[simon_kun]

Do folks know that 55% of ad revenue goes directly to the creators whose content you are watching? Apps like this sound great, but ultimately damage ecosystems. YT Premium is like $11.99/mo and you never see an ad again. If you think you're getting $12/mo USD value out of YT, then I question why you'd want to go through the hassle of this over just paying not to see ads (ps: premium income also goes to the creators!) - how much is your time worth?

[wanderingmind]

People can pay the content creators through Patron or other platforms without having Google watching and tracking every online action. Google is pushing tag manager and other options because of ad revenue. Killing ads at every possible opportunity is a noble act and moral responsibility of every tech sophisticated user.

[toastal]

What piece of the pie does Patreon take and why do we want to pay their slice?

[unfamiliar]

Then they can watch the content through Patreon too, no need for YouTube at all.

[Crash0v3rid3]

Not every creator has a Patreon or other forms to receive payment.

[ayushnix]

> then I question why you'd want to go through the hassle of this over just paying not to see ads

Can I set the YouTube app to open directly to my list of subscriptions rather than the YouTube home page?

Can I hide the thumbnails from all videos on the YouTube app?

Can I skip annoying sponsored segments? (I usually end up blocking the entire channel which has annoying sposnored segments on my browser with BlockTube)

Can I turn off comments?

Can I turn off suggestions for videos to watch?

If the answer to any of these questions is no, I don't wanna use the official YouTube app, even if there are no ads after paying for Premium.

[ajsnigrutin]

So, on one side we have advertisers in cooperation with youtube to push an obscure amounts of ads to a video, sometimes even more (in length) than the video itself + the youtubers themselvs having sponsored segments...

...on the other side we have something we have to pay to skip those ads (only the youtube ones, not the in-video ones), but youtube and google still tracks us, still shows us ads on other sites (eg. slow cooker ads, after watching clow cooker reviews on youtube...

...and on the "alternative" side, we have a free solution, that stops all the youtube ads, skips all the in-video ads, and blocks all the ads on other sites, makes our internet faster, makes our batteries last longer, and pay less when we have limited data plans.

[dartharva]

No matter how much I can pay, why should I when I am getting a vastly superior experience with these options? This is just downloading and installing an app, wayy less of a "hassle" than setting up payment and exposing yourself to Youtube's abhorrent feed on the front page. These ideals don't work in the free market; if I can take something for free I'll take it as I see fit, as will all rational consumers across the world if they can.

[xuki]

The YouTube algorithm is the problem. Any feature that was designed to maximise engagement will eventually destroy the product itself. You can only avoid the algorithm if you don’t use the YouTube app.

[netr0ute]

They can take it or they can leave it, because they must adapt or die.

[p1necone]

You can pay for YouTube premium for no ads. You already get to choose between free, with ads or paid without.

The "adaptation" you're calling for is what exactly? YouTube hosting and serving video content as a charity?

[brokenmachine]

I used to allow ads, but they've made their ads unbearable.

If they work out how to stop me from blocking ads, I won't watch.

It's that simple.

[p1necone]

My original comment was downvoted and is too old for me to edit. But I'm still curious. What do the people who disagree with me think YouTube should do? Is the issue that the ads are too intrusive? Are you uncomfortable with the tracking, but would be happy with the current 'pay to not see ads' if it wasn't for the tracking?

When you just screech about YouTube being unnacceptable without actually explaining your issues in detail it just sounds to me like you want google to host a (very expensive for them) video sharing service without monetizing it at all, which is obviously an unrealistic demand (also, you should promote peertube - p2p seems like the way to make this happen).

[netr0ute]

> YouTube should do?

Go the way of Digg or disappear entirely, because if you need ads to survive, then you don't have a very good website. The competitors like Rumble or BitChute or Odysee or PeerTube will fill in the gaps.

[duxup]

We internet users don’t want to pay for anything, we don’t want to watch ads, we get upset when free products aren’t free anymore, and when we are the product…

I sometimes think we get what we deserve.