Based on the description, it looks like it’s designed to be able to block or allow 3rd party stuff on webpages. For example, it looks like, if you wanted to, you could block Twitter embeds from loading in a given news article. I imagine it can also block hidden 3rd party stuff, too, the kind that you only notice if you look at the network tab in the browser’s console.

You don’t. They do not accept donations, and instead recommend donating to blocklist authors.

Good point. And it wouldn’t surprise me if google was still using YTP subscriber viewing data to target them on other platforms and websites. Actually, I’d be surprised if they weren’t doing that.

oof.

Sure, but for now you can still go through the settings and disable that whitelist

ok, i honestly had no idea, i am just happy with ubo.

That is true and false. Adblock plus takes money

so, it is true then.

If adblockers would allow ads that adhere to the acceptable ads criteria, the world would be a better place. Less paywals, less ads and maybe some companies would pay their employees a little bit more.

I disagree. The system may have began in earnest goodwill, but financial incentive inevitably erodes goodwill. ABP becomes incentivized to adapt its definition of “acceptable” based on potential revenues they stand to gain from increasingly persuasive advertisers. Your vision of a better world under this system is at best temporary.

The alternative model, simply paying for goods and services directly, is a far more robust solution.

All Ads Are Bastards.

AdBlock Plus takes money to whitelist ads.

This is true and false, for in fact, you see, AdBlock Plus takes money to whitelist ads.

???

Using proper ad-blockers that actually let you block ads and not just some that they don’t get paid to show, is no more stealing than me walking away from the TV during commercials (if I still had flow TV). It’s just more convenient for me. If I can not use a site without allowing their shitty ads, they can go fuck themselves, I will go somewhere else.

I’d also happily pay for content, if the prices they charged were reasonable. But greed always gets In the way and subscriptions just go up-up-up, manipulative pricing strategies that change the prices according to number of views etc. just to keep that infinite growth going. Companies that incorporate those kind of things can go to hell.

I would hardly call any of this steeling, The authors of the articles and the people needed to maintain the website are not being given the full value of there labor, they are already being stollen from, I do not care if the big company cannot make as much money, there profit is the theft of employee wages

Even if you go with the “acceptable” part of that whole thing it’s still shady.

It’s one thing to boycott ads as an individual user (and to “steal” ad revenue from websites) but a completely different thing if you run an external service that steals (without quotation marks) from the revenue pool.

This has to be satire. Greed is not compatible with moderation.

Out of curiosity, what was your CEO and other executives making while claiming “it’s cause ad blockers”?

You delivered some good points. I also work with publishers.

Ad blockers have had an impact, but I think the bigger driver is that premium demand has migrated spending to connected TV (CTV, showing ads on an Internet connected large screen). Publishers just don’t get the rates they used to for web and mobile inventory, even if they’re doing everything right.

I think when another trendy channel like AI ads straight to your brain or whatever pops up we will see another migration.

That depends on how many people are in the family and how many people are paying their fair share. Odds are that the children won’t pay because, well, they’re children. Teenagers might pay their way depending on if they have a job or not. And many households only have one primary source of income (with maybe a side job providing just a little extra). Which means most people would probably be footing the bill themselves for the whole family.

The problem with Revanced is the installation. Most users don’t want hear “go to the GitHub” or “definitely don’t get it from the .io site because that’s malware” which is an install I’ve seen linked on Reddit.

On mobile I use NewPiped. Different UI, and it’s not perfect, but it works more as an RSS feed (with optional recommendations), so no algorithm trying its best to get as much attention from you as possible.

I don’t. Stopped working on my tv, my PC Firefox, mobile everything.

For some reason I have ublock and have it set to on when I’m on YouTube, but it doesn’t do anything. I still get ads.

I don’t. Ever

Recently? I deleted new pipe off my phone like a week or two ago cause it wasn’t working

And shares revenue with content creators.

THEY FUCKING WHAT.

I can die now. I’ve seen peak hypocrisy.

They did. If I remember right it actually started with them kissing the Google ring first.

Correct, but you should donate to the list maintainers, not the enemy.

I really don’t agree with this. AdBlock Plus is a technically inferior, directly competing standard that sucks up to advertisers by doing something only marginally less scummy than taking bribes to look the other way. These two extensions are both licensed under the GPLv3, but I seriously doubt Gorhill, the developer of uBlock Origin, sees much if any benefit from ABP’s source code. uBO uses ABP’s filter list syntax, but if ABP ceased to exist, the lists would work just the same.

If ABP had their way, they would monopolize adblocking as effectively a protection racket, and being given funding to create that sort of ecosystem is toxic to an open Internet. Giving ABP any money is worse than losing it down a sewer grate. uBO at this point in time should be the only adblocking extension anyone is using, because it’s the one that’s actually working toward a better Internet.

Ublock origin FTW

There is no such thing as bad publicity.

There’s Yattee. Open Source and works quite well.

In the short term it ought to make money for advertisers like Google from those who choose to place ads, but ideally in the long-term, it loses them money by dramatically devaluing clickthroughs if enough people use it.

I don’t necessarily know if this is true, though, and whatever case, it seems like AdNauseum’s mission statement is to prevent profiling by blanket clicking everything, not to devalue ads. I just don’t personally use it because I’m content with blocking everything and don’t foresee much personal benefit in AdNauseum.