Why do people complain about the YouTube ads when you can actually make them disapear easily??

[76561199162371297]

On the pc browser you have ublock origin...
Google blocking extensions on chrome? No problem firefox still going strong and has extensions lmao

And on Android you have YouTube vanced, not to be mistaken with vanced, that one closed forever ,but now YouTube vanced exists and its open source lmao

iPhone users... Well, you have nothing but you aint majority

So I really struggle to understand why people keep complaining about ads when its ez to avoid them lol

[Electric Cupcake]

I gave up on people who are so braindead as to still be using Chrome long ago.

Though for Android, I stick to DNS66 and NewPipe.

[Varsik]

Lazy individuals I guess lul

[Pieshaman]

I haven't seen an advertisement in over a decade.

[ʙᴜɴ.ᴇ]

some people are so dumb they pay for youtube to avoid ads.

its a depressing thought.

[Varsik]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย 💕 𝓑𝓾𝓷 💕:

some people are so dumb they pay for youtube to avoid ads.

its a depressing thought.

12 euro a month let that sink in
YouTube even plans to lock 4K quality under that subscription

[Phirestar]

Word-of-advice for people: if you get two ads on YouTube and you're not able to skip them, let the first one play, and then as soon as the second ad starts, close and re-open the video. It will immediately go straight to the video.

This works on nearly all channels, with some rare exceptions. Some channels seem to be registered to always play two ads, and refreshing the video in that fashion will result in another two-ad segment. The only channel where I've come across this so far has been IGN, but I'm sure there's others.

Also another trick (though this one is inconsistent): if the first ad is a 15-second unskippable ad, let it play all the way through the first five seconds and then refresh the page. This seemingly tricks the system into thinking you pressed a "skip ad" button, and it will not play the ads again. Just keep that it's not guaranteed to work every time, there's a little bit of randomness to this one.

[Electric Cupcake]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Okay?:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Electric Cupcake:

I gave up on people who are so braindead as to still be using Chrome long ago.

Though for Android, I stick to DNS66 and NewPipe.

The ♥♥♥♥? Why you hating on Chrome? I'm still using it 24/7

It because of people like you that Big Tech has gotten away with treating online tracking and targeted ads and literal spyware and blatant lying in "privacy policies" as normal and acceptable. They even have the chutzpah of putting up warnings that the ads you get might not represent your interests if you tick X box, as if it's desirable.

Advertisers are the scum of the earth and there can be no quarter given.

[🍋 Lemonfed 🍋]

I would not mind ads if they where actually short and to the point , youtube is just unwatchable without an adblocker or premium these days.

ads in the start , midroll ads and ads in the end ... it's like broadcast television again.

[76561199162371297]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Phirestar:

Word-of-advice for people: if you get two ads on YouTube and you're not able to skip them, let the first one play, and then as soon as the second ad starts, close and re-open the video. It will immediately go straight to the video.

This works on nearly all channels, with some rare exceptions. Some channels seem to be registered to always play two ads, and refreshing the video in that fashion will result in another two-ad segment. The only channel where I've come across this so far has been IGN, but I'm sure there's others.

Also another trick (though this one is inconsistent): if the first ad is a 15-second unskippable ad, let it play all the way through the first five seconds and then refresh the page. This seemingly tricks the system into thinking you pressed a "skip ad" button, and it will not play the ads again. Just keep that it's not guaranteed to work every time, there's a little bit of randomness to this one.

Imagine wasting your time using ineffective tips when you could just use YouTube vanced and problem solved

[76561199162371297]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Lemonfed:

I would not mind ads if they where actually short and to the point , youtube is just unwatchable without an adblocker or premium these days.

ads in the start , midroll ads and ads in the end ... it's like broadcast television again.

Premium lmao, use YouTube vanced
Why would anyone spend 15 dollars a month for that

[🍋 Lemonfed 🍋]

15 dollars a month is nothing , it's barely the price of single a pizza these days.

[Varsik]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Lemonfed:

15 dollars a month is nothing , it's barely the price of single a pizza these days.

A pizza costs half of that lol or even less

[sleeps]

Everyone komplain until they discover browser extension

[76561199162371297]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Lemonfed:

15 dollars a month is nothing , it's barely the price of single a pizza these days.

The hell you saying a pizza costs way less than that

Also you are literaly paying 15 dollars for something you can do VERY VERY EASILY FOR FREE on both android and pc (ublock origin and YouTube vanced)

I dont even know why would you want to support YouTube (or Google) by paying said subscription, otherwise I cant find any logical reason to do such thing

[76561199162371297]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Okay?:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Electric Cupcake:

It because of people like you that Big Tech has gotten away with treating online tracking and targeted ads and literal spyware and blatant lying in "privacy policies" as normal and acceptable. They even have the chutzpah of putting up warnings that the ads you get might not represent your interests if you tick X box, as if it's desirable.

Advertisers are the scum of the earth and there can be no quarter given.

You sound like a Linux user. So obnoxious. As an advertiser myself, I can only say that you shouldn't hate people that are smarter than you, you're just admitting that they're better than you this way.

If you care that much about privacy, then don't use the internet. Everything comes with a price.

You dont care about privacy? Is this what you are trying to say?