Haven't seen any myself for about a month. A few did squeeze past back then but updating UBlock Origin on Firefox, and updating Brave on my phone seemed to have sorted it out.

And what I really meant to say is that I haven't seen that pop-up ever. So whether it's only gradually being rolled out at the moment, or my setup is blocking it...no idea.

>>28553

Some people are unaffected, some people are getting a nag pop-up and some people are completely blocked from watching videos. They want to see what the impact will be - blocking adblockers is largely counterproductive if it drives people off the platform rather than pushing them to turn off their adblocker or buy Premium. From what I've seen, they're also testing many different technical anti-adblock strategies to see what the adblock developers will come up with.

I've had it come up a couple of times, at first it was just once, but then it started nagging every video, so I updated my uBlock and cleared cache, which seemed to have sorted it. Then it came up once earlier today but seemed to go away again after that.

They can fuck off anyway, if they think I'm paying they can suck a dick. The internet in general is just going to shit nowadays. I've practically grown up on the internet, you could probably call me "terminally online" to an extent (although I don't use any social media so I think I'm free of most mindworms), but the entire reason the internet is good is because it is free. If all these companies get their own way and everything worthwhile on the internet becomes a subscription and ad based hellhole, I will happily just unplug, and I think most people will do the same.

The mistake these companies are all making is that they think their services replaced telly and radio etc because they are better, but that isn't the case at all. It's shite and most of the people watching it know it is. It's popular because it's free, and it's convenient. They think people are sufficiently addicted that they'll just accept it and fork over the cash, but I reckon the internet is still enough of a novelty to most people that they'd be willing to drop it and move on, as though it was all just another fad like walkmans or heated towel rails.

>>28555
>If all these companies get their own way and everything worthwhile on the internet becomes a subscription and ad based hellhole, I will happily just unplug, and I think most people will do the same.

>>28556

What I love is the right wing conspiracy types jumping to the conclusion this, and the whole "Great Reset" thing, is a secret plot to bring in full communism under a one world government. I wish. The WEF, that famous bastion of hard left Marxist Lenninists, of course it is. It's very frustrating when people get 90% of the way to a correct conclusion, then right at the very last turn they go off into nonsense, like that meme with Joey from Friends.

Anyway I don't think any of it will pan out quite the way the big tech corpos hope it will. If anything, it's because they are too short sighted and greedy to ever pull off their own plans successfully. They've grown hubristic because their industries have had such a meteoric rise to prosperity, but they are mistaken if they think that was anything but being in the right place at the right time, capitalising on the fact they are the first providers of services that literally haven't ever existed before in human history. They think they're untouchable, but really they're just the Bell Telephone Company in the 1880s.

The internet is still in its infancy in the grand scheme of things, there's plenty of time for competition to take off and dethrone the big streaming companies and social media giants. They'll fuck each other over, fuck their customers over, lose popularity, and this capitalist wet dream where you merely subscribe to everything from your TV to your toilet paper will never come to pass.

>>28556

>You'll own nothing and you'll be happy

It's already started. You lose access to all your movies when you cancel your Netflix subscription. The same with your music on Spotify. Back in the days when you actually bought a DVD or CD, the music on it was yours indefinitely. You were still bound by copyright law which made DVD ripping illegal, but other than that, you could do with your CD or DVD whatever you wanted, when you wanted.

What companies are doing nowadays is that they're taking away your ownership rights, even though you've paid them fair and square for a product. Property rights theory states that ownership has four dimensions - the right to use a product (ius usus), the right to retain profits obtained from a product's use (ius usus fructus), the right to alter or modify the product (ius abusus), and the right to resell a product or convey ownership rights to another person (ius successionis). You could argue that with today's streaming and subscription services, they've pretty much taken away most of those rights, or have put very far reaching limitations on them.

And it's also true for physical products. Like the whole right to repair debate with smartphones, computers, and even cars. If you buy a new BMW, it'll come with heated seats fully preinstalled, regardless of whether you ordered them or not. But you only get to use your heated seats if you pay BMW a monthly subscription. Some people have apparently figured out how to hack the car's electronics to activate them even without a subscription, but BMW now threatens lawsuits against anyone who tries. And they'll find out because all cars are now permanently online and connected to the manufacturer's servers.

My daily driver car is over 20 years old, and I see no reason at all to buy a newer car like that. Because I know Audi can't mess with my car or keep me from doing whatever I like with it, or to it.

You know what I didn't try last night when I was totally locked out? Embedded videos. Given how most media organisations, and .gs of course, are full of embedded YouTube videos, blocking certain people from using YouTube is actually one of those "how many shit unintended consequences are there really" ideas. I guess you could call that a "bad idea", but I'm paid per-syllable.

>>28556
>2016
How are those FEMA camps coming along?

>>28558

>subscription car seats

Part of the reason I was always so resistant to DRM and shit like the walled garden app stores, regardless of the morality of piracy that companies always use to justify their moves, is that the real play is so obviously an anti-consumer move like this. It just so happens that the tech and software behind "legitimate" DRM protection also defacto allows a company to artificially hobble a product and make you pay more for full functionality.

I can't help but feel it shows capitalism has reached an endpoint, of sorts. Economics as we understand it sort of breaks down when companies make money in this way. They are not creating anything new of inherent value, for which there is demand that leads to them making money; they are doing the opposite, they're retroactively creating illusory demand by artificially restricting a consumer's options. Historically, that kind of thing has never ended well.

>>28560

You could still bypass the controls and connect the heating elements to an aftermarket control unit. Just buy one of those aftermarket heating kits. Premium carmakers now use carbon fibre mesh instead of wire, but you can buy aftermarket carbon fibre kits.

It should work, if you don't mind drilling holes for the buttons in the centre console of your £60,000 car. Unless they've thought of that as well and the system rats you out to BMW when it detects a current.

>>28560

Subscription models are popular with manufacturers because they provide them with a constant stream of revenue. If you buy a new car as a one-off transaction from the factory or dealership and are able to use all the features from the word go, they won't make any more money off you for as long as you own the car, besides what you pay to have it serviced at the authorised dealership the first few years. But if you have to pay every month to use some of the features, then they will reliably keep getting money from you, because having non-functioning features in their car will bother enough people so that they'll fork over money to have them activated. And then even if your car is five or ten years old and you go to an independent garage with it, you'll still have to pay BMW to keep your heated seats on.

And what if after ten years they decide to phase out support for your model's heated seats, so that they no longer work even if you'd be willing to keep paying the subscription. This is already happening with some makers of older smart home illumination products which require an Internet connection to the company's servers to work. BMW - or others - could just discontinue support for all kinds of pay-to-play features and that way force obsolescence. They could essentially brick it to steer demand towards their newer cars.

People sometimes look at me like I'm a pauper for holding on to my '2000 Audi A4. That's until they go to have their Merc or BMW serviced at the authorised dealership, where they're hit with £500 for fairly minor service work, which only that dealership can do because it requires adjusting your car's software settings, which independent garages don't have the equipment for.

It is WAR.

Although I looked up another video of this song, which did play, and it turns out this excerpt from a "free-jazz opera" is not something I will be listening to again.

Used Youtube less and less in the past year since discovering this, enjoy. https://invidious.io/ if your video doesn't load, just switch instances.

>>28564
Do you want to tell us what this mysterious link is before anyone clicks it? If it's so shit hot it shouldn't be that hard.

>>28562

>Subscription models are popular with manufacturers because they provide them with a constant stream of revenue.

Obviously, but there's the point- They wouldn't be able to do this if they weren't artificially implementing tech that restricts the user's ownership and makes that possible at all.

It offends my sense of morals, fairness and rightness on a core level, and I don't even have to be a huge commie hippy to say that. It's cheating at business. It's not earning money through hard work, it's just conning people.

>>28566
I think people are generally becoming more disillusioned with capitalism. I'm a big fan of the idea, on paper, of competition between private companies to provide the best service for customers. But what happens when you compete so well that you conclusively win? And there is a widespread awareness now that the best way to compete is to cheat. Think of privatised rail companies: they bid for contracts to provide trains, based on the idea that there won't be any other train companies on those same lines. There's no competition, it's just a bunch of monopolies, and that ruins the entire purpose of privatisation. And I think, I hope, people are starting to agree with me on this.

>>28567

Given enough power and market share, companies will always strive for a monopoly in their field. Because it offers profit margins and a chance of market domination that you don't get with any other market constellation, not even an oligopolistic cartel.

>There's no competition, it's just a bunch of monopolies, and that ruins the entire purpose of privatisation.

Depending on how distinct products in a market are from each other, you could argue that there is monopolistic competition, in the sense that every competitor has a monopoly on their particular product. Only BMW makes BMW cars, and only Apple sells Apple computers. Although in the wider market as a whole, they are competing against Mercedes or Lenovo. It all depends on how indifferent customers are to similar products from different suppliers. And so to become a monopolistic competitor in the eyes of the consumer, you have to make them believe that your product has no substitutes (which is part of the core definition of a true monopoly), and you have to retain your customers and keep them from switching to alternatives.

Apple in particular have taken that idea and run with it, and they charge an absolute premium for their core products, because only they make the hardware on which MacOS or iOS can run. In the 90s and early 2000s, they had a licensing model for a while where they allowed third-party Mac clones to exist. But then they realised that the makers of those clones were making hardware that was often superior to Apple, and at an attractive discount. Which was eating into Apple's profits as a quasi-monoplist, so they axed the third-party licensing model altogether. And nowadays, they are locking customers into their product ecosystem more than ever before, and brainwashing them into gladly paying the Apple tax and accepting Apple as a monopolist, because those customers don't see PCs or Chromebooks as a substitute to Apple computers.


tl;dr: just some first-semester microeconomics musings.

>>28568
>because those customers don't see PCs or Chromebooks as a substitute to Apple computers
Depending on perspective, they aren't substitutes to Apple computers. Ask anyone that's had to build cross-platform products to include the Apple ecosystem. If you want to build software that runs on different Unix-like platforms or on Windows for different architectures, you can do that from any of those environments. If you want to build software to run on Apple platforms, you must use Apple tools on Apple hardware. (There are questions about whether or not part of that amounts to product tying, which would be illegal, but AFAICT nobody has actually seriously tried taking them to task over it.)

>>28558
>If you buy a new BMW, it'll come with heated seats fully preinstalled, regardless of whether you ordered them or not. But you only get to use your heated seats if you pay BMW a monthly subscription.
I thought they'd walked that back and reverted to standard optional extra pricing?

Tesla are the real cunts for this. If they don't have the right replacement parts in stock, they'll fit better parts and nerf them via software. If you buy optional extras and sell the car on, they'll disable the optional extras (which has resulted in several lawsuits in US states that have labelling requirements for used car sales).

>>28569
>Depending on perspective, they aren't substitutes to Apple computers.

Like I said, it depends on the viewpoint of the majority of customers. And of course on your use case. There'll always be customers who don't think you can substitute product A for product B at all, while others will be more like, meh, what's the difference. But the more specific your requirements for your particular fitness for use are, the more you probably won't be willing to swap.

Apple are experts at locking you into their ecosystem, where only their hardware or specific software will do, and where incompatibility with competitors is forced, in order to keep people from switching back. And where third-party accessories are either kept from working entirely, or will only work 70 percent. I watched a youtube clip the other week where somebody was trying to connect a pretty generic PC mouse to a Mac. It was mind-bogglingly difficult to get the mouse to function under MacOS, it took loads of driver tweaking and even then it still had issues with scrolling and speed of movement.

Back to my adventures with the YouTube thing, I tried blocking an element that I thought kept stopping my videos after two seconds, and it was actually the entire page and everything disappeared. I unblocked that again, and suddenly every video I clicked claimed I was offline and needed to connect to the Internet to watch the video. I have now unblocked the previously blocked elements, and I just get the pop-up again. But there must be an answer.

>>28572
Actually, that didn't work and it still tells me I'm offline. Anyway, the thing we are all looking to block is called style-scope by the looks of things; youtube.com##.style-scope.whatever is the thing to block.

I was already paying £11.99 a month for YouTube Music, so don't feel too bad paying £12.99 for YouTube Premium (which includes YT Music). I don't necessarily mind ads, I get why they feel the need to include them, it's just how they implement them which annoys me.

I suppose it's easier for a 4 part show on ITV to play ads before it starts and for each break, determining where to place ads during a 9 minutes video is harder. Sometimes it'd just cut to ads mid sentence, sometimes it was a couple of 10 second ones, sometimes it was one of those 1.5 minute ads for scam mobile games that let you skip after 5 seconds, but if you're at the other side of the room doing something and not actively skipping you have to listen to the whole thing.

I got blocked completely the other day as I run adblocking pretty hardcore. So I've whitelisted Youtube and added a script to Tampermonkey which blasts most of the ads, the ones that get through go through hyperspeed, so every now and then an advert appears for about a second but it works for me. Just search Github for an anti adblocker for YOutube, there should be loads on there now.

What are you lads on about? I've been running ublock origin on firefox and all of this bullshit is news to me.

I got them the other day; just used inspect element then blocked the pop-up and the dark haze that it puts over the whole screen. Sometimes it pauses the video right as it starts to play but it's only once at the start of any given video and not all of them.

I'm still using basic Firefox, UblockOrigin and Decentraleyes (donno if this last one does anything relevant) and have yet to encounter ads on Youtube. I don't use the site very extensively, mind.

They finally got me, Lads. YouTube is refusing to play videos after a brief flicker of the toast notification that was supposed to make me feel ashamed for letting adverts steal my bandwidth.

Joke's on them, I made a PHP script (yeah, joke's on me) years back when they first attempted this - called "YouTube Advert Fucker" - and it still works. It's just a slightly convenient way of taking a video URL as a GET or POST value and returning an HTML embed. LOCALHOST is the Internet's Shangri-La. Eat my goal.

In any case, anyone should theoretically be able to get a similar result by just making an HTML file with the embed code and dragging the file into your browser. If you can't get the embed code from YouTube, then Userscripts such as "Youtube Link Title" should be able to provide an embedded or pop-up player from a basic <a> link.

Bugger.

I have loosened my adblocking a bit for YouTube, and I must say I haven't seen any adverts yet. Maybe there were never any adverts in the first place?

>>28582
This is one I haven't been presented with yet. Normally I get the pop-up that interrupts a video after three seconds and you have to wait to close it, or the whole site just doesn't work at all.

>>28582

Updating my uBlock filter list and restarting my browser seems to have fixed it, but I've said that twice already.

>>28584
We're witnessing the battle of the century taking place and few are even aware of it. Underemployed nerds with a passion are locked in combat against overpaid software engineers with the backing of the third largest company on Earth.

Or fourth if that -10% Alphabet had the other day will keep going. Come to think of it, maybe Alphabet is in more trouble than is being let on if they're trying to turn Youtube profitable.

I've still yet to see the actual pop up like >>28582 . Last week for a few days I was sort of getting ads but they were just black screen and I could skip them. And then that's gone away without any intervention on my part.

What annoys me is that Youtube expects you to sit through ads that you can't skip just so you can watch the ten-second video you actually wanted to see.

>>28587

And if the video you want to watch is of a decent enough duration to pause partway to make a brew, you're treated to an ad break when you get back, triggering the pavlovian need to go and make ANOTHER brew despite already having one. It's diabolical.

It's not like Alphabet are resorting to BBC levels of retribution.

I disabled adverts completely on one video that I specifically wanted to watch, and it still wouldn't load. What a scam. Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only person in the world who uses Adblock Plus, and everyone else uses uBlock.

>>28591
I opened it in a private-browsing window and now the video has paused its content to do a sponsored bit. So I have come here to post this, but no adblocker would remove that bit from the video so it's not even like I'm stealing content.

I hate to be that person, but I just started a YouTube premium account.

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>28593

Probably a good way to pass the time that your ban will last.

I guess this is why YouTube has stopped loading through my VPN. Website is fine but the videos don't play.

I've only had videos blocked for a few hours across two days since making this thread. It also doesn't block my if I open the video in a private window, which still has uBlock running. It's all very strange how scattershot this all is.

Adblock Plus currently protects me from adverts on YouTube, but I see that it's trying to play a 30-second video (which I don't see), and then when my actual video starts, I'm 30 seconds into it instead of at the start.

Adblock and not being logged in still gives the best experience, which can't possibly be what they wanted.

Almost every YouTube video today has told me that adblocking is banned, and then the page automatically refreshes with Adblock Plus switched off. How do they do that? That really should not be allowed. What else could they do to my browser, if they wanted to?

>>29037
At a complete guess I'd say they're in bed with the developers of Adblock Plus (apparently it's open source - maybe the coding just isn't that robust?). I rarely have a problem on Youtube using Ublock Origin, though Twitch occasionally gets ads.

>>29038
>though Twitch occasionally gets ads.

There are blocking extensions that specifically target Twitch, and apparently the way some of them work is hilarious.

I can't find the video explaining it, but Twitch was tacking pre-rolls directly onto the stream, but in a way that is detectable so they can track impressions (and ensure the advertiser pays and the creator gets paid). Because they weren't stupid, they prioritised content over ads, and made it so that if the ad insertion system got overloaded, it would skip the pre-rolls and go straight to the stream. So a blocking extension could just flood Twitch with stream requests until it got one without ads inserted.

I never log into my YouTube account on my laptop, which I am using currently. This has so far protected me from all adblocking controversies. But now, when I look for a song and start it playing, there's some new "&start_radio=1" bit in the URL which autoplays the next video when the song I wanted ends, and they've removed the setting to switch this off. It autoplays whether you want it to or not. It's incredible how bad they're willing to make the YouTube experience as part of their war on people who use it in ways that YouTube don't want you to.

Joke's on them for a bit, though - the live version of Sultans of Swing is over 10 minutes long, giving me ample time to come here and complain.