Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube’s annoying Premium spam

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 191 posts

Re: YouTube’s annoying Premium spam

#91

Post by lossolo »

cameronbrown wrote: post #33
Hokusai wrote: post #2

Welcome to the future: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU3GzYcb1g8 Tech companies are an oligopoly with a few actors. Competitions do not offer enough pressure to make them change. Regulation is the only way forward if we do not want to end in a dystopia.

It's not about competition or regulation. Someone needs to find a way to drive down the cost of bandwidth. Disclaimer in bio.

This will not help any competition. Google has its caches and own fibers all over the world. I can go and connect now in any IX and most data centers with Google AS and exchange traffic for free, which makes Google cost of bandwidth to most consumers in developed countries almost non-existent. Good luck competing with that as a startup. Google is using this infrastructure not only for Youtube. So unless you have billions to invest in your own infrastructure, Google will always have cheaper bandwidth than you.

Re: YouTube’s annoying Premium spam

#92

Post by danShumway »

izacus wrote: post #73

YouTube Premium is literally the service HN wants: honest payment to support a Google service costs and creators publishing on it. It's a sustainable service which actually earns more for creators than ads and data mining (at least according to last CPC values I've seen for video ads). And yet, it seems like the author of this piece still feels entitled to complain about being asked to pay the price of service and th…

It's the opposite for me. I've been paying for Youtube Premium since back when they were calling it Youtube Red, and the nag screens haven't gone away. When I'm signed in, Youtube still sticks up banners that remind me that I have exclusive content I don't care about. I still get reminders about all of the "cool" features I don't want. I still have to jump through hoops to archive content that I care about. I'm paying money for exactly 2 reasons:

- I want to support creators.

- I want to watch #%!@X videos without distractions.

Youtube Red only helps me with the first point -- I can support creators, but it's even questionable there whether I'd be having a bigger impact by directly giving money on Patreon. In the meantime, I'm still paying money for Youtube Premium right now and I've gotten to the point where I don't use it, because the experience with an adblocker and proxies is better than the experience I pay for.

At some point, when someone is paying money for a service and then going out of their way to avoid signing into their account or using the thing they pay for, you have to question whether the service is designed well.

Re: YouTube’s annoying Premium spam

#93

Post by michaelt »

robbrown451 wrote: post #53
tehwebguy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can the embed detect your logged in state? Privacy settings may have changed in the browser.

Yes I am starting to suspect it has to do with changes in Chrome. I can't find out how to modify site settings to make it work though.

I believe the setting you're looking for is called 'uBlock Origin'

Re: YouTube’s annoying Premium spam

#94

Post by saagarjha »

Kye wrote: post #86
izacus wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're only getting them because you're not paying anything for the service. Why do you think your "ask" matters? Do you feel the same entitlement in other stores? When using Spotify? When visiting the movies?

This is not a good post. You should rethink it. Some suggestions: 1: Making assumptions will never go over well. Entitlement is an especially touchy one. The implicit assumption is that I use YouTube, or that I use it enough to justify the subscription price. Google is not owed my business any more than Spotify (which I don't use), the movie theater (same), or physical businesses with pushy sales people (this pushes…

Being condescending and assuming bad faith isn’t a great look either.

Re: YouTube’s annoying Premium spam

#95

Post by dawnerd »

danShumway wrote: post #92
izacus wrote: post #73

YouTube Premium is literally the service HN wants: honest payment to support a Google service costs and creators publishing on it. It's a sustainable service which actually earns more for creators than ads and data mining (at least according to last CPC values I've seen for video ads). And yet, it seems like the author of this piece still feels entitled to complain about being asked to pay the price of service and th…

It's the opposite for me. I've been paying for Youtube Premium since back when they were calling it Youtube Red, and the nag screens haven't gone away. When I'm signed in, Youtube still sticks up banners that remind me that I have exclusive content I don't care about. I still get reminders about all of the "cool" features I don't want. I still have to jump through hoops to archive content that I care about. I'm payin…

Hey did you know you can get notified? Just hit that bell icon.

Every single damn video if it’s not the YouTube app telling me it’s the creator, or both.

Re: YouTube’s annoying Premium spam

#96

Post by dawnerd »

izacus wrote: post #80
Kye wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one asked for constant nag screens. edit: HN won't let me make any more replies. I don't know why people are fine with someone accusing me of entitlement with no basis, while me calling them out on it with a level of civility they did not deserve is out of bounds. I don't understand this place. This is ridiculous.

You're only getting them because you're not paying anything for the service. Why do you think your "ask" matters? Do you feel the same entitlement in other stores? When using Spotify? When visiting the movies?

Not entirely true, they have nag screens even when you subscribe.

Re: YouTube’s annoying Premium spam

#97

Post by yborg »

izacus wrote: post #73

YouTube Premium is literally the service HN wants: honest payment to support a Google service costs and creators publishing on it. It's a sustainable service which actually earns more for creators than ads and data mining (at least according to last CPC values I've seen for video ads). And yet, it seems like the author of this piece still feels entitled to complain about being asked to pay the price of service and th…

Unfortunately, you will pay and still get the behavioral ad tracking. There was a time when cable television's premise was "TV with no commercials!"

Re: YouTube’s annoying Premium spam

#98

Post by monkeyfacebag »

izacus wrote: post #74
monkeyfacebag wrote: post #41

I pay for YouTube premium but I'm still subjected to ads in the majority of videos I watch: the kind that are embedded by the creator directly in the video, eg, a one minute sponsored by Squarespace segment. I don't know how Google is framing YouTube premium (I get it through my Google play music subscription) but it is most assuredly not an ad-free experience.

What would a good solution for this be? Ask that creators upload a separate premium version of a video with no ads and with bigger payout for views?

I doubt there's a definition of "ad" that would be feasible target on a platform like Youtube. A trailer, for example, is an ad for a movie, but I think Youtube would be harmed if all of the upcoming movie trailers were removed.

As a consumer, I find it pretty easy to distinguish between a "wanted" ad and an "annoying" ad, but I don't think there's a way to enforce rules based on user value systems if for no other reason than every user's value system is going to be distinct.

Re: YouTube’s annoying Premium spam

#99

Post by danShumway »

Kye wrote: post #86
izacus wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're only getting them because you're not paying anything for the service. Why do you think your "ask" matters? Do you feel the same entitlement in other stores? When using Spotify? When visiting the movies?

This is not a good post. You should rethink it. Some suggestions: 1: Making assumptions will never go over well. Entitlement is an especially touchy one. The implicit assumption is that I use YouTube, or that I use it enough to justify the subscription price. Google is not owed my business any more than Spotify (which I don't use), the movie theater (same), or physical businesses with pushy sales people (this pushes…

Sealioning is a bad-faith discussion strategy where someone inserts themselves into either a semi-private, self-contained, or narrowly focused public conversation insisting that the conversation stop until a speaker justifies every point they're making to an arbitrary degree that the sea lion chooses.

It's considered bad-faith because even though sea lions act with civility, they're really trying to derail the overall conversation by preventing it from moving forward, or by forcing the speaker to apply a standard of rigor beyond what the current conversation requires. Sea lions selectively demand debate in inappropriate contexts, and demand that they be unconditionally given the intellectual and emotional energy to sustain that debate.

It doesn't just mean, "someone disagreed with me and asked a question about something I consider settled." A Hackernews thread is an appropriate place for civil debate, especially in the context of GP responding to criticism you raised on their post. It's good for us to assume the best of critics in this context, and not to be skeptical of their motives.

Re: YouTube’s annoying Premium spam

#100

Post by Kye »

danShumway wrote: post #99
Kye wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a good post. You should rethink it. Some suggestions: 1: Making assumptions will never go over well. Entitlement is an especially touchy one. The implicit assumption is that I use YouTube, or that I use it enough to justify the subscription price. Google is not owed my business any more than Spotify (which I don't use), the movie theater (same), or physical businesses with pushy sales people (this pushes…

Sealioning is a bad-faith discussion strategy where someone inserts themselves into either a semi-private, self-contained, or narrowly focused public conversation insisting that the conversation stop until a speaker justifies every point they're making to an arbitrary degree that the sea lion chooses. It's considered bad-faith because even though sea lions act with civility, they're really trying to derail the overal…

Accusing me of entitlement knowing nothing about me, the way I use YouTube, or what a good value proposition for it looks like to me is not civil. Civil questions wouldn't go off on tangents asking if I feel entitled to various things.
Post reply on HN