Hell, I’m still using the original Vanced. No clue how it’s managed to escape death for all of these months, but I’m not complaining
Hell, I’m still using the original Vanced. No clue how it’s managed to escape death for all of these months, but I’m not complaining
I completely understand, hence making a joke about Google’s pedantic argument by referencing a satirical cartoon bureaucrat who cares more about technicalities than lived experiences.
Google argues that functionally, “blocking ads” means no ads are displayed, and functionally, paying Google’s ransom also means no ads are displayed, therefore the two are interchangeable. Whereas the rest of us can plainly see this is a debate over principles rather than outcomes, and the way something is accomplished does matter. Especially when the article we’re talking about is intentionally designed as click-bait and doesn’t list the one thing they imply will be in it: ad-subverting plugins that don’t pay Google.
Did they mean “without further ado”?
They’re technically correct. The best kind of correct. /s
edit: wow, y’all hate Futurama memes almost as much as ads 😂
My guess is that it has something to do with my YouTube Premium subscription never triggering Google’s anti-adblock software, which means the app was never flagged for a soft lock.
I use Vanced for the SponsorBlock, increased default play speed, background payback, and other assorted tweaks rather than for the ad blocking, but blocking ads will definitely jump to the top of my list if my “Google Play Family” ever stops paying for premium. At which point I guess I’ll migrate to GrayJay?