| scotty79 wrote:
| I had trouble switching to alternative clients because I rely on
| algorithmic feed for new content. However I have a perfect
| application for NewPipe. I like to run it quietly in the
| background as I fall asleep. Murmur of a voice too quiet to
| understand helps me sleep. Ads were making that use case
| impossible.
|
| Another use case is downloading music I like. I used YouTube for
| music discovery an ingestion. Now after I find something good I
| go to NewPipe and dowlnoad it as local audio file and enjoy it
| like it's good old times of napster and mp3-s.
| Unfrozen0688 wrote:
| Another reason why Android is the superior phone OS.
| miki123211 wrote:
| iOS has Yattee[1].
|
| It's technically a personal video-watching app, not a Youtube
| app, which you're supposed to link with your own personal video
| server, but the server APIs it is compatible with are the same
| APIs that are exposed by Invidious and Newpipe instances. This
| is not a coincidence.
|
| I'm sure Apple is going to delist it from the App Store at some
| point (App Store guidelines are just that, guidelines, and
| there's no getting around them with a weird loophole like you
| can do with actual laws), but it works for now.
| ggrelet wrote:
| [1] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/yattee/id1595136629
| lolinder wrote:
| > I'm sure Apple is going to delist it from the App Store at
| some point (App Store guidelines are just that, guidelines,
| and there's no getting around them with a weird loophole like
| you can do with actual laws), but it works for now.
|
| Hence F-Droid, which cannot exist on iOS.
| lxgr wrote:
| Not yet! The EU's Digital Markets Act will go into force
| soon.
| lolinder wrote:
| True! Unfortunately, I fully expect Apple to keep
| alternate app stores locked out in other locales. I'll be
| happy if I'm proven wrong, but they've been so determined
| in fighting this that it seems likely they'll consider it
| to be worth the extra work.
| chii wrote:
| a 30% profit margin business for barely any real
| work/capital investment, this is a business they will
| fight for.
| miki123211 wrote:
| We don't know how the DMA will actually be interpreted.
|
| There are three aspects that people often conflate, the
| ability to install apps from outside Apple's App Store,
| the ability to install apps that Apple hasn't notarized,
| and the ability for developers to skip paying a
| percentage of app sales to Apple.
|
| We might get all three of these, but we might also get
| just one or two. I can imagine a world where you'll be
| free to install a .ipa from any website and pay for in-
| app purchases with your credit card, but where the .ipa
| will have to go through App Review and the developer will
| be audited to ensure that the necessary fees go to Apple.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| Does this actually work? I've tried a couple of times but it
| nearly always hangs on loading videos, and when it does load
| it gets stuck buffering every few seconds. Perhaps the Piped
| instance I'm connected too is overloaded?
| ufish235 wrote:
| Any hint on how to actually do this? For those of us who are
| comfortable with Insidious or Newpipe.
| falcor84 wrote:
| It's almost perfect, except for the fact that I really like being
| able to thumbs-up videos I like, to support the creators. I feel
| really uncomfortable not having that option.
| Aachen wrote:
| - So long as they give their sole custom to Google/Youtube and
| don't support other platforms in any way, even though it's
| trivial to upload an mp4 onto another platform and set the
| title and description same as yt, I don't feel too bad being in
| a tiny fraction of a minority that doesn't want to have a
| Google account in order to 'smash' the like button. There's no
| least evil to be picked here, no market forces at play, it's
| using google or bust. On the whole, I feel alright not
| supporting that choice, though part of me also feels as you do
| of course.
|
| - It's also not as though you're upvoting/liking videos other
| than theirs, so they won't rank lower because you didn't
| support them.
|
| - I'm sure the folks at google figured out that watching a
| video is already a sign of the content being interesting. When
| using the official (web) player, it clearly uses this to
| generate recommendations (to many people's frustration)
|
| - You can always share videos with friends or on Mastodon etc.
| where appropriate, that draws more eyeballs than a passive
| thumbs up button anyway and thus helps the creator more
| nine_k wrote:
| What is the other platform you suggest for video uploads?
| Vimeo? Facebook? Twitch?
| lolinder wrote:
| > It's also not as though you're upvoting/liking videos other
| than theirs, so they won't rank lower because you didn't
| support them.
|
| The math doesn't work like that--if you can't Like any
| videos, then all of the videos you watch have an
| infinitesimally smaller Liked ratio and count than they would
| if you could. Any given video isn't competing with all the
| other videos you watch, it's competing with all the other
| videos _anywhere on the site_.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| The big benefit of newpipe besides skipping ads is that you
| don't need an account. Which you need for those upvotes anyway.
| MBCook wrote:
| How does giving a thumbs up "support the creators"?
|
| I'm sure they'd rather you watch the ads or pay for premium.
| savingsPossible wrote:
| OR, hear me out... Subscribe to the patreon or other non-
| google revenue stream
| wkjagt wrote:
| Not my comment, but maybe support isn't the right word. One
| person I watch on YouTube says something like "if you enjoyed
| this video, give a thumbs up. If you didn't, give a thumbs
| down. It helps me understand which topics you find
| interesting."
| camel-cdr wrote:
| That made me think of an interesting feature idea: Selectively
| enable ads on certain channels you'd like to support a bit
| more.
| WaffleIronMaker wrote:
| I also recommend GrayJay https://GrayJay.app
| kim0 wrote:
| I use it daily, has been amazing so far
| Ruthalas wrote:
| What are your experiences with it? Interested to hear a review
| from a user.
| curvilinear_m wrote:
| I use it as my main YouTube app on my phone, it's working
| nice. One drawback for me is the failure if you have too many
| YouTube subscriptions (>200-300). I removed some creators and
| it's working fine. You see Grayjay's likes and comments on
| videos but there are very few of them (you also see YouTube
| comments and likes). I wish the community around it grew, it
| has potential.
| beretguy wrote:
| Louis Rossmann had a video introducing this app, but I can't
| find it. Did YouTube force him to take down that video, anybody
| knows?
| nickorlow wrote:
| Yes... youtube gave the videos a community guideline strike
| and removed them. You can watch the videos in this thread:
| https://x.com/futo_tech/status/1719468941582442871?s=46
| beretguy wrote:
| Wow... that's... dystopian.
| dawidpotocki wrote:
| Just a small note about it: it's not open-source and their
| excuse is... pretty poor. They don't give you modification
| rights at all, so you can't even legally contribute to the
| project.
|
| The platform support is implemented inside "plugins" and they
| are under AGPL-3.0, so... can you even distribute the
| application, considering that the licence of the application
| and plugins seem to be incompatible at my non-lawyer first
| glance?
|
| Their excuse for their application licence so that they can
| legally prevent people from uploading ad-infested versions in
| Google Play and similar platforms under their name... but
| that's why MPL 2.0 and Apache 2.0 have trademark exclusion
| clauses.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| I tried that, and wanted to like it but the lack of video
| recommendations killed it for me. I couldn't even see videos
| from my subscriptions. Major disappointment.
| SpaghettiCthulu wrote:
| Subscriptions work perfectly for me. Better than on YouTube
| tbh.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| There is also Grayjay[1] from Futo[2] now too.
|
| [1] https://grayjay.app/
|
| [2] https://futo.org/
| jeena wrote:
| The main reason why I don't use it is that I can't log in into my
| PeerTube instance and watch the Internal and Private videos for
| which you have to be logged in. But this kind of goes against the
| privacy stand against giving google the information about who you
| are they have. Which in my case is a bit different because I'm
| the admin of my own PeerTube instance.
| levitate wrote:
| how long until this gets nuked like youtube vanced?
| Hikikomori wrote:
| There's revanced, just installed it today.
| j1elo wrote:
| Does anyone else have the experience of next queued videos always
| going wild with longer and longer videos of the same stuff? I had
| a screenshot prepared to report as an issue, but in the end
| didn't feel it would be worth it.
|
| _Absolutely every time_ I 'll start with a song, and 3 next
| videos after, I'll be facing a 10 hour long version of the same
| fkng song, if not a loop of the same 2 or 3 videos.
| bArray wrote:
| I use an old Android device for watching Youtube, but Youtube
| recently dropped support for it. Immediately downloaded F-Droid,
| installed this, back up and running better than ever.
|
| One thing to note is that the Google export for Youtube is
| completely broken and I've been manually importing subscriptions.
| monadINtop wrote:
| It will never be as good as Youtube Vanced (god rest it's soul)
| but it gets the job done, despite the occasional bug
| lazycouchpotato wrote:
| If you didn't know, there is YouTube ReVanced [1].
|
| https://github.com/revanced
| ranguna wrote:
| Just a small correction: it's not "YouTube" ReVenced, it's
| just ReVenced. ReVenced is a group dedicated to patching
| apps, but the group itself doesn't provide any patched apps.
|
| It does provide this app to patch other apps:
| https://github.com/ReVanced/revanced-manager
| earthling8118 wrote:
| The app functionality definitely isn't as good, but the
| installation process for Vanced was abysmal. NewPipe just
| installs itself and is good to go. That has a lot of value.
| deadfece wrote:
| Newpipe tip for people studying via YT videos: use the speed
| adjustment and enable skip silence.
| linuxhansl wrote:
| Been using this one forever. It's pretty good. Every now and then
| Youtube changes something in their API, then Newpipe usually
| needs to a day or two to adjust.
| autoexec wrote:
| Sometimes it's been several weeks (partly the fault of
| F-Droid's repo), but it's worth waiting. I refuse to watch
| youtube using youtube these days.
| themk wrote:
| Newpipe publish their own f-droid repo. No need to wait.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Anything new here?
|
| (2022)
|
| Some previous discussion last year
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30449570
| m1keil wrote:
| Honestly, if there is one reason to use this app is because it
| allows you to share video with timestamp unlike the official
| Youtube app that is still unable to do that in 2023.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| I wanted to listen to youtube videos while working out. Couldn't
| figure out the default youtube player to let me do that. This
| worked first time I tried. Supper happy. Thanks.
| Justsignedup wrote:
| I found NP was having trouble keeping up, meanwhile youtube
| revanced has been amazing.
| smrtinsert wrote:
| I need a replacement for baconreader if there's something in the
| vein
| aantix wrote:
| I'm looking for an iOS client that will allow me to block certain
| keywords from being displayed as recommendations?
|
| E.g. Minecraft, mrbeast, etc
|
| I want my kids to watch something other than their hundredth
| Minecraft walkthrough, screaming YouTuber video..
| krupan wrote:
| Just block YouTube, your kids will find other things to do. If
| you find a good video then watch it with them on your device
| aantix wrote:
| Feels like an opportunity lost.
|
| I want them to explore on their own, including online
| content.
|
| I just want the topics for videos to be more diverse.
| sannysanoff wrote:
| been there. If you block something, they downgrade to
| something even worse, each bloody time.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| YT is built to pigeon-hole, profile, and surveil the user;
| diversity of content is not a goal. Despite the wide
| library.
| coldtrait wrote:
| Things like these are what keep me from switching to iOS. And
| apps like Instander for Instagram etc.
| qwertox wrote:
| Is there somewhere a curated list of good YouTube channels, since
| the recommendation engine of YT won't work with these apps (or at
| least I guess that they won't work with them)?
|
| Like a RSS with a channel list containing channels like Jeff
| Geerling, Code to the Moon, Jon Gjengset, Everyday Astronaut and
| the like?
| maxglute wrote:
| Best part of new pipe is setting up channel groups, which default
| youtube really needs. But annoyng you can't play channel as
| playlist.
| flowenworld wrote:
| Ok
| Roark66 wrote:
| Don't forget about android TV :-)
|
| There is SmartTubeNext with ad/sponsor block and most importantly
| it let's you remove shorts, news, games, music, transmissions.
| And it is open source.
| _joel wrote:
| I use this daily and it's been an absolute breath of fresh air,
| making youtube actually watchable.
| iamflimflam1 wrote:
| It's surprising how many people in the comments don't want
| adverts, don't want sponsorship AND don't want to pay anything
| for content.
| eimrine wrote:
| I would like to pay YT/creators with my own PC with several TB
| disk space and 100Mbps connection (even 1Gbps inside country)
| which might host some videos by the network's choice.
| piaste wrote:
| Nonsense. Blocking internet ads is simply the 21st century
| version of changing channels during commercial breaks.
| r0ckarong wrote:
| It's the old problem of I don't care about anything that you
| advertised to me, don't care about most of the content that is
| eating your budget and simply won't stand for being called a
| criminal after being the reason you are a thing in the first
| place. You're trying to get my money, I'm trying to get your
| content. We both cheat. That's always been the game.
| 5ersi wrote:
| So if a store is trying to sell products, and you try to
| steal them, you are both cheating?
| gobip wrote:
| If I come to your house, destroy your door, steal your
| mom's dinner for 4 ppl, are we both cheating?
|
| How about we compare with something actually worth
| comparing for? For example switching channels when there's
| the ad break, or turning the sound off, etc.
|
| When I download something, I'm not "stealing it". When I
| block an ad, I'm not stealing either. I didn't remove 10$
| from Google's bank account that was there before.
| HeavyStorm wrote:
| If you don't pay your electric bills you never removed
| money from where it was before. Does it now applies?
| CivBase wrote:
| I signed a contract with my local power company, which I
| would be breaking if I did not pay them. I signed no such
| contract with Internet Historian.
|
| That said, I appreciate it when content creators provide
| alternative ways to support them. I support dozens of
| creators with monthly donations and I occasionally buy
| merchandise when they're selling something I'm interested
| in. Just don't waste my time with ads.
| tcfhgj wrote:
| the store is donating me products with an ad flyer
| _heimdall wrote:
| This a a very different situation. Stores are selling
| products or services, and they explicitly put prices on the
| products.
|
| Content available freely online is much different, as there
| is no price and at best the hope is that the consumer sees
| an ad or sponsorship and that the content creator has
| accurate analytics as to how many saw the ads.
|
| Your analogy would be more akin to someone stealing access
| to paywalled content somehow. In that case a price was put
| on the content and someone took if anyway, much like
| shoplifting.
| Dlanv wrote:
| Video streaming sites have a cost to create.
|
| The price is ads or paying for a paid service like
| YouTube premium.
|
| So you're still stealing, you just convince yourself it's
| ok, and that's fine.
| _heimdall wrote:
| I'm not saying that ad blocking isn't stealing, there
| could be a case for that especially if T&Cs specifically
| require that ads aren't skipped, blocked, or avoided.
|
| My only point there was that shoplifting and ad blocking
| are very different things. Stores don't make their
| products freely available to anyone willing to walk past
| enough ads along the way.
| erremerre wrote:
| If you go to the store on summer to enjoy the aircon, but
| you dont buy anything, because you just go there with a
| book and read your book and leave.
|
| Are you stealing?
|
| The aircon have a cost. Cold fresh air cost electricity
| that costs money.
|
| The price is to buy stuff from the shopping centre, that
| gives money to the stores that pay a rent price for the
| local that pays for the aircon bill.
| zlg_codes wrote:
| Stealing, ie theft, requires that you deprive another
| person of the benefit of their property.
|
| This is precisely why we cannot compare copying to
| stealing.
| r0ckarong wrote:
| Ah the old "physical objects work the same as digital
| copies" argument. Yes I would download a car. You can still
| drive yours. I was trying to pay you for use of the car but
| you insisted I drive around your deadbeat family and pay
| for the drive through that I don't eat.
| zlg_codes wrote:
| What is being stolen in the case of a Youtube stream
| without an ad?
| globular-toast wrote:
| Why would I want to pay for anything? Consumers generally seek
| the lowest possible price. That's how economics works.
|
| YouTube wouldn't be what it is if it wasn't "free".
|
| I do pay for my internet connection and bandwidth. But
| obviously I found the best possible deal.
|
| There is the busking model and I do choose to contribute a
| small amount to a small number of creators that I can tell put
| a lot of cash and effort into their uploads. But YouTube
| premium would cost more than all of those and I'd be paying
| into a monopoly, paying for MrBeast and other worthless crap
| and no longer paying the aforementioned creators.
| _joel wrote:
| | YouTube wouldn't be what it is if it wasn't "free".
|
| People forget Gopher was around before WWW and wanted to
| charge for commercial entities. If they'd not done that then
| the outcome of the internet would have been different (imho)
|
| https://www.nic.funet.fi/pub/vms/networking/gopher/gopher-
| so...
| cjmcqueen wrote:
| Hiding behind theories of consumer behavior is not an excuse
| for immoral actions. Open source was never meant to be the
| place where open theft and piracy should thrive. And, the
| Robinhood sentiment isn't really applicable here because
| you're stealing from creators. YouTube may be owned by a
| multi billion dollar corporation, but it does support and
| bootstrapped a vibrant creator community. The more time we
| spend stealing content that should be supported by ads or a
| paid subscription the less effective we make that economy. If
| we want to do good here, pay some of your favorite creators
| with a tip, or merch, or specifically sub to their channel.
| Or, even better, come up with ways creators get paid more.
| Subverting ads is a downward spiral for things to work better
| for consumers and creators.
| zlg_codes wrote:
| Ads are not an important part of society. They're a crowbar
| cooked up by companies to barge into your daily life, as if
| they deserve to be seen and heard just because they want
| your money!
|
| We need to cut middlemen out of the problem. 'creators' and
| 'influencers' and shit should find ways to make money from
| their fans directly.
|
| Patreon, Flattr, gittip, etc are ways to achieve this.
|
| Companies have no more right to communication than the rest
| of us, and they don't deserve any social or legal
| protection for the time and attention they waste in society
| daily from their incessant marketing.
| yread wrote:
| If you get people hooked by being free you can't be surprised
| they want it to be free
| HeavyStorm wrote:
| It's still free, you're not paying for anything.
| Difwif wrote:
| I would rather not watch anything than watch ads. The cost
| of watching ads is my sanity.
| Dlanv wrote:
| Then pay for ad removal
| lrvick wrote:
| Paid ad removal is not possible without signing up for
| more tracking. Pass.
| crashmat wrote:
| But why would i pay when i could get it for free?
| zlg_codes wrote:
| Youtube is not entitled to money. If they want money,
| they can provide a service worth paying for.
|
| Are you guys sure you understand business and economics?
| So much entitlement among corporations. The money doesn't
| belong to them.
| high_5 wrote:
| Time (I watch the ad) is money.
| sh79 wrote:
| YT went too far from being fair for consumers personally.
| Google cuts off monetization almost randomly at times, creators
| then have to embed the ads directly into their video, bypassing
| Google's ad platform and inconsistent monetization terms, the
| consumers now have to watch through Google's ads and creator's
| ads. I'm paying Google for YT premium to get rid of its ads,
| there's no alternative to get rid of shit the creator decides
| to sell out for. And there should be no sponsorship deals in
| the first place, since Google should be paying them. So I feel
| justified to use SponsorBlock.
| adonese wrote:
| Yes, absolutely fair tbh.
|
| Bit of context: grew up in Sudan, with embargo and us sanction
| (also Cuba and Iran and lately Syria), there was not even a
| possibility to pay for these subscriptions, torrent and modded
| apps were the viable options (also economical factors).
|
| Another benefits to that: while I was in Sudan, I didn't even
| have to use so many ad blocks, major ads providers (Google and
| fb) blocked Sudan and that was absolutely great!
|
| I don't mind paying to services, but it should definitely
| factor in economical status per each country
| severus_snape wrote:
| I don't want ads all over my screen when I browse the web. It
| doesn't mean I don't want to pay for content (I do pay). If ads
| were all blocked, websites would charge for content, and I
| believe people would pay. I would. I'm glad to pay for a better
| quality of life and less consumerism. Meanwhile I use NewPipe
| and uBlock Origin which I believe have a good impact on this
| society.
| cjmcqueen wrote:
| It's easy to pay for YouTube premium and remove ads. So why
| not do that?
| lrvick wrote:
| I for one do not because I do not have a Google account,
| and do not want one, because I do not consent to their data
| harvesting practices or give money to surveillance
| capitalism corporations.
|
| When I can pay creators directly with anonymous
| microtransactions, I will.
| wg0 wrote:
| Isn't that... Bit selfish?
|
| Also, let's start a competing service. How to pay for...
| Bandwidth alone? Forget about talented engineers or anything
| else.
|
| Maybe it's a strong word but choking the revenue stream but
| still getting the fruits of it - there's another word for it.
|
| One way to choke the revenue stream would be not to watch at
| all.
|
| I don't pay for YouTube but it's the most useful web property.
| Arguably alongside Wikipedia.
| lrvick wrote:
| Download bandwidth can be paid for by re-sharing content with
| peers via upload bandwidth. It works for millions of people
| torrenting content right now.
|
| Once you remove ads and the ability to track and target
| people, peer to peer works. Add anonymous microtransactions
| to creators and you end up with LBRY.
| lrvick wrote:
| There are zero payment methods available for those of us who
| opt out of surveillance capitalism, and we refuse to be
| excluded from culture either, so we consume content for free
| and without ads until alternatives emerge.
|
| LBRY has the right idea with microtransactions.
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| I don't mind LTT-style sponsorships that are relevant and
| neatly presented as part of the video, but randomly jump
| cutting to a car insurance ad just ruins the experience and
| it's easy to see why people would block these.
|
| My (at the time) 2 year old daughter actually cried the first
| time she saw an ad on the YouTube app.
| 14 wrote:
| Not to mention the content that many teens and kids obviously
| watch is being bombarded with ads for all sorts of things.
| red_admiral wrote:
| There's at least three kinds of videos on Youtube and friends.
|
| The first are ones not related to making money in any way,
| someone doing their thing "for fun" or similar.
|
| The second are ones where it might be someone's "day job" but
| the money isn't coming in through youtube ads. For example, a
| band putting their songs online for essentially free because
| money comes from fans going to concerts, buying CDs, or
| merchandise. Having the videos available essentially for free
| means that more people can discover the music and maybe become
| paying fans. Or a cook who's brought out their own book showing
| some of the recipes online hoping that people will buy the
| book. Or a martial arts school putting videos of some training
| or contests online hoping among other things that people will
| join up for real.
|
| The third are the "content creator" ones where the author's
| whole business is the videos themselves and the ads are their
| primary revenue stream. It's not that there aren't some really
| good offerings in this space - there are - but if the choice is
| Youtube with the full ads/tracking/targeting soup or not at
| all, my life will carry on without this category.
| cwassert wrote:
| The fact that you find this noteworthy shows how deeply
| ingrained capitalism is in your thought process. You are unable
| to think anything outside of it is possible.
| qweqwe14 wrote:
| People click on the video for actual content and will always
| try to remove other stuff.
|
| It's not shocking, it's not surprising, it's pretty rational to
| do that if you think about it for 2 seconds. This is a solved
| topic, I really don't understand why people keep bringing this
| up.
|
| If you are mad about people skipping your boring sponsorship
| segments -- paywall your stuff already or stop complaining. Or
| better yet, find non-intrusive ways to monetize your content
| instead of relying on same old methods that became
| unsustainable years ago.
| zlg_codes wrote:
| Do you have a better idea? The service isn't worth paying for
| and they'll STILL spy on you and serve ads, after taking your
| money.
|
| Ads do nothing but waste the viewer's time and piss them off.
| Sponsorships are fine, but what moral or ethical right does ANY
| business have to force any terms on visitors?
|
| Sure, use whatever technical means you want to control your
| site, but it's not a moral failing of others that a business
| can't put together a healthy and mutually beneficial business
| model.
|
| It turns out modern tech businesses are just shit. I wouldn't
| buy basically _anything_ on offer in this market due to the
| total obliteration of trust in the market.
|
| You literally cannot trust a Western or US tech company to not
| try dragging a net over everything you do to gleam some psych
| data to manipulate.
|
| The best way to get my money is offering a solid product to me
| that you cannot take away after the fact with cheap parlor
| tricks like DRM.
| jiffygist wrote:
| I enjoy using newpipe for streaming music and podcasts on a
| phone. However I feel like nothing has changed for a while. My
| wishlist: viewing replies, after clicking on a timestamp it
| should stay in background mode (now it switches to popup), do not
| stack videos (back button should return to main page), searching
| within history, incognito mode.
| b3nji wrote:
| What do you guys think to GrayJay? Following the creators, not
| the platforms. I'm told sponser block is in the works too.
|
| https://grayjay.app/
| lrvick wrote:
| When it is open source and available on Linux I am sold.
| harvie wrote:
| Youtube seems to be quite efficient with blocking all opensource
| players. They change the API regulary on purpose. Never had such
| app working longer than few weeks.
| lrvick wrote:
| Been using FreeTube daily for the last few years. They stay on
| top of it.
| randomdev3 wrote:
| Paying $1 to a creator earn them more than all the ads you would
| watch during your lifetime. Applies to websites also.
|
| But noone wants to pay.
| severus_snape wrote:
| I pay. People pay, stop saying no one wants to pay, it's wrong.
| One example that comes in mind is Wikipedia: no ads, people
| pay.
| cjmcqueen wrote:
| Google and other companies that use Wikipedia pay a lot more
| than "people".
| szszrk wrote:
| That's just plain lie.
|
| There is A LOT o f creators supported by pure money donations
| from individual creators, or mostly by those. A lot of them
| support themselves by selling merch. Which is nothing new, as
| nowadays a lot of small/medium size bands live of selling
| merch.
|
| When a major Polish radio, legendary 3rd national radio
| channel, went to shit after several decades (fired important
| staff and dummed down offer) people literally crowdfunded a
| full successor, with same famous presenters and so on. When
| that one started to push weird agenda to much and diverged from
| original goals... There was another one crowdfunded, pulled a
| lot of other major famous personell, and runs as a huge project
| successfully from Patreon donations.
|
| These examples are not even unique.
| OOPMan wrote:
| If you want this on PC there is FreeTube.
| holysantamaria wrote:
| Being cheap can ruin your life. Stop it, get some help.
| qweqwe14 wrote:
| Enjoy paying for stuff you don't need, I guess
| BigElephant wrote:
| I prefer to use revanced. I noticed that newpipe sometimes had
| issues playing videos while revanced can play the same video with
| no problem
| crazygringo wrote:
| Now that Google is cracking down on adblockers, are any 3rd-party
| apps like this going to survive? I'm assuming Google's going to
| do things to break them.
|
| Which makes me worried about yt-dlp as well -- sometimes I
| download educational videos and other useful content I'm worried
| might get deleted, and with the crackdown on adblockers, I'm
| worried the ability to download videos will just completely cease
| to exist.
| t0mk wrote:
| This. Newpipe is great, but I'm surprised every month to see it
| working. I can't imagine Google pushing out adblockers and
| allowing apps like newpipe to work.
|
| Maybe it's not used as much as adblockers yet.
| jpereira wrote:
| I would love an alternative client that works with a YouTube
| Premium subscription. I'm happy to pay for no adds, I just want a
| UI that respects my attention and intentions as well.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-05 23:01 UTC)