YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Controls, history, and viewing modes

  • Several Premium users want a “read‑only” or “private listening” mode: watch without affecting history, recommendations, or losing Premium benefits.
  • YouTube’s incognito/history pause is seen as clunky: it forgets recent searches, sometimes disables Premium perks, and requires manual toggling or cleanup.
  • Some keep a history tab open to pause/resume quickly, or manually remove individual videos afterward; many find this too fiddly.
  • Parents want better tools to block channels, Shorts, and addictive recommendations for kids; YouTube Kids is viewed as over‑restrictive for educational content but permissive for low‑quality “toy shopping” videos.

New anti‑adblock tactics and the technical arms race

  • Users report “fake buffering” delays and popups blaming extensions; many consider this a dark pattern since the app is clearly functional under the hood.
  • The article’s described technique (locking global objects before extensions can hook them) works better on Chromium; Firefox’s APIs still allow powerful HTML/JS filtering.
  • Commenters expect gradual escalation toward server‑side ad insertion and pre‑muxed streams, referencing Twitch’s aggressive approach.
  • Others note that timestamp‑based tools (e.g. SponsorBlock) and on‑device AI could still identify and skip ads, leading to more product placement and native advertising.
  • Some see Chrome’s Manifest V3 and delayed extension initialization as part of the same anti‑adblock strategy, pushing power away from users and toward platforms.

Ad quality, intrusiveness, and safety

  • Many distinguish YouTube from other ad‑supported services: mid‑rolls every few minutes, very loud spots, and long unskippable or hour‑long “infomercial” ads are cited as uniquely disruptive.
  • Reports include scammy crypto/deepfake ads, dubious supplements, “freedom batteries,” gambling, NSFW dating games, and even illegal or deeply misleading content; this is a major motivation to block all ads for safety.
  • Others see mostly mainstream consumer ads and argue that hostility to ads is not new: people dislike interruption regardless of quality.
  • Several argue that users who block tracking end up in the “lowest‑tier” inventory, which is where the worst ads live; others reject this as victim‑blaming and insist platforms should vet out harmful ads.

Pay, block, or quit? Ethical and economic arguments

  • One side: you’re consuming a costly service; either watch ads, pay Premium, or don’t use it. Blocking is framed as “stealing” or free‑riding on infrastructure and creators.
  • Opposing view: ToS are notices, not binding contracts; the web is public, and users may configure their own agents (adblock, DNS, custom clients). Platforms can block, but not dictate client behavior.
  • Many explicitly frame the relationship as adversarial due to surveillance, monopoly behavior, and manipulative design; they feel no moral obligation toward Google.
  • Some argue ads themselves are harmful enough (psychological manipulation, scams, predatory targeting of vulnerable people) that blocking them is a safety measure or even a moral duty.
  • A large subthread debates whether viewing with an adblocker is morally different from not viewing at all; views remain sharply divided.

YouTube Premium: value, pricing, and distrust

  • Supporters call Premium (especially family plans) one of the best subscription values: ad‑free video + YouTube Music, offline/background play, and better payouts to creators.
  • Critics see it as expensive relative to Netflix‑style original content, resent forced bundling with Music, and dislike that creator‑inserted ads still remain.
  • Lite tiers are seen as confusing (“most videos ad‑free”), not widely available, and still allow some ads (music, Shorts, browsing).
  • A recurring fear: once enough users pay, Google may emulate cable/Prime—reintroducing ads even to paid tiers and charging extra to remove them. This prospect keeps some from subscribing at all.

Creators, sponsorships, and alternative monetization

  • YouTube’s 55/45 revenue split is frequently cited; some call it unusually generous, others argue it’s still captured by a monopolist and incentivizes sponsorship clutter.
  • Sponsor segments inserted by creators are widely disliked; many rely on SponsorBlock or manual skipping. Some want Premium to automatically skip declared sponsorship timestamps.
  • Others caution against deeper platform interference in video content; they prefer viewers “vote with their watch time” against over‑sponsored channels.
  • Many users support creators directly via Patreon, merch, or subscriptions on alternative platforms (e.g. Nebula, Floatplane) and see this as preferable to rewarding Google.

Power, surveillance, and browser/platform lock‑in

  • Long arguments compare Google Analytics to “surveillance pens”: critics say GA exploits the browser’s weak security model to run non‑consensual tracking code; defenders say site owners choose GA just like any other tool.
  • Google is repeatedly called a monopolist using “free + ads” to distort markets, lobbying for favorable regulation, and trying to lock down the web via Chrome, Web Environment Integrity, and extension restrictions.
  • Some suggest YouTube‑scale video should be treated as public infrastructure or a utility; others see that as unrealistic or undesirable government scope.

User responses and changing habits

  • Many insist they’ll quit YouTube entirely if adblocking truly stops working; some already have and report not missing it, replacing it with reading, hobbies, or other services.
  • Others have moved to strategies like:
    • Network‑wide blocking (Pi‑hole, AdGuard)
    • NewPipe, SmartTube, or frontends like Invidious/Grayjay
    • Archiving favorite channels via yt‑dl/yt‑dlp to Plex/Jellyfin
    • Aggressively stripping UI clutter and recommendations with custom filters.
  • A nontrivial group pays for Premium yet still runs network‑level blockers and SponsorBlock to remove all ads and tracking, treating Google as useful but fundamentally untrustworthy.
  • Several note an emerging “enshittification” pattern: free, user‑friendly growth phase; then increasing ads, dark patterns, and upsell pressure once dominance is secure, with the expectation this will continue until users or regulators push back.