Seriously this was very surprising. I’ve been experimenting with GrayJay since it was announced and I largely think it’s a pretty sweet app. I know there are concerns over how it isn’t “true open source” but it’s a hell of a lot more open than ReVanced. Plus, I like the general design and philosophy of the app.

I updated the YouTube backend recently and to my surprise and delight they had added support for SponsorBlock. However, when I went to enable it, it warned me “turning this on harms creators” and made me click a box before I could continue.

Bruh, you’re literally an ad-blocking YouTube frontend. What kind of mental gymnastics does it take to be facilitating ad-blocking and then at the same time shame the end-user for using an extension which simply automates seeking ahead in videos. Are you seriously gonna tell me that even without Sponsorblock, if I skip ahead past the sponsored ad read in a video, that I’m “harming the creator”?

  • Norgur@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    Since the app has ties to creators, I get why they disapprove of sponsorblock, but… Why did they implement it if they don’t like it?

    • bionicjoey@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Certainly there was big demand for it. I was hoping they’d eventually implement it as I’d been testing the app out

    • Draconic NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I get why they disapprove of sponsorblock

      The app strips analytics and watch data preventing views from being counted. So the argument doesn’t logically make sense. They’re trying to make a moral argument out of something that doesn’t and can’t have any impact because the data used to justify watch-time and engagement isn’t provided.