JoeShades
macrumors 68000
Is this some sort of satire?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
DuckDuckGo Browser Now Blocks YouTube Ads on iPhone and Mac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Bustycat
macrumors 65816
Source:
Duck Tales: How we've made it easier to generate images privately in Duck.ai (Ep.33)
Image generation is just as private as before, but with an improved user experience.
insideduckduckgo.substack.com
963852741
Suspended
The guy is either unwell or joking. Hard to tell.
sw1tcher
macrumors 604
Do you use an ad blocker? Do you use an add-on or equivalent that prevents web sites from tracking you? Websites run ads and use trackers to help cover their costs. By blocking them, you'd be denying them revenue which means you think access should be free.
I understand your point and this gets to the crux of it all. If ads simply existed on websites (as long as they don’t overwhelm the page and the user experience) then fine. They’d be just like a magazine or newspaper ad in analogue media. But internet ads almost invariably track you. That I, and millions of others, will not accept.
963852741
Suspended
In other words it goes well beyond a simple picture or animation of something with a link to a website or product. Totally unacceptable.
Good point. I uninstalled all my adblockers... 😉 /s
They can, but they choose not to, for whatever reason.
The browser just doesn't request the ad and goes straight to requesting the video stream. They could "fix" this by combining the ads and content into one video stream and/or by configuring the server to refuse to serve the actual content until the ad has been requested and the running time of the ad has elapsed.
Anyway, this isn't really news. Firefox and Adblock Plus + Ublock have worked fine for me for years. I don't know how anyone can watch Youtube with ads. I certainly wouldn't.
I have really mixed feelings about this.
On one hand - the internet has destroyed so much (paid for) value - magazines, newspapers which before the web, were all valid businesses.
OK there was an issue with them 'gatekeeping' and in many ways the web (and apps) are more democratic - anyone can have a podcast, YT channel etc, but other than that, you got high quality content for your $.
Then on the other, we have lots of free content - which we expect to get for free instead of paying for it - but with advertising that is mostly horrible and is splattered over the page. No wonder people want to block it.
Personally, I wish that some form of micropayments had taken off, but alas the very nature and fabric of the web made this virtually impossible.
So I can't say that the web is in a great state - but neither are our expectations of what we should be able to get for nada.
Graphate
macrumors regular
Agreed, on the one hand I have no issue with reasonable advertisements shown by the website I have agreed to visit; on the other hand I didn’t agree to visit “tracker.advertisement.website.com” so why shouldn’t I be allowed to just not send my packet request?
Almost every website has at least a dozen ads or trackers, some have hundreds. If a website wants to serve ads, serve it from their domain.
It is super-overkill but I started using NopeTracker to block literally everything except the domain in the browser window. Definitely only suitable for patient power users, and not for everyone.
contacos
macrumors 604
I meant tech news like right on here, not breaking news on primetime television jaja
Hot take, but I agree. I was thinking the same thing while reading the article. Creators deserve compensation for their creations. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that YT videos are monetized and creators are compensated either by ads playing before/during their videos, or through the subscription fees.
spaxxedout
Contributor
Ad blockers are immoral and tacky. Disservice to creators. Premium is a good buy. DuckDuckGo is trying to cash in on the luddite peasant AI revolt and it's just another instance of corporate gaslighting and rent-seeking.
Graphate
macrumors regular
I might be wrong, but I think almost everyone will agree creators should be compensated. It’s similar (not the same) to walking out of the room or pressing mute on a TV. But the ads are also different from TV, they track whether or not you’re actually watching, if you’re listening, or doing something else.
I think of it like the freemium contract the goal is to build a larger following. In exchange for freemium, some users pay, which pays for the content, most users watch the ads which supports more content and builds the community, and some users are only part of the community. The technology exists for websites to block most tracker-blocking users, but they don’t. Peel off the users who block ads and your community will shrink.
I don’t think I quite follow, it sounds like the same thing. Is it immoral to visit a website and before you even know what the website is about, be forced to connect to pixels, trackers, advertisements, or content networks you didn’t choose to visit?
It is a little inconvenient at times but I prefer to decide every domain my browser connects to, instead of the website.
Graphate
macrumors regular
Sorry I don’t usually double post, but is this immoral of MR? I don’t think it’s immoral, but can’t we choose whether or not we want to connect to 81 different domains? Can’t websites simply host their own ads without the baggage?
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
This doesn't really track for me.
Do you think it's "piracy" to go to the bathroom at TV AD breaks?
What about when you DVR something and skip the ADs?
How about using a browser Reader Mode on articles which usually exclude any sidebar/integrated ADs?
Google can change its business model and use non-tracking ads. Moreover, I can live with a spot that plays before the featured video. But Google isn’t even paying attention to when ads run within a video. It could be in the middle of a sentence or word. It’s just “Time for a commercial. You’ll watch it and you’ll like it!” To that, I and millions of others say “No thank you.”
Last edited:
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
When I've found podcasts that use AD tech like this, I've unsubbed ASAP.
I will usually tolerate ADs in Podcasts and listen through them if they are well done and smartly integrated.
When the Show doesn't care and lets them programmatically get dropped right in the middle of dialogue, I'm out.
If they care that little -- so do I.
No, I'm fine with both.
They probably will. It's usually a cat-and-mouse game.
I use a DNS service that redirects my YouTube traffic to another country that isn't monetized, so no YouTube ads anywhere...including the YouTube app itself on all my smart devices (iPhone, iPad, TVs). Much more difficult for YouTube to block this method.