You do know you can just click the "reject all" button, right?

At a certain point, the world of the closed internet is going to face the issue of discovery, which is the only reason that they were successful in the first place.

Its really a great time for foss or fedi. It hasn't been easier to compete with established players (like it is now) in a decade.

Those might be the terms of service they started with but a little "Inspect Element" and editing means I agreed to something else entirely.

I don't get WHY I have to choose. Default should be reject all. If there is no reject then just accept it. How hard can this be to get on the Internet?

I hate the cookie popup.

You have to choose because they want that data, so they're gonna make "accept all" the default and "reject all" as hard as legally possible
- Think about it like walking into a store, but before you enter you have to agree to the tos and sign. You see how bad that would be to the user experience. Today I believe the store can track you as much as they want to. There is no opt out.
- The thing is, too, that remembering your decision to reject all has to be done through a cookie, and they know this and take advantage of that fact! 99.9% of websites only offer a choice that makes you dig through at least one menu, or a choice that makes you have to click the 'reject all' button every time the page reloads.
  There needs to be a mandate to add an option to "reject all except my decision to reject" that corresponds to a single boolean. It should exist under a standardized id, and if it's set to true, the site would be required to stop showing you cookie popups. And if the cookie contains anything more than that single boolean and the website it applies to at most, it should be illegal and reportable as such.
  Of course, as you mentioned, that would probably be quite difficult to accomplish legally.
You can set this exactly like that in firefox

I don't care about your terms of service. You can attempt to stop me from using an ad-blocker, but there are ways around that.

If you don't want me using your service the way I want to, then there should be another service that does the same thing. As long as there is no competition to YouTube, I'll use it the way I want, TOS be damned.

And repeat after me: controlling what appears on YOUR screen that YOU OWN is not illegal and in fact, a basic human right of yours
Edit: lmao on the people intentionally misinterpreting what I said. Dude it's my device, kindly fuck off if you think anyone gets to tell me what I HAVE to put on there
- Repeat after me: I will have the self-awareness to realize that I made the conscious decision to go to a website and incur server costs. I am not entitled to free content. If I don't agree with how a website recoups costs, I won't use that website.
  It's not malware vectors. It's not fake downloads. It's short interstitials that let you watch things 'for free.' Youtube is not a human right. It's not water. You can do other things.
- Your iconic username pops up a lot in such discussions. Thanks for being awesome.
- I block ads too but do you expect them to host one of the world's largest collections of data just because?

As someone with a youtube channel and regular uploads ... fuck ads. Use uBlock Origin, Adblock Plus or whatever else works to wipe that garbage off the screen.

I'm extra sour about their suuuuuper useful new-ish option for content creators to turn off personalized ads in their channels - something I immediatly agreed to, because I thought it would, ... y'now ... get rid of the fucking ads.

Nope. All it does is swap "personalized" ads for "unpersonalized" ones, so my followers get the same type of garbage shoved into their faces, just more random. Thanks Youtube, this is exactly what I wanted to achieve. dripping sarcasm, in case it wasn't obvious

- Even better would have been an option to turn them off entirely =P but that's what UBlock Origin is for.

You can reject cookies, not the TOS. You agree to the TOS of services by simply using them.

Not in the EU you don't
- Well, you do. But the EU has a bunch of sanity check laws that make basically all of them non-binding.
  Such as any agreement too long for anyone to actually read, being moot.
  But YT makes it pretty clear they don't want you blocking ads, that might actually make that specific part one of the few things that would stand up in court.

I agreed to it because there's no real competition for content, so they own the market by default. If you don't hit "I agree" to every last stipulation, data provision, and term you dont have access to the the largest library of information, shitposting, and weaponised opinions since dawn of radio or television.

I don't agree with it. So adblock stays.

This reminds me of how when reddit closed their API, a select few just went to web scraping it instead lol.

Many others just stopped using Reddit alltogether. But Stockholm syndrome is a bitch when it comes to YouTube. So everyone will continue to whine about how shitty YouTube is whilst not bothering to do what is necessary to correct it-

Here also: https://odysee.com/@rossmanngroup:a/youtube's-adblock-detection-might-break:c

Oh, he's on odysee? Nice!

When seeing all the anti-YouTube memes, and reading all the anti-YouTube posts, I can’t help but wonder why we didn’t get one single wave of these memes and posts, and then silence on the subject.

And then I remember.

It’s because people don’t want to do the thing that makes change. Which is- STOP USING THE PLATFORM.

Whining about a thing while continuing to support said thing is essentially Stockholm syndrome.

Get help.

Except we are taking matters into our own hands with FOSS and Adblock. Also switching to alternative browsers
I haven't experienced issues with YouTube ever since I installed uBlock Origin and stopped using chrome. I technically have no reason to complain anymore.
- Those things will fail. But you know that, don’t you?

And what about Spain with cookies, or Instagram? A lot of places now either force you to accept tracking or pay to stop ads/tracking if you want to access the site.

I thought the directive says that when cookies are denied you cannot deny the service.

Brother doesn't know the difference between cookies and terms of service. Wild