ReVanced is Free and AD free. Ublock origin on Firefox is still seamless.
Revanced - Video & Music? With a 1,3 (out of 5) ⭐ review score on the Playstore? Apparently full of adds? That apparently needs consent for 121 vendors and 74 advertising vendors?
Maybe I am missing something and I should sideload?
Use Morphe now, it’s a fork of ReVanced. It’s great. You need to get the patcher from their website, and patch the YouTube app yourself. They make it pretty easy.
You are definitely missing something and should side load from a trusted source.
Why would you think that Google would let a working YouTube-ad evader on the play store?
If I could get spotify and revanced into my Home Assistant display I think I would be complete.
that’s crazy
where do they host the videos? who pays for it?
It’s just a way to watch YouTube
That isn’t what this is about, unless you’re implying Sponsor Block support, as this lawsuit is related to creator-inserted ads.
Also, use Morphe now.
ReVanced also includes Sponsor Block.
Couldn’t make it to the eleventh word of my comment, eh?
Goddamn why more churn? The fuck is wrong with ReVanced?
Are you new to open source software? Original devs make a mistake or leave or something, and someone forks it. It isn’t that uncommon.
Iirc most the ReVanced devs left due to some kinda conflict with the dev spearheading it. Morphe is the work of several ex-ReV devs working together specifically to evade that one guy, and ReV’s update code is mostly being pulled from Morphe anyway because the devs that left were doing most of the work, so that one guy is copying them back into ReV.
But hey that’s just what 8ve heard from other Lemmings, idk much more than that. Just that any updates to ReV are basically just delayed-repackaged Morphe code anyway.
given that advertisements and interruptions appear frequently during streamed content, including those inserted by the creator.
Nah, this is dumb as fuck. No reasonable person reading the ToS would assume the creators themselves are restricted from inserting sponsored segments and that YouTube is somehow liable for removing them. Where would this even end? Would GamersNexus quickly advertising their t-shirts count?
Seems likely to fail unless YouTube themselves are failing not to insert ads on Premium.
—A religious SponsorBlock user
100% agree I get premium through my phone provider and I still watch videos were they have a paid sponsor and since I support the content creators I don’t mind the sponsor ad the video.
And YT provides a disguised sponsorblock on top
It’s not often, but yeah, sometimes I’ll get a “Jump Ahead >>>” button overlay that skips the sponsor ad-read and/or a clear auto-generated “segment” that is the sponsor ad-read.
Still, I never expected YT Red to remove uploaded content, only to stop inserted advertisements.
Haha, YT Red.
Now that is an old name of a better time.
Does YouTube insert their own ads into streamed content on yt premium?
No. But they do occasionally advertise their TV and movie rental services as videos in the feeds.
Havent seen that on the TV app and because I use uBlock, I can’t comment on the desktop/mobile version of the website
You can’t advertise one thing and then just add “nah j/k” in the ToS and think you’re off the hook
Youtube Premium has YouTube remove the ads that they have control over. YouTube only has control of the ads that they add to the uploaded video, on either end or mid-rolls. They do not have control of the video content itself which is where creators add their own sponsorship stuff.
We really want YouTube to have unilateral control to determine what is and isn’t an ad, and to remove sponsored advertising that they are not a part of in uploaded content? Something that would also clearly be a conflict of interest as they are an advertising partner.
YouTube also provides a pretty handy tool for getting past those. There’s a DOT located right where the sponsored section of any YouTube video ends that you can fast forward right to.
I don’t think anyone want youtube to remove the ads. They just want Youtube to advertise honestly. If it can’t remove all ads, don’t advertise completely ad-free videos.
If you go to YouTube to watch a commercial (here is an example for Orangina https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrkUDm9pnIw), should the whole video be blocked? YouTube provide a video hosting service and they add commercials on top of that.
I find it unreasonable to demand that YouTube essentially remove content from within the video. That would just end back in the EU “protect-the-children”-Chat Control area of the debate. You could have uploaders mark their videos as containing marketing (and perhaps they do) but enforcement would still be difficult given the sheer volume of videos.
I already wrote no one is demanding they remove all ads. But they can’t describe premium as “removes all ads”.
No one reasonable will demand I sell them the statue of liberty. I can’t do that. But I am still not allowed to advertise that I have Statue of Liberty for sale. The issue isn’t youtube not removing these ads. The issue is they claimed they would for premium.
I always understood “removes all ads” and removing all ads placed in their product by them. With this understanding, I think asking them to remove all ads would mean to in some way enforce uploaders to not have ads in their videos if you are showing them to a premium user.
But I can understand how someone else interprets “removes all ads” as delivering an experience free from all ads of any kind, including those placed in the video by uploaders.
Forcing them to label adsegements and autoskipping them is possible and protects consumers from shadow ads that are increasingly more common nowadays.
Still that is not what I expect from YouTube premium.
Technically the “often skipped” section is the sponsored content.
But I suspect this is fed through user behaviour and not content detectionIt’s also not mandatory labeling of ads. Which YouTube could force on their creating users and should for consumer protection.
And they have tools available to mark the video as “sponsored”
The lawsuit tries to claim that the terms of service reinforce this, when in reality, they directly contradict this already-bad-faith interpretation of what Google advertises. The ToS are clarifying, not contradicting; “restrictions apply” is extremely normal for any advertisement.
and think you’re off the hook
Come back to me when Flemming et al. win this lawsuit. Even a token settlement, come back and rub it in my face. I encourage you, because I won’t be wasting the time to keep up with this doomed nonsense.
Ads or promotions may also appear during live events streamed on YouTube, such as sporting events.
I don’t have strong opinions but it looks like they’re referring to this phrasing in the ToS which suggests ads will only appear in sporting events. That’s the ToS connection. But otherwise, they advertise YouTube as an ad free experience which just isn’t true.
Edit: Oh, I see, you meant in the ToS themselves. But it clearly links directly and unambiguously to the ‘features’ page right at the start of the section.
They… what. You just cut off the two most relevant sentences, namely the ones about sponsored segments etc. They literally say outright that sponsored content by creators will appear in videos, video descriptions, etc., and you just thought to remove that part of the quote “because it’s devastating to my case!”
You may still see branding or promotions embedded in the content by the creator, as well as promotional links, shelves and features in and around the content that are added or enabled by the creator. These links, shelves and features could be for their website, merchandise, membership to their channel, event tickets, or other related destinations that they are promoting. Ads or promotions may also appear on Primetime Channels, during live events streamed on YouTube, such as sporting events.
They’re trying to claim specifically that it’s false advertising because there are sponsored segments, which as you (or if nothing else, a reasonable observer) can see is completely debunked.
Can a company market a submarine but then define a submarine as a lamp in their ToS and you’d just be out of luck?
I haven’t read the case, but you seem to be coming from a place of “the terms absolve them” when the suit may be more about false advertising?
I am a premium subscriber and don’t get a lot of ads, but I have also noticed some UX changes recently that do indeed seem kinda dark pattern/marketing-ish.
I will be mildly watching this hoping for that sweet $2.37 settlement check…
Can a company market a submarine but then define a submarine as a lamp in their ToS and you’d just be out of luck?
No, because a ToS can’t cure an obviously false advertisement, but when looking at what a reasonable consumer would take away from the advertisement, you can see the ToS is clarifying what a reasonable person would already assume – namely that MrBeast, before sending 42 junior high students to fight to the death in a chocolate factory, spending 45 seconds raving about how much he loves to put Hello Kitty-branded capsaicin under his foreskin isn’t something that YouTube Premium is going to get rid of.
You seem very emotional about this while.claiming to not care.
I don’t feel you answered my question on if your criticisms apply - is this about the ToS or about their marketing?
Unless they are referring to paid advertisements by the creators.
The creators would presumably take a cut/fee from YouTube for showing their content ad-free. sponsorblock already does something similar.
Creators already get paid very well for posting on YouTube.
A good rule of thumb for me is, if I see adverts on YouTube and on TV for the same company or product, then they are charging too much…
I choose to avoid them.
if somebody is advertising a small company/startup etc…
Go for it.
But if a creator has ads on premium that costs x amount each month.
Nahh…
–An ultra religious sponsorblock and ublock and hater of mass marketing.
Creators already get paid very well for posting on YouTube.
Not since Pewds made some nazi jokes 9 years ago. Think they’re only now getting back to where they were before that.
There are also a ton more people doing a lot of niches, so now you get fewer views.
A good rule of thumb for me is, if I see adverts on YouTube and on TV for the same company or product, then they are charging too much…
That I can agree on, but then again, how would they even sell their product if there’s no advertisement? The companies that don’t charge too much and then stuff some of it into advertisement, tend to go under.
But if a creator has ads on premium that costs x amount each month.
Creator doesn’t really know if you have premium or not and many users (me) will also have adblock so they don’t get a cent from these views. That’s why many will show you ad-free videos on Patreon or Nebula. No sponsor segments if they know you’re a paying customer.
Please see my two edits regarding this. YouTube very clearly spells out that these sponsored segments are fair game for YouTube Premium. This lawsuit is utterly frivolous, and I hope it burns for being such a joke that I could debunk it in five minutes.
Plus they have a built in functionality to detect and skip creator ads. Not that if they were actually legally responsible for blocking those that this would be an acceptable solution, but they aren’t, so this is a consumer bonus.
I hate that I’m defending Google here, but I agree the lawsuit is frivolous.
I hate that I’m defending Google here
So do I; believe me, I went into this hoping Google had badly fucked up, which is why I was admittedly miffed enough to write that comment and to try to prove myself wrong in the edit. Very “that was just a bunch of cheap walk cycles!” energy; I wanted the lost episode.
