invidious-custom VS anti-adblock-killer

I don’t use regular YouTube I use https://yewtu.be and my audio worked fine on that versio.

https://yewtu.be/ you have to change the visual preferences though to "search"

Someone on a different thread mentioned they watch his videos on yewtu.be instead of on YouTube so that Stephen doesn't get any views or clicks which I think is a great idea.

if i search for something for example here: https://yewtu.be

You can go on yewtu.be instead so she doesn't get a view.

yewtu.be is also where people watch it. its so much better than youtube cuz there is no ads!

So, for most of the history of advertising, you didn't have a choice. Advertising was a part of someone else's property that would ambush[0] you before you could even ignore it. Internet advertising is an outlier in that it happens on your property. You ask for a web page, the web site sends back the page with a bunch of JavaScript that tries to run an ad auction on your computer, then your browser extensions delete the JavaScript, then another bit of JavaScript sent by the web site detects this and deletes the content, except no because your extension also defeated the antitamper script, except no because the web site legally threatened your ad blocker with billions of dollars in litigation for breaking the "don't rip DVDs" law.

I'm not kidding about that, BTW[1][2][3]. There is a silent and ongoing effort by everyone - including ad companies - to appropriate your physical property with their intellectual property[4]. You see, on the totem pole of capitalist legitimacy, physical ownership is actually really weak. There's all sorts of government-granted monopolies that can be traded like property[5], but let you bulldoze lesser ownership over physical objects. You might own your computer, but I own the content, so I own your computer for as long as my content is somewhere on it.

Talking about fundamental rights is interesting. Right now, at least in the US, people have a fundamental right to advertise - it's called the 1st Amendment. We can't even have functional campaign contribution laws because SCOTUS demands that billionaires have a god-given right to spend their billions shouting over everyone else in campaign ads. Several other fundamental rights mean you have the right to ignore shouty ads, but you don't have the right to shut the advertisers up. Likewise, the right to refuse ad exposure online is implied by the fact that the website runs on your computer. But other rights - such as the right to control copies of your speech - can negate that same implication.

Anyway, this is why I think we should bring back the Boston Strangler[6]. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

[0] This is separate from the concept of "ambush marketing" where you try to ride another marketer's coat tails as close as possible without violating trademark law, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambush_marketing

[1] https://digiday.com/media/adblock-plus-accuses-axel-springer...

[2] https://torrentfreak.com/dmca-used-to-remove-ad-server-url-f...

[3] Here's a longer GitHub issue/flamewar full of people debating whether or not you can apply DMCA 1201 equivalents to ad blockers: https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer/issues/1034

[4] Shut up Stallman, you know what it really means. - Not Cory Doctorow

[5] I'm afraid to call them property because if I do that means the Takings clause applies and we can't ever roll back the life+70 insanity that Berne, Germany, and the EU foisted on us.

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Valenti#Valenti_on_new_te...

On Windows, I use Anti-Adblock Killer + uBlock Origin + SponsorBlock + YouTube Enhancer (which adds many features such as granular custom speed up to 14x).

Try Anti-Adblock Killer.

Should also be using Anti Adblock Killer

Link