That said though, there is one ad blocker that still works. Two words: uBlock Origin. Yes, I know that Google has blocked it from its Chrome Extension store, but there is still a way to get uBlock Origin on Chrome that our how-to extraordinaire Kaycee has detailed.
They even link to what I assume is that process.
But…
It costs the same as Spotify
I used Google Play music and it was awesome, when it shuttered I tried Spotify and didn’t like it.
YouTube premium is worth it just for music on your phone/car, getting YouTube ad free is kind of just a bonus. But there’s a couple podcasts I watch on there, and I’ve found a couple really good channels for all the crazy science stuff that’s been happening. Not to mention a lot of UK shows upload full episodes, and there’s more than one account that somehow uploads full runs of shows after being upscaled to 4k.
I really don’t understand why so many people are against YouTube premium. It makes sense if someone just pirates all their other media. But people pay for a music streamer and a couple TV streamers… It seems like an arbitrary line.
Edit:
The article is from “toms guide” not “toms hardware”.
The guide has every article like this where it reads like paid advertising. The “hardware” one is a good resource.
But yeah, pretty much anything from “tomsguide” is going to read like paid advertising for something. I legit don’t know if they’re affiliated or it’s a ripoff site built to confuse people with the “hardware” site.
Three out of four of the paragraphs in the article’s solution were spent convincing people of the benefits to buying premium. Still feels like an ad despite the tiny mention of uBlock Origin at the very bottom.
I do agree that Youtube, premium isn’t bad value. But I refuse to support google or youtube directly with my money. If I ever want to support a creator, I can throw them a couple dollars on patreon and help them far more than buying premium ever would have.
Yeah, the site is pretty garbage and every article reads like an ad.
“Tom’s hardware” is still an amazing resource, but “Tom’s guide” is so shit I can’t tell if it’s a ripoff site or just how they find the good one. Especially since the sites look the same, just different background color.
I’m used to it now so I didn’t mention that, but for people who don’t know about the site it makes sense why they were thrown off.
People on Lemmy might be more likely to be trying to do things like de-google in general, or try to cutdown on account based usage for big corporations.
So not really want to give Google their payment information for YouTube and sign in to use YouTube.
I don’t like the idea of spending money for Google. I don’t find it very ethic to use their services in the way I do but no replacement has come up for years. I try to mitigate by donating to some content creators and I would love to pay a subscription to something like Nebula if there were at least 3 people I follow in there.
I would use an adblocker even if I paid. On my phone Tubular is just a much better experience : multi platforms, aggregates my subscription, no addictive low quality suggestions and lightweight while still featurefull (and it integrates sponsorblock 🤫)
Also on my previous phone the YouTube app was super slow and would regularly crash because of RAM shortages. This was 6 years ago though.
I don’t want a YouTube account, that just makes it easier for Google to track me
premium costs too much relative to how much I use it (Nebula is more reasonable, which I do pay for)
I can support my favorite creators in other ways (merch, patreon, etc)
I don’t pirate. I buy movies and TV shows and rip them to my media server, I buy lots of video games both physical and digital, and I buy books if my library doesnt have it or I want to keep it on my shelf. I’m not against paying for things, I’m against my privacy being violated.
I watch a few hours of content a week, and I’d be happy cutting down a bit. I don’t follow any of the big names, rarely listen to music, and really only watch videos from a handful of channels, most of which are a waste of time anyway. If Google blocked my ad blocker, I’d be fine just not watching YouTube anymore.
$14 is too much, I think $5 is about as much as I’d be willing to pay, or $1/channel. Give me that and I’ll consider signing up, despite my misgivings about Google.
I read that. But the way the article is written suggests that the workaround they’re implying is to buy YouTube premium.
I am not per se against YT premium, after all its normal business to take money and serve a product, but what my biggest cons are
The price
I already use all of the mentioned premium features and more but for free
For example:
YT music -> ReVanced (background play, no ads)
YT App -> ReVanced (no ads, Sponsorblock, no shorts)
YT on browser -> Extensions (uBlock, Sponsorblock, block yt shorts)
If I were to pay for premium and use the regular app, I would lose that functionality and 130€ per year. This money would support a company whose business model involves extensive collection of personal data, which is then sold to third parties, effectively contributing to the global surveillance infrastructure.
The thing about it costs about the same as Spotify is not really true. I have been using Spotify family for a long long time (maybe 10 years). I use it with 5 other “family” members and we split the costs.
I think you stopped scrolling too early
They even link to what I assume is that process.
But…
It costs the same as Spotify
I used Google Play music and it was awesome, when it shuttered I tried Spotify and didn’t like it.
YouTube premium is worth it just for music on your phone/car, getting YouTube ad free is kind of just a bonus. But there’s a couple podcasts I watch on there, and I’ve found a couple really good channels for all the crazy science stuff that’s been happening. Not to mention a lot of UK shows upload full episodes, and there’s more than one account that somehow uploads full runs of shows after being upscaled to 4k.
I really don’t understand why so many people are against YouTube premium. It makes sense if someone just pirates all their other media. But people pay for a music streamer and a couple TV streamers… It seems like an arbitrary line.
Edit:
The article is from “toms guide” not “toms hardware”.
The guide has every article like this where it reads like paid advertising. The “hardware” one is a good resource.
But yeah, pretty much anything from “tomsguide” is going to read like paid advertising for something. I legit don’t know if they’re affiliated or it’s a ripoff site built to confuse people with the “hardware” site.
Three out of four of the paragraphs in the article’s solution were spent convincing people of the benefits to buying premium. Still feels like an ad despite the tiny mention of uBlock Origin at the very bottom.
I do agree that Youtube, premium isn’t bad value. But I refuse to support google or youtube directly with my money. If I ever want to support a creator, I can throw them a couple dollars on patreon and help them far more than buying premium ever would have.
Yeah, the site is pretty garbage and every article reads like an ad.
“Tom’s hardware” is still an amazing resource, but “Tom’s guide” is so shit I can’t tell if it’s a ripoff site or just how they find the good one. Especially since the sites look the same, just different background color.
I’m used to it now so I didn’t mention that, but for people who don’t know about the site it makes sense why they were thrown off.
People on Lemmy might be more likely to be trying to do things like de-google in general, or try to cutdown on account based usage for big corporations.
So not really want to give Google their payment information for YouTube and sign in to use YouTube.
firefox!! why would people rather fuck with chrome to allow ublock to be installed when firefox exists is way beyond me.
About YouTube premium :
Also on my previous phone the YouTube app was super slow and would regularly crash because of RAM shortages. This was 6 years ago though.
My reasons:
I don’t pirate. I buy movies and TV shows and rip them to my media server, I buy lots of video games both physical and digital, and I buy books if my library doesnt have it or I want to keep it on my shelf. I’m not against paying for things, I’m against my privacy being violated.
I watch a few hours of content a week, and I’d be happy cutting down a bit. I don’t follow any of the big names, rarely listen to music, and really only watch videos from a handful of channels, most of which are a waste of time anyway. If Google blocked my ad blocker, I’d be fine just not watching YouTube anymore.
$14 is too much, I think $5 is about as much as I’d be willing to pay, or $1/channel. Give me that and I’ll consider signing up, despite my misgivings about Google.
I read that. But the way the article is written suggests that the workaround they’re implying is to buy YouTube premium. I am not per se against YT premium, after all its normal business to take money and serve a product, but what my biggest cons are
For example: YT music -> ReVanced (background play, no ads) YT App -> ReVanced (no ads, Sponsorblock, no shorts) YT on browser -> Extensions (uBlock, Sponsorblock, block yt shorts)
If I were to pay for premium and use the regular app, I would lose that functionality and 130€ per year. This money would support a company whose business model involves extensive collection of personal data, which is then sold to third parties, effectively contributing to the global surveillance infrastructure.
I would rather not use YouTube than pay for it.
The thing about it costs about the same as Spotify is not really true. I have been using Spotify family for a long long time (maybe 10 years). I use it with 5 other “family” members and we split the costs.