161–170 of 185 posts
I pay for YouTube Red in part due to the promise of no advertisements. Sponsorship segments reduce the value of the subscription significantly. I'm surprised YouTube does not have a policy banning such segments.
I really don't like how most sponsored segments are just downright misleading about what VPNs do. Making them funny doesn't change the fact that the ads are deceptive. There's always some fearmongering about people stealing your data on public networks, but no actual substance about feasible attacks that could happen in reality. In the UK, similar ads have been banned by the advertising regulator for being misleading…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have the right to watch or not whatever I want , in the same way publishers have the right to add sponsorship content on their videos, same applies to ads , if you don’t want to see ads use an adblocker or skip the sponsorship part with an app like this one. If creators don’t like it , they should find another way of monetizing their work. Shaming people into watching ads is disgusting and wrong.
I think it strongly depends on your legislative region whether you are allowed to watch whatever you want on your own terms if the content has been published under different terms. When you use YouTube you accept the terms and conditions (at least the parts that apply in your jurisdiction) which (probably) should state that you are not allowed to circumvent ads. If you do so you are in violation. Not sure what the co…
I'm sure all sorts of sites have magic words that claim I cannot block their ads. Meanwhile, some of them may have ad blocker detectors even if they don't have magic words. Either way, it's on them to show me or not show me whatever content they want, and on me to block ads or not and view their content or not.
It is great to see this getting more traction! To the larger discussion brewing: I honestly don't understand all the pushback on here. Why should I have any type of moral imperative to support revenue streams I find bad for the industry/society/brains? Simply because the creator decided it was the right choice? People decide things I disagree with all the time, if I have I the power to choose differently, I do. Not l…
I get the technical justification for doing this: You own your player, so you should be able to control it in whatever way you want. But as consumers, how do we expect the uploader to get paid for their work if we use both Adblock and Sponsor-skip (for the lack of a better word)? Pay to watch is, of course, an option, but that leads to discrimination based on income – unequally distributed between parts of the world…
Will it result in vastly lesser free content to watch? Yes. I don't see a problem with that. I did not have Youtube growing up, I am sure we will survive without it. Maybe we will spend time on more productive things, than watching pewdiepie reacting to memes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...and even the ones that use actual VPN software don't actually have anything for the "N" part of "VPN", so they are still just proxies. But I guess it makes it easier to refer to than "proxy for all protocols."
I've only used my work VPN, so I just assumed commercial VPNs had similar mechanics. They don't lease IP addresses?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would also guess there's some watch time data access through the YouTube API, too. Plus tracked links in those cards at the corner of a video.
YouTube does show the creator/uploader engagement throughout the video, so you can tell if there are less viewers for sponsor segments. My point is that info isn't necessarily shared through to the advertiser
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does YouTube share a part of your premium/fee to the creators based on what you watched? That is actually pretty neat.
Creators are paid "a majority" of revenue from YouTube premium based on watch time.