21–30 of 783 posts
Hacker News User Will Continue to Run uBlock Origin on All Sites Including YouTube Even If Webmasters Don't Want Him To
I think technically it would be pretty easy for google to embed ads into videos in a way that would be hard to impossible to block.
Edit: I need to emphasise that the ads were occasional, and probably YouTube will be more agressive this time. I've also realised that many of you are using some sort of ad-blocker, so you might not felt the changes when it was (silently) rolled out years ago, but this is from my experience using YouTube on devices which I cannot install an ad-blocker (like in some instructional videos for certain robots which some c…
If you're referring to in-video ads, then no. At present, if you choose not to monetize a video, no ads get shown unless a third part makes a copyright claim on your video. I'm not quite sure about the situation with ads that show up in the corner of the page - those are unobtrusive enough that I'm used to mentally tuning them out.
Pardon me? I'm pretty sure that there are (occasional) in-video ads for channels not under YPP and explicitly-demonetized YPP videos even before 2020. (and I'm pretty sure that they were in no way claimed by others at all)
I know there are several content creators (such as Jim Sterling) that have their videos ad-free as a perk for their supporters (since he's supported enough via Patreon). He's pretty angry about this change. I somewhat understand Google's stance on this, as it's a service that should be allowed to make money even on people who don't want to make money. They don't really have such a way to opt out of pretty much any ot…
> it's kind of a shitty move by Google. It's kind of business as usual for Google. Why would anyone expect them to be kind and generous suddenly when they have consistently for years pulled the rug out underneath previosly-free services. (or killed them off completely https://killedbygoogle.com/ ) gmail subscriptions are next, just wait and see.
I know there are several content creators (such as Jim Sterling) that have their videos ad-free as a perk for their supporters (since he's supported enough via Patreon). He's pretty angry about this change. I somewhat understand Google's stance on this, as it's a service that should be allowed to make money even on people who don't want to make money. They don't really have such a way to opt out of pretty much any ot…
> it's kind of a shitty move by Google. It's kind of business as usual for Google. Why would anyone expect them to be kind and generous suddenly when they have consistently for years pulled the rug out underneath previosly-free services. (or killed them off completely https://killedbygoogle.com/ ) gmail subscriptions are next, just wait and see.
I know there are several content creators (such as Jim Sterling) that have their videos ad-free as a perk for their supporters (since he's supported enough via Patreon). He's pretty angry about this change. I somewhat understand Google's stance on this, as it's a service that should be allowed to make money even on people who don't want to make money. They don't really have such a way to opt out of pretty much any ot…
If let's say that google charges 1$ (or more, adjust yourself) per gb of stored video, or 1$ per 20gb of bandwidth use to opt out of ads, will it be better?
I'm already paying Vimeo for a low-budget data plan, and I only continue to use YouTube as my main platform because of the extra exposure.
I know there are several content creators (such as Jim Sterling) that have their videos ad-free as a perk for their supporters (since he's supported enough via Patreon). He's pretty angry about this change. I somewhat understand Google's stance on this, as it's a service that should be allowed to make money even on people who don't want to make money. They don't really have such a way to opt out of pretty much any ot…
Well if he has all the hardcore supporters on Patreon and can communicate with them over there already, changing services become much much easier. Don't really understand the fuzz since he is charging for being ad free anyway. I would be more supportive if ad free ia principle hence for all the visitors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're referring to in-video ads, then no. At present, if you choose not to monetize a video, no ads get shown unless a third part makes a copyright claim on your video. I'm not quite sure about the situation with ads that show up in the corner of the page - those are unobtrusive enough that I'm used to mentally tuning them out.
> If you're referring to in-video ads, then no. Pardon me? I'm pretty sure that there are (occasional) in-video ads for channels not under YPP and explicitly-demonetized YPP videos even before 2020. (and I'm pretty sure that they were in no way claimed by others at all)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think technically it would be pretty easy for google to embed ads into videos in a way that would be hard to impossible to block.
I've long wondered why they don't do this for video ads. If they were served as part of the main video stream it would be almost impossible for ad-blockers to filter them. (I even think the DASH segmentation would allow them to this without reencoding the original video, but that's just speculation on my part)
Hacker News User Will Continue to Run uBlock Origin on All Sites Including YouTube Even If Webmasters Don't Want Him To
Indiscriminate measures don't provide helpful information. Support videos that have acceptable ads. Don't support ones that don't. Downvote them, comment, and, most importantly, be willing not to watch them, ever. YouTube can learn, much like a dog, as long as the feedback is clear and swift