If your Google account is linked with your YouTube account and you're running an ad blocker of any brand, regardless of what browser or OS you're using, YouTube immediately blocks video playback unless you disable said ad blocker or whitelist YouTube, despite the fact that, hey, ALL YOU WANT TO DO IS WATCH THE GOD DANG VIDEO, NOT A MARATHON OF ADS!!!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Oh, and that's despite the fact that YouTube's revenue is owned by, guess who? THE GOOGLE INVESTORS!!! So, the age of watching YouTube videos for free is nearing death's door mat at the moment; I mean, DUH! Hasn't that been the case since, what, TWO THOUSAND FRICKIN' NINE?!!! It's only becoming more obvious the more you look into it.
Programmers at YouTube have put together an algorithm that seeks out users who run any ad blocker and stops playback immediately forcing them to turn it off, uninstall it, whitelist it, and so on, therefore forcing garbage ads down peoples' throats with every subsequent click. Free YouTube has become Pay-Per-Click YouTube.
Here's the "So what?!" part of this - If you're running an ad blocker that YouTube hasn't caught in its dragnet yet and you haven't got that ominous "Ad blockers violate Terms of Service" message, rub 'ya damn belly for luck y'all. Perhaps you may have a work-around trick to fool the algorithm into thinking you're not running it. But like all work-arounds, the empty suits at *cough*GOOGLETube*cough* will fight back with one of their own.
Since discovering this, I've broken the link between my Google account and YouTube, and haven't had the problem since. But that may only be temporary.
I have uBlock Origin, and usually it's just a matter of doing a cache purge followed by a blocking rule update. Then the moneyfucker box goes away for a week or so, until Google decides they want to blow a few grand paying people to circumvent that too, and then the cycle of stupidity repeats.
If for some reason uBlock Origin stops working, I'm probably more apt to invest in a Pi-hole than forking over money to Google to avoid the ads. A Pi-hole is a computer you route all of your network through that does nothing but void incoming and outgoing ad data. Maybe when I get a new computer in a few months, I'll use the old one as a Pi-hole.
I run Vivaldi and while my Google and YouTube accounts are linked, I pretty much always browse videos in incognito (I only use the account for favorites and subscriptions), so I haven't seen this yet. That said, I have seen something where I'll often have to open videos in a new tab or they'll instead end up trying to load up something 15 seconds long that stays blank and unplaying until the regular video plays at some point. I would presume that's related to this issue.
Brave Browser does the trick for me. Sick of watching 2 minutes of ads to watch a 30 second video.
I would welcome enough of an exodus from YouTube over this to stimulate a decent alternative platform. The nature of networks does strongly favor monopolies, but I think YouTube is past its prime and needs some competition.
By far the most absurd of their pleading messages played while I was watching a video of a creator who has been demonetized anyway, claiming that ad revenue supports creators. No, it does not support this creator you lying dirtbags. :pan: :banghead:
Ad revenue does support creators. So I must be wrong because I subscribe to YouTube and my money goes to them. Creators get no ad views from me.
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on October 29, 2023, 02:43:40 PM
Ad revenue does support creators. So I must be wrong because I subscribe to YouTube and my money goes to them. Creators get no ad views from me.
Problem of the digital world - price people are willing to pay and price content providers want to charge don't quite match.
I assume those ads are not very efficient, and I value my time a bit more than the other side (and so do I)
Quote from: HighwayStar on October 28, 2023, 07:37:50 PM
I would welcome enough of an exodus from YouTube over this to stimulate a decent alternative platform. The nature of networks does strongly favor monopolies, but I think YouTube is past its prime and needs some competition.
By far the most absurd of their pleading messages played while I was watching a video of a creator who has been demonetized anyway, claiming that ad revenue supports creators. No, it does not support this creator you lying dirtbags. :pan: :banghead:
There was once Liveleak but they closed. Dailymotion was created a bit after Youtube but except for the French speaking communities, it wasn't big as Youtube.
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on October 29, 2023, 06:32:45 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on October 28, 2023, 07:37:50 PM
I would welcome enough of an exodus from YouTube over this to stimulate a decent alternative platform. The nature of networks does strongly favor monopolies, but I think YouTube is past its prime and needs some competition.
By far the most absurd of their pleading messages played while I was watching a video of a creator who has been demonetized anyway, claiming that ad revenue supports creators. No, it does not support this creator you lying dirtbags. :pan: :banghead:
There was once Liveleak but they closed. Dailymotion was created a bit after Youtube but except for the French speaking communities, it wasn't big as Youtube.
Dailymotion was a wonderful bastion of piracy for a while...but then they clamped down on it.
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on October 28, 2023, 12:50:06 PM
If your Google account is linked with your YouTube account and you're running an ad blocker of any brand, regardless of what browser or OS you're using, YouTube immediately blocks video playback unless you disable said ad blocker or whitelist YouTube, despite the fact that, hey, ALL YOU WANT TO DO IS WATCH THE GOD DANG VIDEO, NOT A MARATHON OF ADS!!!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Oh, and that's despite the fact that YouTube's revenue is owned by, guess who? THE GOOGLE INVESTORS!!! So, the age of watching YouTube videos for free is nearing death's door mat at the moment; I mean, DUH! Hasn't that been the case since, what, TWO THOUSAND FRICKIN' NINE?!!! It's only becoming more obvious the more you look into it.
Programmers at YouTube have put together an algorithm that seeks out users who run any ad blocker and stops playback immediately forcing them to turn it off, uninstall it, whitelist it, and so on, therefore forcing garbage ads down peoples' throats with every subsequent click. Free YouTube has become Pay-Per-Click YouTube.
Here's the "So what?!" part of this - If you're running an ad blocker that YouTube hasn't caught in its dragnet yet and you haven't got that ominous "Ad blockers violate Terms of Service" message, rub 'ya damn belly for luck y'all. Perhaps you may have a work-around trick to fool the algorithm into thinking you're not running it. But like all work-arounds, the empty suits at *cough*GOOGLETube*cough* will fight back with one of their own.
Since discovering this, I've broken the link between my Google account and YouTube, and haven't had the problem since. But that may only be temporary.
I've been using Ultimate Adblocker, and have had zero issues.
So I use Firefox with Ad Block Plus and Ghostery. For about a week, I was getting the block on YouTube, so I just opened the video in a private window and problem solved.
However, yesterday, if I opened YouTube the whole damn site refused to load, even in a private window. If I whitelisted YouTube in both ABP and Ghostery, it worked. Instead of capitulating, I found "Adblocker for YouTube" as a new add-on. It still blocks me from watching videos with the private window trick working, but at least the damn site renders.
YouTube is Google, and the malware delivery via Google ads is something I am not risking. When they get their shit together and make that ecosystem bulletproof, I'll reconsider the ad thing.
Quote from: SectorZ on October 30, 2023, 08:47:44 AM
YouTube is Google, and the malware delivery via Google ads is something I am not risking. When they get their shit together and make that ecosystem bulletproof, I'll reconsider the ad thing.
I'm on Safari. I don't use an adblocker, and I've never received malware from ads. There is the very occasional automatic download, but since I have it set up to ask me where to put downloaded files, it gives me the option to cancel rather than put it somewhere.
That's not to say there are no malware ads — they exist, but the vast majority only if you click on them.
Malware is defined as "software that is specifically designed to disrupt, damage, or gain unauthorized access to a computer system."
Showing me content I didn't ask for is disruptive.
Therefore any software that displays advertising is malware.
Web browsers aren't the source of the ads. Websites are, and those aren't software.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 30, 2023, 03:01:08 PM
Malware is defined as "software that is specifically designed to disrupt, damage, or gain unauthorized access to a computer system."
Showing me content I didn't ask for is disruptive.
Therefore any software that displays advertising is malware.
Quote from: 1 on October 30, 2023, 03:03:03 PM
Web browsers aren't the source of the ads. Websites are, and those aren't software.
They also tend to disrupt your
web surfing experience, not the
computer system.
Trillion dollar company, by the way.
I don't understand the outrage. Nobody is in the wrong here - not the viewers, not YouTube. From the viewer's prespective, if there are ways to improve viewing experience by blocking ads via a third-party program, go ahead. From YouTube's prespective, both YouTube itself and the content creators that the platform relies on are losing a lot of money as a result of these adblockers. If they can disable the blockers they will, and frankly I'm not sure how they let them go on for this long. I wasn't bent out of shape over people using adblockers, but I also certainly won't shed a tear over those people now having to watch ads to support the creators of the videos they're enjoying. If it's that important, you're always free to stop watching.
Perhaps I'm biased as someone who has personally lost money from YT viewers using adblockers - my channel isn't huge at all, but a few of my videos hit big last year and the additional amount I would have made off that if not for adblockers could have bought me a round-trip flight or a couple weeks of groceries.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on October 30, 2023, 07:31:17 PM
Trillion dollar company, by the way.
Sooner or later we'll realize that companies will continue to act in their own best financial interest regardless of how much we whine about it on the internet.
Quote from: thspfc on October 30, 2023, 08:12:55 PM
I don't understand the outrage. Nobody is in the wrong here - not the viewers, not YouTube. From the viewer's prespective, if there are ways to improve viewing experience by blocking ads via a third-party program, go ahead. From YouTube's prespective, both YouTube itself and the content creators that the platform relies on are losing a lot of money as a result of these adblockers. If they can disable the blockers they will, and frankly I'm not sure how they let them go on for this long. I wasn't bent out of shape over people using adblockers, but I also certainly won't shed a tear over those people now having to watch ads to support the creators of the videos they're enjoying. If it's that important, you're always free to stop watching.
Perhaps I'm biased as someone who has personally lost money from YT viewers using adblockers - my channel isn't huge at all, but a few of my videos hit big last year and the additional amount I would have made off that if not for adblockers could have bought me a round-trip flight or a couple weeks of groceries.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on October 30, 2023, 07:31:17 PM
Trillion dollar company, by the way.
Sooner or later we'll realize that companies will continue to act in their own best financial interest regardless of how much we whine about it on the internet.
...and that such companies are exploiting content creators much worse than anyone using an adblocker is.
Quote from: 1 on October 30, 2023, 03:03:03 PM
Web browsers aren't the source of the ads. Websites are, and those aren't software.
When I finally got a smartphone years after everyone else, the first use for it was being able to read newspaper comics while waiting for the bus. But instead of seeing the content I kept getting BS like the "Low battery virus. Download this patch to fix." And it didn't go away. Once I clicked past that ad another one came up to take its place. So then I downloaded Chrome for my phone rather than use the default Samsung browser, and the problem went away. Some companies are so stupid.
Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2023, 08:36:11 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 30, 2023, 08:12:55 PM
I don't understand the outrage. Nobody is in the wrong here - not the viewers, not YouTube. From the viewer's prespective, if there are ways to improve viewing experience by blocking ads via a third-party program, go ahead. From YouTube's prespective, both YouTube itself and the content creators that the platform relies on are losing a lot of money as a result of these adblockers. If they can disable the blockers they will, and frankly I'm not sure how they let them go on for this long. I wasn't bent out of shape over people using adblockers, but I also certainly won't shed a tear over those people now having to watch ads to support the creators of the videos they're enjoying. If it's that important, you're always free to stop watching.
Perhaps I'm biased as someone who has personally lost money from YT viewers using adblockers - my channel isn't huge at all, but a few of my videos hit big last year and the additional amount I would have made off that if not for adblockers could have bought me a round-trip flight or a couple weeks of groceries.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on October 30, 2023, 07:31:17 PM
Trillion dollar company, by the way.
Sooner or later we'll realize that companies will continue to act in their own best financial interest regardless of how much we whine about it on the internet.
...and that such companies are exploiting content creators much worse than anyone using an adblocker is.
Creators are free to move to TikTok. Do they have any payout programs, btw?
Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2023, 08:36:11 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 30, 2023, 08:12:55 PM
I don't understand the outrage. Nobody is in the wrong here - not the viewers, not YouTube. From the viewer's prespective, if there are ways to improve viewing experience by blocking ads via a third-party program, go ahead. From YouTube's prespective, both YouTube itself and the content creators that the platform relies on are losing a lot of money as a result of these adblockers. If they can disable the blockers they will, and frankly I'm not sure how they let them go on for this long. I wasn't bent out of shape over people using adblockers, but I also certainly won't shed a tear over those people now having to watch ads to support the creators of the videos they're enjoying. If it's that important, you're always free to stop watching.
Perhaps I'm biased as someone who has personally lost money from YT viewers using adblockers - my channel isn't huge at all, but a few of my videos hit big last year and the additional amount I would have made off that if not for adblockers could have bought me a round-trip flight or a couple weeks of groceries.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on October 30, 2023, 07:31:17 PM
Trillion dollar company, by the way.
Sooner or later we'll realize that companies will continue to act in their own best financial interest regardless of how much we whine about it on the internet.
...and that such companies are exploiting content creators much worse than anyone using an adblocker is.
By . . . being for-profit?
What is the desired endgame here? Media being ran entirely by the government or not existing at all?
Quote from: 1 on October 30, 2023, 03:03:03 PM
Web browsers aren't the source of the ads. Websites are, and those aren't software.
Websites are absolutely software.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript
Quote from: thspfc on October 30, 2023, 08:12:55 PM
Sooner or later we'll realize that companies will continue to act in their own best financial interest regardless of how much we whine about it on the internet.
This doesn't mean I have to feel sorry for them, or enable them, or encourage it, or agree with it, or facilitate it.
Quote from: kalvado on October 30, 2023, 08:56:59 PM
Creators are free to move to TikTok. Do they have any payout programs, btw?
TikTok is not suitable for the long-form videos that make up most of YouTube.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 30, 2023, 09:06:13 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 30, 2023, 03:03:03 PM
Web browsers aren't the source of the ads. Websites are, and those aren't software.
Websites are absolutely software.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript
Quote from: thspfc on October 30, 2023, 08:12:55 PM
Sooner or later we'll realize that companies will continue to act in their own best financial interest regardless of how much we whine about it on the internet.
This doesn't mean I have to feel sorry for them, or enable them, or encourage it, or agree with it, or facilitate it.
I never said you had to do any of those things. I simply said that it should have been expected that this would happen and getting bent out of shape over it is immature.
Quote from: thspfc on October 30, 2023, 08:57:33 PM
What is the desired endgame here?
Death to capitalism.
Quote from: thspfc on October 30, 2023, 08:12:55 PM
a few of my videos hit big last year and the additional amount I would have made off that if not for adblockers could have bought me a round-trip flight
Including $78 for TSA?
(Sorry, wrong thread)
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 30, 2023, 09:06:13 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 30, 2023, 08:56:59 PM
Creators are free to move to TikTok. Do they have any payout programs, btw?
TikTok is not suitable for the long-form videos that make up most of YouTube.
TwiXtter, perhaps?
YouTube still is the best widespread video platform, for all its faults. Especially for those of us who prefer to watch videos in landscape as they should be.
I did get the popups a few times but did the simple purge-and-refresh of the filters in uBlock and it seems to have fixed everything. Still looking into using a PiHole as a long-term solution, though.
A VPN seems to work to get around the adblock ban...just have to choose the right country...
Also wonder about fadblock and if it's reliable or safe.
I'm able to exit out of the message telling me that ad blockers are no longer allowed and watch videos normally. It's an extra step, but it works.
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 01, 2023, 07:43:17 AM
I'm able to exit out of the message telling me that ad blockers are no longer allowed and watch videos normally. It's an extra step, but it works.
It'll switch over to a message that you can watch three videos until they disable the player.
I'm noticing a new trend among some news websites of posting a message demanding that you either subscribe or disable your adblocker, with no easy apparent way to get rid of the message other than complying. I know they're businesses, they need to make money, and advertising is a part of that, but until they come up with ways to advertise that don't involve pop-up ads or forcing you to tolerate unwanted video advertising, I'll stick with the adblockers.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 01, 2023, 08:14:00 AM
I'm noticing a new trend among some news websites of posting a message demanding that you either subscribe or disable your adblocker, with no easy apparent way to get rid of the message other than complying. I know they're businesses, they need to make money, and advertising is a part of that, but until they come up with ways to advertise that don't involve pop-up ads or forcing you to tolerate unwanted video advertising, I'll stick with the adblockers.
That's better than the subscription-only model almost every paper under the sun has been adopting. Sorry, but I have enough on my plate managing streaming service subscriptions. No way I want to add 10 newspaper subscriptions to that repertoire. If you're a major publisher in a top-50 metro area, you should have no problem getting companies to pay you top dollar to run ads on your content.
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 01, 2023, 08:22:16 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 01, 2023, 08:14:00 AM
I'm noticing a new trend among some news websites of posting a message demanding that you either subscribe or disable your adblocker, with no easy apparent way to get rid of the message other than complying. I know they're businesses, they need to make money, and advertising is a part of that, but until they come up with ways to advertise that don't involve pop-up ads or forcing you to tolerate unwanted video advertising, I'll stick with the adblockers.
That's better than the subscription-only model almost every paper under the sun has been adopting. Sorry, but I have enough on my plate managing streaming service subscriptions. No way I want to add 10 newspaper subscriptions to that repertoire. If you're a major publisher in a top-50 metro area, you should have no problem getting companies to pay you top dollar to run ads on your content.
Ad market seem to have more supply of ad space than demand from advertisers.
Quote from: kalvado on November 01, 2023, 08:55:22 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 01, 2023, 08:22:16 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 01, 2023, 08:14:00 AM
I'm noticing a new trend among some news websites of posting a message demanding that you either subscribe or disable your adblocker, with no easy apparent way to get rid of the message other than complying. I know they're businesses, they need to make money, and advertising is a part of that, but until they come up with ways to advertise that don't involve pop-up ads or forcing you to tolerate unwanted video advertising, I'll stick with the adblockers.
That's better than the subscription-only model almost every paper under the sun has been adopting. Sorry, but I have enough on my plate managing streaming service subscriptions. No way I want to add 10 newspaper subscriptions to that repertoire. If you're a major publisher in a top-50 metro area, you should have no problem getting companies to pay you top dollar to run ads on your content.
Ad market seem to have more supply of ad space than demand from advertisers.
Maybe because the advertisers know how many ad blockers there are, and it's not a good investment of their marketing budget.
Quote from: GaryV on November 01, 2023, 10:01:09 AM
Quote from: kalvado on November 01, 2023, 08:55:22 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 01, 2023, 08:22:16 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 01, 2023, 08:14:00 AM
I'm noticing a new trend among some news websites of posting a message demanding that you either subscribe or disable your adblocker, with no easy apparent way to get rid of the message other than complying. I know they're businesses, they need to make money, and advertising is a part of that, but until they come up with ways to advertise that don't involve pop-up ads or forcing you to tolerate unwanted video advertising, I'll stick with the adblockers.
That's better than the subscription-only model almost every paper under the sun has been adopting. Sorry, but I have enough on my plate managing streaming service subscriptions. No way I want to add 10 newspaper subscriptions to that repertoire. If you're a major publisher in a top-50 metro area, you should have no problem getting companies to pay you top dollar to run ads on your content.
Ad market seem to have more supply of ad space than demand from advertisers.
Maybe because the advertisers know how many ad blockers there are, and it's not a good investment of their marketing budget.
There are only that many things to be bought with money on hand, and people are growing immune to ads in general.
total ad market may be what, 1% of disposable income, if not less? It's not a small amount - but there are plenty of takers . Online, TV, newspapers, external ads...
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 01, 2023, 08:14:00 AM
I'm noticing a new trend among some news websites of posting a message demanding that you either subscribe or disable your adblocker, with no easy apparent way to get rid of the message other than complying. I know they're businesses, they need to make money, and advertising is a part of that, but until they come up with ways to advertise that don't involve pop-up ads or forcing you to tolerate unwanted video advertising, I'll stick with the adblockers.
Turning off JavaScript tends to work on those sites. Unless they load massive swaths of the content with JavaScript, in which case you can safely assume that the site is run by people with poor taste who lack common sense, meaning that you probably shouldn't care much about what they want to tell you anyway.
Maybe if the advertisers start creating ads that don't make us WANT to use ad-blockers in the first place . . .
:banghead:
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on November 01, 2023, 03:12:20 PM
Maybe if the advertisers start creating ads that don't make us WANT to use ad-blockers in the first place . . .
:banghead:
Mike
Unfortunately, that's the race to the bottom. Hard to explain people that ultimate outcome is negative for them. And the main target is older or less tech people, who just need to be confused into doing stupid stuff, so confusing and misleading is the name of the game.
I really tried to give some web sites a chance over the years, very rarely other side ends up playing nice... and no second chance, once exception is removed there is no reason to bring it back....
I just played a TouTube video and they had an ad to the side for an ad blocker.
Quote from: Rothman on November 01, 2023, 08:07:11 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 01, 2023, 07:43:17 AM
I'm able to exit out of the message telling me that ad blockers are no longer allowed and watch videos normally. It's an extra step, but it works.
It'll switch over to a message that you can watch three videos until they disable the player.
They keep changing what happens. Today YouTube was showing a "You're offline" error to me even when I was online and every other site worked including YouTube up to the point where you wanted to watch a video.
So now they are using fake error messages as well.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fadblock-friendly-adblock/mdadjjfmjhfcibgfhfjbaiiljpllkbfc
Get it before they start cracking down!
Firefox with AdBlock and DuckDuckGo's ad blocker here, and so far, I've avoided ads on YouTube while being able to watch videos and having no issues doing so.
I was fed up with Chrome bugging me to update the stupid thing every time. So, I swapped over to Edge and have, not one, not two, but THREE blockers running on my Edge browser and no issue of YouTube slapping that "ad blockers are not allowed" error screen so far.
"I got tired of Chrome so I switched to Edge" carries the same energy as "After the government bought out my house in Love Canal, I used the money to buy a place in a nice little town called Pripyat".
Not sure how switching from Chrome to Edge and not encountering the same "Ad blockers not allowed" roadblock translates to trading a house in Love Canal for a geno-mutated Pripyat. At least my OS allows me to delay updates for Edge up to 35 days! Something Chrome doesn't do.
Edge is Chrome with the serial numbers filed off. You're just choosing to have Microsoft steal your data instead of Google.
The only safe browser is Firefox.
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on December 30, 2023, 08:39:06 PM
Not sure how switching from Chrome to Edge and not encountering the same "Ad blockers not allowed" roadblock translates to trading a house in Love Canal for a geno-mutated Pripyat. At least my OS allows me to delay updates for Edge up to 35 days! Something Chrome doesn't do.
Is that how Fedora deals with that?
Quote from: kalvado on December 31, 2023, 10:48:34 AM
Is that how Fedora deals with that?
Fedora only updates when you type
sudo dnf update and enter your password. If you want to configure it to auto-fire that command, you can, but you're responsible for deciding the update schedule. Likewise, if a reboot is required to apply some update, you're responsible for deciding when to reboot.
https://xkcd.com/149/
Yea, some of my favorite websites are starting to look like the ribbon boards that are seen around the field when one watches a fútbol game on TV.
:spin:
Mike
You mean people actually don't deactivate auto-updates?
Not only do I not have them on, but I decline most of them.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 01, 2024, 07:07:26 PM
You mean people actually don't deactivate auto-updates?
Not only do I not have them on, but I decline most of them.
Heh. You didn't need those vulnerabilities patched up, anyway.
Quote from: Rothman on January 01, 2024, 07:22:30 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 01, 2024, 07:07:26 PM
You mean people actually don't deactivate auto-updates?
Not only do I not have them on, but I decline most of them.
Heh. You didn't need those vulnerabilities patched up, anyway.
I wait a couple of months for other people to experience the joy that the updates bring first.
Quote from: kkt on January 01, 2024, 09:11:36 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 01, 2024, 07:22:30 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 01, 2024, 07:07:26 PM
You mean people actually don't deactivate auto-updates?
Not only do I not have them on, but I decline most of them.
Heh. You didn't need those vulnerabilities patched up, anyway.
I wait a couple of months for other people to experience the joy that the updates bring first.
For a phone, I betcha 99% of those vulnerabilities are on their side, not yours. Or the app's dev team creating a new feature had their contract expire about the same percentage of the way through.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 01, 2024, 07:07:26 PM
You mean people actually don't deactivate auto-updates?
Newer versions of Windows don't let you. That's one of the reasons I don't use it as my daily driver OS—I need to be able to choose when a good time to update is.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 02, 2024, 02:20:17 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 01, 2024, 07:07:26 PM
You mean people actually don't deactivate auto-updates?
Newer versions of Windows don't let you. That's one of the reasons I don't use it as my daily driver OS—I need to be able to choose when a good time to update is.
Such bullshit should be illegal on the same grounds right to repair laws stand on.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on January 02, 2024, 03:20:32 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 02, 2024, 02:20:17 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 01, 2024, 07:07:26 PM
You mean people actually don't deactivate auto-updates?
Newer versions of Windows don't let you. That's one of the reasons I don't use it as my daily driver OS—I need to be able to choose when a good time to update is.
Such bullshit should be illegal on the same grounds right to repair laws stand on.
Ever deal with some elderly person's crusty, malware-infected PC?
Auto-updates are made for these people. Make it opt-out but only if the user knows what they are doing.
The problem is that I shouldn't have to prove to a machine that I bought and whose electricity I am paying for whether I really "know what I am doing or not".
I show it I know what I'm doing by erasing the operating system and installing one that isn't made by fascists.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 02, 2024, 04:23:26 AM
The problem is that I shouldn't have to prove to a machine that I bought and whose electricity I am paying for whether I really "know what I am doing or not".
I show it I know what I'm doing by erasing the operating system and installing one that isn't made by fascists.
...and those who don't know what they're doing turn off the updates and then wonder why their computer's performance goes kerplunk. :D
Quote from: Rothman on January 02, 2024, 06:47:06 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 02, 2024, 04:23:26 AM
The problem is that I shouldn't have to prove to a machine that I bought and whose electricity I am paying for whether I really "know what I am doing or not".
I show it I know what I'm doing by erasing the operating system and installing one that isn't made by fascists.
...and those who don't know what they're doing turn off the updates and then wonder why their computer's performance goes kerplunk. :D
Unfortunately, given how software tends to gobble up more resources over time, installing the updates will also cause a computer's (or phone's) performance to go kerplunk. Planned obsolescence is wonderful, isn't it?
Quote from: kkt on January 01, 2024, 09:11:36 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 01, 2024, 07:22:30 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 01, 2024, 07:07:26 PM
You mean people actually don't deactivate auto-updates?
Not only do I not have them on, but I decline most of them.
Heh. You didn't need those vulnerabilities patched up, anyway.
I wait a couple of months for other people to experience the joy that the updates bring first.
This. I let others do the field testing. I will never update to an X.0 version of anything, or even an X.0.1 or an X.1 version. Yell at me when the bugs get worked out and X.2 or X.0.2 is released.
My iPhones (personal and work) are still sitting on the newest version of iOS 16. I'm hesitant to update to 17 without the option to go back to 16 if I don't like the new features and appearance.
Quote from: Bruce on January 02, 2024, 04:17:37 AM
Ever deal with some elderly person's crusty, malware-infected PC?
Auto-updates are made for these people. Make it opt-out but only if the user knows what they are doing.
Nah, nah, follow the money dude. Microsoft does not want to let you opt out of automatic updates because they want the ability to take features away from you they don't feel like supporting anymore or don't feel like letting people have without paying extra for, and they also want the ability to shove new features down users' throats for the benefit of scraping data, advertising, or whatever other late-stage capitalistic bullshit they're up to.
They also know that the incumbency bake-in with an OS is extremely strong, so they can do whatever the fuck they want to their users and they'll just bend over and take it because what other choice do they have? Most people aren't technically savvy enough to successfully switch to Linux (though if you can, you really are better off), and any computer that is provided by your employer for work purposes, well, the employer picks the OS.
And well ultimately that's exactly the same mentality that Google is taking with YouTube. What are you gonna do if you don't like it? There's no viable competitor people can switch to. And most videos on YouTube cannot be found anywhere else.
That said I will also concede the point that Google actively loses money on anyone viewing YouTube without a premium subscription while blocking ads, so it does make business sense to not let people get away with that. But... the tactical mistake here is that Google went way too long doing absolutely nothing about this. Realistically, they should have started harassing people about ad blockers as soon as they started implementing video ads (well over a decade ago now). It wouldn't have been popular then either, but the general reaction would have been less "what the fuck" because at the time video ads were novel, people were only used to being able to block banner ads. So it'd have gone better if an expectation were established from the getgo that you cannot block video ads. Now, because people have been able to get away with blocking them for so long, an expectation of being able to do this has become entrenched and people are very understandably saying "hey, how come something that I've been doing for years without issue is suddenly a problem NOW?"
Honestly, I wouldn't care about YouTube ads so much if they hadn't gotten so damn greedy about them. When it was a five-second ad before a video, I was fine with that. When I get 20 or 30 seconds worth of unskippable ads before a 5-minute video, what I'm getting vs what they're getting feels so out of proportion that I feel like the adblocker is necessary to rebalance things to an acceptable state.