youtube-dl, NewPipe, and uBlock Origin exist solely for the purpose of empowering the individual, yet they are constantly attacked on HN as being tools used unfairly to harm Google's profitability. Open-source projects like Matrix, PeerTube, Mastodon, are built to be free and open-source for the benefit of end-users and lack of vendor lockin. Yet each is derided on HackerNews for not being enough like their corporate counterparts. Yes, there are those here who don't do that, but as cynical as it sounds, I do think this site's audience is mostly folk who like the status quos set by FAANG-types and don't really care about hackerism outside of toy websites.
The projects can be appreciated while also acknowledging that advertisements are part of the value exchange. There's nothing wrong with knowing that if your options are to either watch ads or pay for a service, and you privateer the service instead, that that is not as reasonable as it seems to some people.
Note: this is very different from "but I want to block all ads", that's not what I'm writing here and also not what others might be writing.
As for the audience, it varies, but this website is a VC thing, so it makes some sense that a bunch of visitors are from the VC ecosystem and as such might be very money-oriented.
> The projects can be appreciated while also acknowledging that advertisements are part of the value exchange.
No, this is preposterous and I will continue to refute this silly idea every time it shows up here. It is not stealing from radio stations to change the station when ads come on. It is not stealing from TV channels to go get a drink when ads come on. There is no moral compunction to watch ads, from anyone, anywhere. Stop trying to normalize advertising, which is to say, stop trying to normalize the enshittification of the human mind.
Meanwhile, a web browser is a user agent running on my machine. Youtube's content is a guest on my hardware. Once it's on my machine, I have the moral right to do whatever I please with it. If Google doesn't want to serve it to me, then it has the right to prevent me from accessing their server, such as in exchange for payment. But again, advertising is not payment, it's just corporate-sanctioned, socially-acceptable brainwashing.
> Once it's on my machine, I have the moral right to do whatever I please with it.
Sure, but Google also has the moral right to do everything possible with their code to make it as hard as possible for you to skip ads on their videos. You both get to try as hard as you can, so good luck to you both.
There's no brainwashing here. It's just a business trying to make money, and trying to outsmart the users trying to outsmart it.
Advertising is at least trying to make you think thoughts it feeds you. "Buy Brand X, you'll get women!" If the advertising is effective, you'll associate Brand X with something positive and want to buy it.
It's kind of blanket brainwashing with extra steps because it's more indirect. Similar technological brainwashing might be joining an algorithmic social media site and becoming convinced of something the algorithm felt was the most engaging thing that day and spread, regardless of truth. Choosing to believe what social media or advertising tells without healthy skepticism you is willingly accepting some brainwashing.
There are people who feel really strongly about ads, and I'm one of them. I hate them, they don't share my values, and they are only trying to extract value from me. I run ad blocker in my browser, but mute and skip any ads I can like a peasant on my TV or phone. So overall I end up watching more ads than not since I don't watch videos on my PC much.
I can't say I never see an ad, but I avoid/cancel services with ads, or happily sign up at the no-ad level.
When I do see ads its shocking. Car ads have little to do with cars, and everything to do with insecurity and Pavlovian hacks. Idiocracy drip by drip.
People expose themselves to crap influences day in and day out, then imagine this or that ad isn't impacting them. The stream has profoundly impacted them or they wouldn't tolerate any of it.
I can't really remember the last time I saw an ad. And as a result (probably?) I find I "want" for far fewer things than most people who let themselves be drawn in by ads. If a million dollars just hopped into my bank account, I'd probably just invest it and go back to living, more or less, the same. And I'm in no way whatsoever rich. But contentedness is cheap, and easy, when you don't let yourself get drowned into the endless vacuum of artificial demand. [1]
I am absolutely certain that the exponential increase in advertising is probably going to ultimately have been found to be at least partly responsible for so many of the mental and psychological problems that seem to be on the exponential increase in places like America. Humans are not designed to live our lives as donkeys chasing a carrot on a stick.
That's because most car ads aren't actually trying to sell you the car. They are instead trying to sell you the idea of the car's status[0]. While people are most familiar with ads that are blatant attempts to get you to buy something, many are much more indirect. It's also why native advertising is so nefarious. A large portion of ads actually aren't the direct version, but most often people don't notice they're taking in an ad, and that's kinda the point.
> Advertising is at least trying to make you think thoughts it feeds you.
BuT aDs DoN't AfFeCt Me!
I'm honestly frequently impressed how how often people don't understand what ads are or do. Especially considering they funds most of our paychecks. Everyone is affected by ads and convincing yourself that you aren't makes you more vulnerable to them.
I think the problem comes from people thinking ads exclusively are about selling things that have a monetary value. But ads sell ideas. Often that idea is that you should buy something, but sometimes it is a preference like a politician or a celebrity in their latest scandal or rise to fame. Ads can be good too, like public service announcements. But for sure we're over inundated with them and there's too many bad ones.
I am also particularly peeved about the ads that come from email addresses I can't exactly block. I really don't think anyone should be accountable for missing an important email if the sender also sends 90% junk from the same address. I'm looking at you every university ever[0]
> skip any ads I can like a peasant on my TV or phone.
Maybe check out reVanced. You can recompile the YouTube APK to be ad free.
[0] Here's the text from my uni's page when you click unsubscribe. What a joke. I don't need emails from the alumni association, publicity channels, or all that. And you have the audacity to try to convince me it isn't spam? What a joke. I'm glad I use a third party mail client that can filter this stuff but it is an absolute joke that we think this is acceptable. It shouldn't require special tools. There is a clear difference between police reports and the alumni association and they even come from different senders. In fact, not allowing for you to unsubscribe actually goes counter to the safety claim because it teaches people to ignore your emails.
> In order to share information quickly and efficiently with faculty, staff, GEs, and students, the university uses email as its official form of communication. All emails that end in an @<theuniversity>.edu address are required to receive email communications sent by the university. As such, there is no option for @<theuniversity>.edu email accounts to unsubscribe from official university communications emails and these emails are not considered spam under applicable laws.
I understand not all advertising is bad as a good product might not spread during the critical
growth phase without it. It just raises a lot of red flags for me when someone is desperate for my attention like ads are. Google reeeally wants me to buy a Pixel 8 lol
Glad you can filter the crap, but I guess from a CYA perspective the school can say "we notified everyone through our official email channel" whether you were ever going to read that email or not.
There's also things like PSAs that can be good ads. I think it's important we remember that it's not always about consumerism.
Haha there's only a few places I get ads and I lock as much down as I can. There's a certain sense of joy when you get ads so misaligned from you that you know they are reaching.
Oh it's a constant battle to filter. But what worries me is actually that people honestly do not get it. These are clearly little metric hacking and I'm afraid we're just traveling deeper and deeper into Goodhart's Hell.
> but Google also has the moral right to do everything possible with their code to make it as hard as possible for you to skip ads on their videos
So, like use an entirely different part of the company like Chrome to push for WEI to make adblockers not run?
Or maybe use chrome to push for manifest v3?
Maybe the __moral right to do everything possible__ isn't actually moral when it's using its leverage in a separate market to protect another one of its assets. Maybe we should see this as something to anti-trust them?
I dunno -- you've still got the moral right to use Firefox or Safari or a Chromium fork.
Ads and adblockers are always going to be a cat and mouse game, so I don't see any reason to complain.
Antitrust doesn't really enter the picture. Chrome doesn't even come preinstalled on PCs or Macs anyways -- you've got to go out of your way to choose to install it. So just don't, if you don't like it.
I don't think this is true. Google Meet, Youtube, etc all perform worse on non-Chrome/Chromium based browsers.
I do think that the world's most popular browser, being owned by the same entity that owns Youtube, actively working to block adblockers (adblockers which, do *not* harm Chrome but do harm Youtube) is something for regulatory bodies to take into consideration.
> Sure, but Google also has the moral right to do everything possible with their code to make it as hard as possible for you to skip ads on their videos.
The person you're replying to acknowledges this, albeit indirectly.
But the point still stands: if Google sends me the bits, I am free (morally, and, at least for now, legally) to discard the bits that correspond to the ads if I can figure out how to do so without watching them. If Google can figure out ahead of time that's what I'm planning to do, and refuses to give me the bits, that's of course Google's right.
> There's no brainwashing here. It's just a business trying to make money
Advertising is psychological manipulation to coerce you to buy whatever product is on offer. The "best" advertising will convince you that you need a product that you'd never consider buying otherwise. "Brainwashing" might be a sensationalized way of putting it, but I don't think that's particularly inaccurate.
You're wrong. Radio and TV from your example get paid anyway and you count as a watcher in the statistics so it doesn't matter if you're there for the broadcast or not, transaction complete either way.
When you are an on-demand user where the transaction is media in exchange for something (advertisements or a paid subscription), and you weasel your way out of exchanging something you're not 'moral' or whatever measure you take.
It also doesn't matter what you think or feel with this transaction since the rules are known ahead of time, and you either agree to them or don't, and there is no third option that entitles you to free content. That includes your mental gymnastics about who is a server, who is a client and who did what. The technical details do not matter, they never did and they never will.
Is it a shit experience? Definitely. It doesn't mean that the rules you agreed to suddenly don't apply anymore.
The alternative is to leave to a for profit company. That company should not have that right.
If the content is rendered in my browser I can manipulate the JS and HTML as much as like. If you don’t like that -> feel free to put protections. But the same way a browser interprets the code I can put stuff on top of that interpretation.
So morally I’m okay to use a blocker if that’s what I want to do. It’s also immoral to track me but Google seems to be okay with it. If that is the relationship they want to establish so be it. I will act in the reciprocal manner.
The idea is not to decide on what someone else is going to do with their mind. Hence the idea that everyone is free to do what they want. Ads are not a natural part of the world so making the argument that not watching them is somehow wrong is what is actually a decision being pushed on others.
If companies didn’t try to normalize ads and tell you off for using adblockers then nobody would have a problem with it. But given that people say: You need to watch ads otherwise you are stealing is putting decisions in someone’s mind.
The tools should exist and Google shouldn't fight them. But at least for me, I'm usually trying to remind people that the ad money is a large part of how the content creator survives too. If you block the ads, then please consider donating to your favorite creators Patreon or using YT premium (which is actually typically more lucrative for content creators than ads are).
I don't care about Google's profits but I figure we should try to support the content we enjoy in some way or else all we'll be left with is MrBeast, PewDiePie and content farm videos (ie the stuff that is so hyper scale that no amount of ad blocking can effectively hurt them)
If it was literally impossible to profit from digital video content creation, there'd be still be countless videos, and the overall quality (in terms of content value, not production value) would also probably be higher. People like sharing content, even for free - hence sites like this one, which we've all probably spent far too many hours on, and I've yet to receive a single payment from Dang!? And Google will never scrap YouTube because they gain immense profit just from profiling you, regardless of how many ads they can force you to watch. And perhaps even scarier from their perspective is the rise in marketshare that'd give to competitors.
In many ways it'd probably be far better for the world if making videos was not perceived as being profitable. The number of children who now want to be 'streamers' or 'youtubers' instead of astronauts, engineers, and scientists is not a good direction for society.
> If it was literally impossible to profit from digital video content creation, there'd be still be countless videos, and the overall quality (in terms of content value, not production value) would also probably be higher.
A lot of YouTubers I enjoy watching are very tech/science focused and use proceeds from their videos to purchase equipment that is used to create content. I don't think their channels would be nearly as interesting if they didn't make shiny-toy-money from it.
> The number of children who now want to be 'streamers' or 'youtubers' instead of astronauts, engineers, and scientists is not a good direction for society.
People desiring to be famous isn't an idea that started in the age of YouTube and TikTok. The medium changes with what's the dominant platform. If anything, YouTube and TikTok democratized the process.
"Democratized" is just a fancy way of saying "made it easier for more people to get into it". So you get the same result: more people seeing that becoming famous is actually attainable, which drains talent from more useful endeavors.
(And yes, I'm going to assert that becoming an astronaut, engineer, scientist, etc. is immeasurably more useful than becoming an influencer or whatever. It's fine to disagree with me there, but that's my position.)
Having said that, I do get a lot of value and understanding and useful information from some YouTube channels (which I do my best to support through Patreon and my YT Premium subscription). But not all channels are created equal.
This is just factually not true. A lot of YouTubers eventually quit their jobs and become full time content creators. That's means they are able to create more content and the quality of their content can increase as they are able to spend more time on production and editing.
They are also able to invest in their channels. Many bigger YouTubers have small production studios, very expensive camera equipment (think $70k Red Dragon/ARRI cameras, 5 figure lighting setups,etc), and full time staff. They can production quality that rivals a TV studio. None of that would be possible if video content couldn't be monetized.
I sort of agree about the obsession with being a "content creator". But at the same time, kids have always wanted to be rock stars, professional athletes, and movie stars. Content creator is just a new type of celebrity for kids to idolize.
TV, documentaries, movies and music videos are video content just the same. Even most sports is consumed in video format.
Only served via a different platform (or not really anymore for some like music videos).
People wanting to be streamers/youtubers is the same as them wanting to be any other celebrity.
To be able to show some valuable content, there has to be something valuable happening, and hopefully that still directs enough people to be astronauts, engineers and scientists (so eg NASA can live stream their flying to Moon or something).
All I am saying nothing has changed, really, other than the platform and accessibility.
I think there’s a sorites paradox here: if it were actually impossible to make money from digital video, then YouTube wouldn’t exist at all because it couldn’t pay for the hosting and bandwidth it needs to distribute videos. What is true is that YouTube is basically not harmed by some fraction of their users blocking ads but, were that fraction to hit some percentage of the total traffic, YouTube would be forced to either discontinue free video hosting or charge to watch (or it would be killed as unprofitable).
Exactly right. I think we are incredibly far from that breaking point, and what Google is doing is chasing growth for their shareholders more than anything else, especially at the end of the free money era.
The platform itself may be replaced but the incredible result of the YouTube platform is that there are millions of excellent creators who are making a living by making their videos, and even making enough to keep raising the bar on their work.
It's not a given that growing such a swelling stream of creative work will ever again be possible if this one dies out. YouTube was in the right place at the right time with the right subsidization available while they made the systems work at scale, and scale them up to insane hyper scale levels. This happened because of the advertising bubble, which is showing heavy signs of stress especially in the last few years. Society is already pushing back against the data collection that makes advertising at these scales as lucrative as it is, and if the bubble finally pops it's possibly it'll never inflate this way again.
This is why it's important to support the small creators you enjoy in some way. Direct contribution is certainly the best of them all. Sure this might not be relevant for superstar YouTubers, but take for example Technology Connections. Alec is an amazing communicator who puts insane effort (full time) into producing super informative videos about electronics and engineering.
> and the overall quality (in terms of content value, not production value) would also probably be higher
This is pretty questionable. Quality takes time. If you need an income to pay your rent, 40 hours or more of your work week are taken up. That leaves a few hours before dinner and sleep to work on your videos (since in this hypothetical, it is "literally impossible" to make money on your videos).
Of course you could work on the weekend, and many do. But let's not forget that making videos is work, and it's important to do the things, you know, we invented weekends for. Like spending time with your family, reading a book, or playing a video game. How entitled this content creator must be to have a weekend. This is of course assuming that the creator's day job is a traditional one-- more than likely they work partial days 7 days a week at varying hours as is the norm for crappier jobs.
That 40 hours gives you enough income to pay your expenses, but unfortunately, for most people, doesn't give you the income you need to get a real camera, so you're just using the webcam that you already had on your computer.
The audio is terrible and the video looks like it came out of the early days of YouTube, but somehow that qualifies as "high production values".
Sometimes it's easy to lose sight of reality when working in a highly paid specialized field like engineering.
> In many ways it'd probably be far better for the world if making videos was not perceived as being profitable. The number of children who now want to be 'streamers' or 'youtubers' instead of astronauts, engineers, and scientists is not a good direction for society.
Well you are watching that content, presumably. Do you feel it provides value to you?
There are an awful lot of small science educators on YouTube. They are doing the work to inspire people to get into the sciences. Is that not valuable? Those people have an outsized dependency on the ad revenue and patreon income they receive so they can keep making videos that are accurate and engaging. For them, another hundred people blocking ads could mean the difference between doing what they love and releasing quality videos or having to go back to a day job that occupies all their time.
If there was no YouTube, how do our kids get inspired to become scientists-- by watching the latest MCU movie? By watching cable programming?
YouTube isn't all just MrBeast and dramatube videos but I get the impression that this is what you think of. It reminds me of the "algorithm slip" where users make broad assumptions about a platform because of what it serves to them, but really it says more about you than properly evaluating what content is on the platform.
When I sum up your take, it sounds like only those people with passive income should have the privilege to make videos, and that's actually not a world I want.
> Well you are watching that content, presumably. Do you feel it provides value to you?
That's a pretty thorny question, come to think of it.
Perhaps it's like eating chocolate. It provides value to some part of me, but at the same time, a more reasonable part can judge that I as a whole would be better off if the chocolate wasn't there and I'd eat something healthier instead. So I can both consume it and desire an environment where I wouldn't consume it.
You're free to not eat the chocolate, but are you suggesting that it's the chocolate's fault for existing, and that chocolate should go away so you aren't tempted?
I'd assert that a lot of content on YouTube is not chocolate. There are high quality "healthy" options right there on the app. How about Technology Connections or the 4 hour long retrospectives on your favorite book, film, or video game? What about the years of technical and learning content? Those aren't chocolate, those are spinach.
So only people with role models close to them or in a place where inspiring things are happening should be inspired?
Before YouTube and the Internet in general, only affluent people had these things, and we left behind a huge portion of the worlds population. Those people have the same potential as people of means or the luck to be born in an affluent country or an urban area.
I do get that you also include reading things on the Internet, but that's not always engaging enough to create a spark for people.
This is bordering on ridiculous. No, not only affluent people had role models FFS. Carl Sagan, for instance, was a 1st gen son of poor immigrants. His mother was a house-wife, his father a garment worker. His inspiration came from what scientifically curious people used to do before the internet - like going to the library, talking to his teachers, or even going to a museum every once in a while.
Since the advent of the internet the entire developed world has been getting literally dumber, so far as IQ can measure. [1] That's, to my knowledge, the latest study but a quick search for 'reversal of flynn effect' will turn up a zillion hits. In other words, what I'm saying is not controversial in the least. And one of the hypothesis for why this is happening (as per the linked paper) is, unsurprisingly, increased media exposure. YouTube is playing a significant role in literally making the world more stupid.
I love plenty of 'sciency' YouTubers - Veritassium, Cody's Lab, Smarter Every Day, and many more. But in reality, you're not like to learn much of anything from these sort of scientainment. It's just candy with a sciency coating, more likely to inspire people to want to make more candy, than to actually pursue science.
There isn't one Hacker News. Nearly every product you list also has it's greatest champions here on HN.
yt-dlp's post on HN garnered a lot of overwhelmingly positive attention [0].
I learned about NewPipe from HN and am now an ardent fan. Also received an overwhelming amount of positive attention recently, with the top comment recommending a fork that blocks even more advertising [1].
Every release of uBlock Origin gets hundreds of upvotes (1.53 got 527 points [2]). Again, overwhelmingly positive attention.
There's a subset of HN that is obsessed with the fediverse, and another subset that is skeptical, but the skepticism is overwhelmingly technical in nature.
If you want to see corporate shills on HN, you'll probably be able to find some, but it's certainly not a majority (much less unanimous!) view.
The projects you listed are overwhelmingly celebrated on Hacker News! I'm sure you can find a critical post if you look hard enough—HN isn't a hive mind—but it's not a common sentiment.
My experience here is exactly the opposite: I see the projects you talk about get a lot of positive attention and praise. Sure, there are detractors as you say, but they seem to me to be a very small minority.
