I know the topic of whether adblock is piracy is debated, but I am guessing there are a lot of adblock users here and I was wondering if anyone has seen the youtube adblock warning message in the wild. I use ublock origin and still haven’t seen it once.
I know the topic of whether adblock is piracy is debated
Its not debated. Its bullshit.
flat earthers existing doesnt put the earth’s sensual curves up for debate either.
It’s Cybersecurity.
100%
Absolutely.
Adblocking is good cybersecurity practice. It puts into stark relief how much of Marketing is actually just manipulation and malware.
deleted by creator
Don’t give them any ideas. lol Otherwise, cable boxes around the world are likely to receive a firmware update that blocks you from changing channels during commercials.
All future displays will have built in cameras that start dimming and turn off the screen if it notices you aren’t paying attention. They’ll say it is a power saving feature, but not put in an option to disable it.
This kinda already exists. There’s that smart tv you can get for free by agreeing to built-in ads via a display underneath the main one or something. LTT discussed it recently; I think I saw a WAN show clip about it.
Edit: Found the clip I was thinking of, this goes into decent detail on this.
That’s creepy.
We officially live in a Cyberpunk dystopia, and I am 100% here for it. Ride the synthwave, choom.
When it comes in exchange for rocket legs I will concede.
Exactly. You’re being fed HTML etc and then deciding how to render it (or part of it in the case of ad blocking). This isn’t piracy. There’s no rules that come with the HTML in terms of how to render it. Different browsers can render it a number of different ways so how is not rendering part of it any different?
It is indeed a ludicrous idea.
Please drink verification can.
Agreed. People need to stop giving that ridiculous idea market share in their head.
It’s one of Lienus’s L takes. People are giving it the benefit of a doubt because he has a huge following.
I started parroting “using a VPN to bypass region block is privateering” in response. LMG taking any VPN sponsorships after that L take is hypocrisy in my book.
Yeah it’s even more ridiculous when you apply this logic to sponsored segments.
It’s an ad, I skip it by seeking in the video, therefore it is piracy?
Also, people get arrested and fined for piracy where I live (because it is, well, illegal), so people blocking ads should go to prison?
When the face of LMG talks about things like this in a main channel video they should look into the consequences of the opinion they present.Excuse the language, but what the actual fuck was Linus thinking?
Like what is the actual end goal here?
Linus says people should be punished for blocking ads, and the best way he thinks it should be executed is by law enforcement? Last time I checked that is how illegal actions are usually handled.Why hyprocisy? It’s a fair point to say circumventing paying in some way is piracy. It’s possible, so anyone can decide for themselves.
The hypocrisy lies in Linus preaching “ad blocking is piracy” while taking VPN sponsors which enables piracy in another way.
Gotta work on that reading comprehension friend.
LTT also did videos about PiHole and YouTube Vanced, so I personally don’t think it’s hypocrisy advertising VPN’s (as long as those VPN ads don’t lie about it’s benefits).
I do believe that Linus once again uses words in ways not commonly used. I.e. if they define piracy as
consuming content without paying how the creator intended
then blcoking ads is piracy. But the commonly used definition is more like wikipedia’s
[…] Online piracy or software piracy is the practice of downloading and distributing copyrighted works digitally without permission […]
If blocking ads is enough to constitute piracy then piracy ceases to lose meaning since then every act of using any website with an Adblocker is an act of piracy. At that point piracy becomes a meaningless phrase when even the FBI endorses the piracy tool.
For Linus to insinuate that a crime is being committed by comparing it to piracy is ridiculous, since last I checked there isn’t a country where adblocking is a crime. He can argue it’s morally unfair for people to legally visit YouTube and legally not disable Adblock to view his channel, but it’s not a crime. He’s basically implying that people should be running around without Adblockers on the web, which itself is a security risk to do. But, hey blocking ads is piracy and you wouldn’t want to be a criminal would you?
I don’t remember whether Linus said blocking ads is a crime. It isn’t a crime, and that’s really important.
At that point piracy becomes a meaningless phrase when even the FBI endorses the piracy tool.
I don’t think it’s right to call something a piracy tool. We have the similar discussions about “hacking tools”. Nmap can be used for commuting crimes, just like BitTorrent, the Internet or my kitchen knifes.
With this it isn’t a problem for the FBI to promote “piracy tools”, since almost everything can be used for good and legal purposes. uBlock is one of the most important tools to be secure on the internet, just like nmap to make sure systems are secure.
He can argue it’s morally unfair for people to legally visit YouTube and legally not disable Adblock to view his channel, but it’s not a crime.
Agreed.
Yeah, I brought up the crime aspect, since piracy to me is an act where laws are being broken that can result in fines or imprisonment. Pirates were outlaws and hanged, so kind of reason why digital lawbreakers got the moniker pirate. Not really in the category of even legal malicious compliance.
Was meant to draw attention to how ridiculous it was to even label a completely legal action as an act of piracy just because he was upset about adblockers. Might as well call out Brave browser next with it blocking ads out the box.
I agree that it isn’t but I didn’t want an argument in the comments.
But it is you are using the service without “paying” for it. What would you rather call?
Another issue which is connected to labeling users “pirates” is the data caps and bandwidth throttling by mobile carriers and ISPs. Users make agreements with carriers for data and bandwidth for x.x price, but YouTube “steals” data limits and bandwidth by ads. Shouldn’t we expect them to pay us for our lost bandwidth and data caps?
It can’t be a one way street for a corporation to label users as unethical reprobates or “pirates” while he steals my paid for data limits and bandwidth.
I won’t use the term “piracy”. Just because the man says “up is down” doesn’t make it so. Piracy, historically is using threat of force and/or harm to force capitulation. In history past, pirates would fire across the bow to allow the target to choose to fight/flee or capitulate and pay the pirates, which is extortion. Technically, ransomware hackers are, by the historical definition, the true pirates. Individuals watching videos without ads is, by definition, individuals watching videos without ads.
People typically associate piracy with actions that can land individuals in legal trouble due to it being law breaking. I don’t know that there is a country yet that sentences people for using Adblocker. Even the FBI recommends it.
Like I can see how companies don’t like people consuming their service without seeing ads, but this isn’t people copying or cracking and stealing account credentials to get access to something that is paywalled like some Netflix account. This is a flaw on their end and people are accessing it legally.
It’s like some drive in theater getting mad someone who lives across from there can just watch movies from their backyard without paying and then saying they are committing piracy. They aren’t sneaking into a theater.
Service is still paid for with user’s data, including the datapoint: is intolerant of ads.
Google must be fucking salivating at the prospect of manifest v3 going live and adblockers being gimped.
I wish more people would switch to Firefox.
Hi, could you give me a brief on how manifest v3 will help Google disable the blocking of advertisements?
It changes how extensions work in Chrome (and derived browsers), notably it modifies the API that adblockers use to block requests and dramatically restricts the number of rules they can support. It’s a change pretty clearly designed to limit the scope of adblockers and make it easier for companies like Google to work around them.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/chrome-users-beware-manifest-v3-deceitful-and-threatening
Which would mean that Brave and Ungoogled-Chromium won’t work as well anymore
Brave have said they’ll retain support for Manifest v2, but realistically that’s likely to be non-trivial amounts of work, and get harder as their upstream codebase moves away from it and the internals get switched over from the old webRequest mechanism.
They’ll have to patch things manually to keep it working, which is likely to get harder and harder. If Google want to make it hard for them to retain support, they can do so.
At some point they may not have the resources to keep doing that and might have to decide between forking the codebase and losing manifest v2. If they fork then they’ll have a load more work to do in backporting security changes etc.
They’ll also have to find a way to retain the old manifest v2 versions of extensions, as they’ll disappear from the Chrome store. Might mean maintaining a separate store. The authors might not care enough to maintain a Brave version of their extensions.
All in all it’s not great path forward for Brave. At best they’ll have an increased maintenance burden. At worst it gives Google the power to force them to drop Manifest v2 or be overwhelmed by maintenance. But this is what we get for handing an effective monopoly to Google.
Switch to Firefox!
I’d love it if Brave eventually starts building off Firefox just so there’s another browser out there that isn’t built on Chromium.
Which would be pretty funny, since the Brave CEO only started the project, because he got booted off Firefox (Mozilla) for being an asshole.
Good thing I primarily use Librewolf on PC, but I’m using Brave on Mobile. Unfortunately, I believe even Bromite is based on chromium.
Firefox on mobile is likely not going to have all of the privacy features of librewolf. I’m waiting for someone to make the port, I’ll switch ASAP
In short, Google limits extension API access, which blocks extensions like uBlock Origin from reaching their full potential. Firefox doesn’t.
ReVanced and Newpipe on mobile, SmartTube on TV, uBlock origin on Vivaldi and LibreWolf (currently in the middle of switching).
Seen nothing on any of those. They’re all working flawlessly, for now.
Mozilla Firefox + ublock = flawless experience.
I think it’s in A/B testing right now, maybe you haven’t gotten it?
Youtube’s ad policy is abusive, and online ads are not always safe. Regardless of whether adblocking is legal or fair to Youtube, not doing so puts you at greater risk of malware insertion so is a necessary safety precaution.
As YouTube profits from your engagement through more than ads, YouTube still benefits even when you watch videos without ads.
I really don’t see how adblockers would ever be illegal, that sounds like an absolute dystopia.
Edit: downvoted with 0 counter-arguments. Classic.
Personally, I don’t see how YouTube can be abusive. It is their platform and they can do whatever they want with it. It is your choice if you use it or not. If you think the ads are out of control, you can pay for their subscription or use free services.
If content creators are uploading their videos there, it is because YouTube can pay them more than other platforms… Thanks to the ads. So it’s not like there aren’t other options out there, it’s just that YouTube pays content creators more. Free market.
You’re getting an endless amount of information backed by amazing engineers that designed a service that never goes down and loads 4K videos at incredible speeds worldwide for millions of users concurrently… At the price of a few minutes of your life per day. Seems fair. They are not denying you the access to the information. They are using that money to pay content creators fairly so they are incentiviced to create more content that you can enjoy.
YouTube is a high quality service. Why is it bad to give them something back for the high quality service you’re receiving? It’s not like this is a mediocre click bait article with 50 ads attacking your screen. Plus, you’re also giving back to the content creators. If you didn’t like the content, you can downvote them or report them to tweak the algorithm.
It’s abusive because a 2min video will have 30sec of ads its absolute bullshit and worse than even cable fuckery.
And I’m really, REALLY sick if seeing this idiotic argument of company X can do anything they want, because free market.
This isn’t even youtube specific but I absolutely disagree with that line of reasoning. That same argument is used by people whenever a company does shady shit.
No company just materialized out of thin air pulling themselves out of the ether, they all exist and thrive because of the community WE all created! Our public infrastructure, education, tax codes and million other things WE contributed allows any corporation to exist at all.
So no, corporations don’t get to just do whatever the fuck they want, because “market”.
I personally would pay for YouTube for a reasonable price and 10$/month ain’t it. I don’t want youtube music or whatever shit they are bundling with it.
Yes, corporations get to do whatever they want with their property. If you don’t like it, you can choose other services, nobody is forcing you to stay there.
Well, if it is abusive or not will be determined by the majority of people. If their numbers start going down because of this, they’ll act on it. If not, it means the majority of people are willing to see the ads to get to the content. People also complained when YouTube implemented ads in the beginning, very short ones. Clearly, the majority of people were fine with it. Free market, supply & demand.
Personally, I run away from ads so I don’t use YouTube that much. I watch Veritasiun and 3Blue1Brown mostly and every time I see an ad come up, I like it because I know I’m giving money to the dudes giving me great content. It’s my way of giving back.
And I get to do what I want with my property. I don’t want ads on my screen, so I block them.
And they can do anything they want with their property so they’ll block you if you do that.
But that is the point!! Don’t use their service man, nobody is forcing you :)
There are many forms of entertainment out there, you’re not tied to any of them. Be free, enjoy your life.
They haven’t blocked me so I guess they’re ok with it.
Nobody forces me, but I choose to. Just like I choose not to watch the ads.
They’re still doing canary testing. Eventually they’ll block accounts from users that use adblock after they get a warning.
So you’ll have to choose if you want to keep using the service with ads or move on to something new. And the great news is that it is totally your choice and you’re free to make it.
Alright so you’ve literally just ignored everything I’ve said. Got it. Have a good day.
Well, if it is abusive or not will be determined by the majority of people. If their numbers start going down because of this, they’ll act on it. If not, it means the majority of people are willing to see the ads to get to the content.
This is logical nonsense. If their numbers don’t go down, that doesn’t make their actions not abusive, it simply indicates that people are willing to put up with the abuse (because they get enough value out of the platform despite the abuse). Whether it is abusive or not is not a numbers game.
People also complained when YouTube implemented ads in the beginning, very short ones. Clearly, the majority of people were fine with it.
This means that people still derived enough value from the platform, despite the ads. That is, stopping using the platform would be more of a net loss than accepting ads on the platform. And yet, this doesn’t have anything to do with whether it is an abusive practice or not.
In fact, you’re touching on something here: ads were initially very brief and intermittent; they’ve gotten progressively worse and more invasive and so, just as boiling a frog, you can’t take peoples’ acceptance of the situation at face value. If you’ve conditioned someone to put up with (worsening) abuse, their seeming acceptance of the situation doesn’t mean you aren’t being abusive.
So please give me the objective definition of what is abusive. Because in my book that is totally subjective. I just told you they created an almost perfect service that let’s you stream infinite amounts of information with zero downtime and minimal buffer times, and they are asking a few minutes of your time per day, so they can make a profit and pay fairly to content creators and very smart engineers.
For me that is fair. For you, that’s abusive. Who is right? You because you agree with yourself?
I’m not sure if you’re constructing a strawman or if you think you’re replying to someone else.
I didn’t say whether or not it’s abusive.
All I said was that your logic of “if their user count doesn’t go down it’s not abuse” is bullshit. I went on to bring up the “boiling the frog scenario” to further explain how users can become accustomed to abuse.
OK, let’s start from scratch then. The person who replied to my comment said it was abusive. “Abusive” is totally subjective, how can we know if this is abusive or not? You’re right, numbers might not reflect this but they do show if they think the content is worth watching the ads.
For me, it isn’t worth it so I almost never use YouTube, but I don’t think it is abusive. It’s a really high quality service with incredible engineering.
So there’s no point in talking in subjective terms, people will always disagree. Let’s just wait and see if people still want to use their platform after the change. If they do, that is their decision, they are free to make a choice. There are many video streaming platforms out there. Just not as high quality as YouTube. They also don’t have as much content because content creators want to receive ad money.
My guy you’re posting on a piracy community.
Yeha and pirates say that content should be free and accessible, and that’s why piracy is ethical. YouTube is providing a way to keep content available for everyone while keeping a business running for millions of people around the globe.
Just look at all the posts in this community saying that piracy is THE ethical way.
So, they fucking hate it when content is paywalled and say that this is awful because content should be free for poor people. But they also hate it when content is free and they have to watch ads. They just hate every sustainable business model. Wtf.
This is just communism in disguise. They want private effort for free and hassle free anytime, anywhere. Probably looking at it on their Iphones or Samsung phones. Thst they were able to purchase because they were paid for their work.
gestures around I’m not sure if you know this, but you’re on Lemmy, not Reddit or Gab.
Are you implying I’m far right? If so, you’re so wrong. I’m not far left either.
They are literally giving them the content for free. FOR FREE!
But no… “watching ads!?? For a 4K stream with machine learning generated captions for accessibility, multi-language subtitles, minimal buffer time and worldwide low latency? Are they INSANE! They are exploiting us! We are the victims of a corporation! Everything should be totally free and ad-free for us to enjoy anytime from our Iphones. Also, don’t forget to give me my paycheck in time because I’m also anti-work and it is abusive if I don’t get paid a fair wage for my effort, you cheap corporate pig”.
No, I’m just pointing out the community you’re talking about. This is a piracy community, on Lemmy. If you’re surprised that this specific community is hostile to your arguments, I’m not sure what you were expecting.
Addressing the main point of your argument, the idea of the FOSS movement which many people in this community espouse is to have effectively a volunteer and donation-based society, just like Lemmy and the rest of the Fediverse. Peertube comes to mind as a specific example. For a significant portion of that population, communism and socialism are also not considered bad things. For others, the crux of their complaint is not against the monetization of content, but the degree to which said monetization interrupts their viewing experience - 30 second ads on a 10 second video, for instance, or multiple 10 second ads interspersed at 30 second intervals throughout a 2 minute video, with the lion’s share of the revenue going to YouTube and not directly to the creators - hence the creation of platforms such as Bitchute, Nebula and CuriosityStream.
And what specifically is wrong with being paid a fair wage on time for work and effort matching the job description exactly?
Then why aren’t they using these alternatives? Why does every company and place need to follow their ideals?
Your definition of communism is flawed, but I actually agree with the rest of what you’re saying. Content creators are what makes yt worthwhile, and them earning money through ads is perfectly reasonable.
YouTube has some shady practices like showing ads on videos of creators that don’t have a contract with them, meaning YouTube makes money from those creators without the creators receiving anything in return. But for the most part I think that ads on YouTube are fine.
communism is when…
people use adblockers, apparently
When they think it is morally correct, yeha. When they think piracy is morally correct and ethical, they are basically disregarding private property and private incentive. They think it is their right to have free access to information that others worked to create.
I wouldn’t have a problem if they accepted they are basically stealing, at least I’d respect that, but they won’t. They think piracy is freeing society from capitalism. If you don’t believe me, keep reading the posts in this community.
I don’t see how YouTube can be abusive
Do you also not see how a Tyrant boss that screams and belittles their employees is being abusive? The employees are free to quit and find work elsewhere right? Oh wait, freedom to avoid abusive behaviour doesn’t make that behaviour non-abusive!
I’ll also add that Youtube’s ads aren’t the only way you ‘pay’ for the service. They gobble up all the data they can glean from your interactions with them. So much data most people don’t even really understand how much they’re giving away. This data is sold sure, but it is also used to inform the algorithm on how to make the service more addictive to the users. That is to say, some of the abuse is insidious. Are drug dealers paragons of virtue when they offer free samples?
No other service advertises as obtrusively as Youtube does. Twitch comes close. The reasons they get away with this are:
-
the service is designed to be addictive, and
-
they have an effective monopoly. No other free service (and paid for that matter) comes close.
Both easily defined as abusive.
Personally, I don’t see how YouTube can be abusive. It is their platform and they can do whatever they want with it. It is your choice if you use it or not. If you think the ads are out of control, you can pay for their subscription or use free services.
Personally, I don’t see how people using adblockers can be abusive. It is their computer and they can display whatever content they want with it. It is their choice whether an ad plays on it or not. If YouTube thinks the adblockers are out of control, they can start paying people money to watch content on YouTube’s computers.
Just because you think making you watch ads make it abusive doesn’t mean it is.
Why do you hold the voice of truth? I just told you, I don’t think it is abusive because that is giving more money to content creators. If you think it is abusive, stop using the service. Also, you knew about the data they are mining and you’re still using the service. Do you think others are blind to the fact Google collects data? They just don’t care, like you.
Do you also think the husband isn’t being abusive because the battered wife let the food get cold? ‘It is not abusive because he gets a hot meal out of it’. That’s what you sound like.
So you’re saying YouTube is an abusive husband and you’re a wife who can’t get away from that relation because you’re too afraid for your life or your children’s future?
I never saw it like that. I hope YouTube doesn’t kill you or take away your children.
You’re comparing very serious cases with the most ridiculous type of dependency ever. You’re comparing an abusive employer/employee relation with YouTube making you watch ads. Holy shit. A husband beating the shit out of his wife with YouTube making you watch ads.
What’s next, are you going to compare this with African-American slavery? A level 7 intergalactic species dominating the milky way and extracting resources from defenseless planetary systems?
I really need to know what’s next.
No no, that’s what YOU sound like. Not me.
No, u
-
Also an unpopular opinion but I actually don’t mind paying for YouTube Premium to avoid the ads. Content creators get a bigger cut from my watching habits and it comes with a music streaming platform.
We are in piracy community though so it makes sense people are against paying for content that once upon a time was completely free.
But despite paying still remain the product since Google is still data mining users instead of opting paid users out. And doesn’t have options like sponsorblock built in, dislikes returned, or ability to combine subscriptions into custom groups.
I feel you could get the annual cost and divide it among channels you want to give the money and that’d be more money for them. Like I don’t see the official YouTube app being a better app than third parties personally.
Even YouTube front ends I’ve found better than the official YouTube site, since they can bypass region blocks.
Totally agree with you, but they need to make an Ad free only subscription. YouTube Premium is more of a package deal (Ad Free/ YT Music/High bitrate).
Spotify used to have a tier called Spotify Unlimited which basically was essentially ad free Spotify with no other premium features. Half the price £5 per month.
100%
I feel they’d make more money that way too. I’d pay for YT but I don’t because I love Spotify, so I feel like I’m paying for something I already have.
And people would still complain about the cost.
I disagree with the “it’s their platform” argument, but I definitely agree with you that people should stop complaining about YouTube ads so much.
They give you an option to both remove the ads and support the creators you watch. They support billions of hours worth of content watching each year and millions of hours of content storage, across the world, for free if you so choose. Seems quite generous.
I’d bet most people watch YouTube almost as much as Netflix or Hulu, again for free, and still complain about YouTube serving ads. The solution is to just pay for premium. They even give you music streaming with it anyway.
If you use uBlock origin you would never see it. I use both PiHole + uBlock origin and I would never see it lmao.
Pihole does nothing on YouTube as their ads are served on the save server as the videos.
I know, but they help with the ads on the website itself. Not the videos.
But you have ublock? It’s just redundant at that point.
Pihole works wonders for mobile apps in general. Especially games. Ublock and pihole are similar but different enough to use both. Yes, ublock is overall better for browsers. But for network wide coverage, including smart TV’S, mobile apps, iot stuff like ring cameras etc.
I agree with this since I myself use PiHole, but it is redundant on a browser which uses ublock - and that was my original point.
Piehole would be the “whole house/device” Adblock protection. Ublock is the one device Adblock. Fair to use both in my opinion.
What? PiHole doesn’t block YouTube ads yet. It’s needed. Having two Adblock’s isn’t a problem either.
It’s needed.
no it’s not. It’s convenient, but not needed. Same goes for adblockers, they are not needed, but are very convenient.
Having two Adblock’s isn’t a problem either.
Yes it is. Is there any advantage to having 4 different adblock extensions on your browser? No, it only increases the attack surface to your browser. PiHole is useful for everything but web browsing since you can use an adblocker, such as ublock origin.
It would help on other websites and on some in-app ads from mobile devices
Yes but on the same browser it is redundant.
Redundancies being a bad thing is a very capitalist point of view.
how? lol
uBlock is NOT redundant as many ads today are not served from 3rd party domains. PiHole is redundant as it doesn’t do crap.
do you realise that ublock origin blocks ads from remote domains right? Enable “I am an advanced user” and be shocked to see how many external resources it allows and blocks.
Did you even read my comment?
I think the main issue of your comment was that you may be mistaking what redundant means.
Did you read mine? Like how fucking stupid are you to just regurgitate my exact point.
But you have ublock? [PiHole] is redundant at that point
How do you know that? I’m fairly certain that google can tell if they have served you an ad, and cutting off access to their streaming services seems like a straightforward thing from their point of view. How could ublock (or anything) prevent google from blocking the stream? It’s not about blocking ads, or blocking messages to turn your adblocker off. It’s about google acknowledging that they haven’t served you an ad. You can’t force them to serve a video, I don’t think.
This “feature” is being rolled out slowly, which probably means they are taking lots of telemetry about how users try to circumvent this. It also means that just because you or I haven’t seen it does not mean we are safe against it. I’m not saying there is no solution, but I don’t think the solution is an adblocker or a sinkhole.
Interesting! So if I’m understanding correctly, the scare about YouTube stopping adblocked users was being caused by the Enhancer for Youtube extension? If so, that’s a relief.
Uhhhhh not quite, the fact that we’re probably not going to see the “stop blocking ads plz” message doesn’t mean that Youtube can’t block access to their website with an adblocker. It’s entirely possible, there are websites that already do it.
Not really. The “Enhancer for YouTube” was causing problem with the YouTube anti-block to show up. So disabling what effectively allowed uBlock to block those anti-Adblock notices. I think they now fixed the issues with “Enhancer for YouTube” extension.
It boggles my mind about but people are upset about blocking ads in a piracy group. Chill out everyone!!
They are so upset about this non-argument that they firigot to answer OPs question
I haven’t seen it because I haven’t used the default front-end in years :D
From my understanding it has only been rolled out to Chrome users so far. Anyone using adblocks with Firefox will not have seen these yet.
However to ensure you don’t, I suggest beginning your transition to some of the alternatives. I have been migrating to Piped which is essentially a scraper.
Piped ftw!
We need to block the adblock blockers…
I don’t even use browser to watch youtube vids anymore. Freetube -> mpv with sponsorblock plugin.
Freetube is basically another browser though (Chrome in a shell to only browse YouTube) with a few fancy plugins.
You can achieve all of that in a browser more or less.
I use Firefox with ublock origin and haven’t seen it yet.
I do the same. I also run pfSense with the pfBlockerNG module pulling in lists that block ad (and a tonne of other) sources. Also have a look at pihole as it can do a similar function.
DNS blocking does not block youtube ads.
OP do you perhaps use a non-Chromium based browser? Because their adblock blocking is only active on Chromium based browsers.
no. never seen (yet). and using adblock is perfectly fine.
Brave Browser works great
