The Windows Phone user agent bypasses YouTube's annoying anti-ad-blocker pop-up.

Windows Phone gets revenge on YouTube from the grave by helping users bypass its ad-blocker-blocker::Windows Phone to the rescue. A lot of YouTube users want to know how to get around the new annoying YouTube pop-up telling viewers to disable their ad-blocker.

  • Devouring@lemmy.worldEnglish
    163·
    9 months ago

    Try grayjay… it’s an AWESOME new app, open source, and supports all video networks you can think of as plugins.

    It’s available on: grayjay.app

    • Mafflez@reddthat.comEnglish
      4·
      9 months ago

      Does grayjay update when creators add new videos etc for YouTube? That would be the only reason i DONT use it. Though I don’t see whynit wouldnt.

    • Robaque@feddit.itEnglish
      117·
      9 months ago

      Yes and no. Cool project but I gotta be honest I’m not a big fan of Louis Rossman / FUTO’s "open source but not free " stance.

      • Devouring@lemmy.worldEnglish
        111·
        9 months ago

        It’s open source and it’s free. You’re free to pay too if you want to support them. Software costs money.

        What Louis is protecting against in his license is repurposing the app with malware and ads like was repeatedly done with new pipe. Pick your poison.

          • Devouring@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            9 months ago

            I’m not sure I understand your philosophy there or you’re joking. Why is GPL so important? Isn’t the purpose of open-source to validate that no funny business is happening?

            • NightAuthor@lemmy.worldEnglish
              41·
              9 months ago

              That is a purpose of open source.

              First, I was wrong in linking libertarian with GPL, I was thinking of permissive licenses like MIT. GPL is a CopyLeft license, in that it forbids proprietization. MIT is more like, do whatever the hell you want, you just can sue me.

              The joke should have been “Libertarian MIT License or DIE!”

              I think MIT is actually a pretty rough license, because it allows someone to come along, take the open source work, add anything, or virtually nothing and then start selling it as their own while keeping any new code secret… when they got it for free. I’m mostly against that, but there are people who believe strongly in that type of license.

              I’m more in favor of GPL like licenses (not prescriptively, but preferentially) because they force the work and its derivatives to be shared by the community, for the work to continue to be open source.