Live data from Hacker News

SponsorBlock – Skip over sponsorship segments on YouTube

sponsor.ajay.app

181–185 of 185 posts

Re: SponsorBlock – Skip over sponsorship segments on YouTube

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising is bad and I will oppose it in all its forms. What other system for financing the content does or doesn't exist is irrelevant to the my decision to block as much advertising out of my perception as I can. That said, Patreon seems to be working very well for a lot of people making high quality content.

That reads an awful lot like: “If a content creator’s patronage is not in the form I prefer, I deserve to circumvent that patronage and consume their content anyway. It’s irrelevant to me how & if they are compensated.”

Yes. Content consumers being "lost customers" is a problem if your business model requires them to do something that they are incentivized to avoid doing.

Overlapping options for content creators (many of which do or do not apply depending on various factors, mostly forms of privilege) include picking a different business model, having a different means to support yourself, giving up, and realizing that your existing business model is compatible with free viewing.

Depending on consumers to be selfless by donating or choosing to consume ads is not the only business model in town; there are more paths to take than "expect selflessness or give up". Selflessness isn't typically a basket worth all your eggs.

Re: SponsorBlock – Skip over sponsorship segments on YouTube

#182
post #153
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VPN ads that are truthful and delivered with integrity are still disrespectful and disgusting, because advertising is a cancer.

Advertising isn’t black/white. I want to see ads telling me there’s a local farm selling produce a few minutes from my house. Or that the new Marvel movie is coming out in a couple months. These things bring value to my life. How else would I know about them?

I think that's pushing the boundary on what can be considered advertising these days. It's a question of choice. Advertisements are foisted upon (mostly) unwilling viewers to convince them to buy things they don't want or need, or at least to cause them to make a choice based on brand identity rather than a rational evaluation of the value provided. This is bad.

What you're talking abut is something else entirely. If I'm watching something on Hulu, and the show stops to show me an ad for a Marvel movie coming out in a couple months, that's intrusive. If I deliberately go to YouTube to watch the trailer, that's a free choice. They're such completely different experiences from the user's point of view that it's a misnomer to refer to both as "advertising".

Likewise, my parents have solicited mailers from local groceries because they want to know what vegetables are in this week. There are all sorts of websites and other mechanisms for letting people know about events and opportunities going on in their area. Me sitting down to watch some sports or something and getting bombarded by ads (by Arby's, not a "local farm") is not the same situation.

If you want a bright line, imagine a world with no profit motive. Would we still have movie trailers and fliers to let you know about local farm produce? I think so. Would there still be television advertisements and lies about VPN services on YouTube videos? Obviously not.

Re: SponsorBlock – Skip over sponsorship segments on YouTube

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising is bad and I will oppose it in all its forms. What other system for financing the content does or doesn't exist is irrelevant to the my decision to block as much advertising out of my perception as I can. That said, Patreon seems to be working very well for a lot of people making high quality content.

That reads an awful lot like: “If a content creator’s patronage is not in the form I prefer, I deserve to circumvent that patronage and consume their content anyway. It’s irrelevant to me how & if they are compensated.”

Let me try to say in a more nuanced way what other replies have said more bluntly.

It's not a matter of deserving, it's a matter of supply and demand and technological capabilities. To ignore the latter, let's pretend YouTube is capable of 100% effective DRM, such that you only watch the content if you see all the ads and sponsorships, eyeballs on screen, in the style of "15 Million Merits".

Even in this case, it's unmistakable that the supply of entertainment overwhelmingly exceeds the demand. This is why all the traditional Hollywood companies are all entirely focused on making blockbusters: it's the one thing they can do that no one else can (because of the initial investment required). But they're the exception. The vast majority of content creators, including people trying to do it full time, are making basically nothing or just enough to get by. There are thousands and thousands of Twitch streamers scraping by on 12 hour days where they average a hundred or so viewers.

In other words, even in this DRM hellscape, the push of the market is going to be towards less and less remuneration for each creator, because the total market capacity of entertainment as such is not enough for each entertainer to live off of. There is quite simply not enough money in it. If I'm forced to watch ads, I'll switch to content providers that don't use ads. The result is worse for the creator, because the vast majority of them are suffering from lack of visibility. So they make their content more palatable by reducing ads, and the downward spiral continues. This is already happening, because most creators are not making enough to live off of.

The only way to solve this problem is for us to decide socially that artistic creation is good as such even if there's not a marketable demand for it, and that therefore creators deserve to be compensated. The fact that it's society that would have to come to this conclusion means that it's society upon which the burden of providing this compensation would fall, not individual consumers. In other words, the solution isn't sponsorships or watching ads, it's something like universal basic income.

Re: SponsorBlock – Skip over sponsorship segments on YouTube

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (and do not have ads for me) The sponsor segments are ads. You're getting doubled-dipped.

And that's why I've been using this sponsor block plugin.

I thought about using that plugin, but I'll be missing out on the creative sponsored ads done by some YouTubers like Daniel Thrasher (plus his sponsored section is at the end so I can always skip them anyway).

Re: SponsorBlock – Skip over sponsorship segments on YouTube

#185

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…

I feel sorry for average non-technical people who get hoodwinked into VPNs. The majority of people have absolutely no need for a VPN for "privacy" reasons, particularly these days with wide adoption of TLS which prevents ISPs from reading and/or injecting content into streams. Modern cases for a VPN: 1. The few countries/regions with severely corrupt governments/ISPs. 2. Accessing region-locked services; eg. another…

I use the TunnelBear VPN because it has a 500MB/mo free limit and I use their different servers in different regions to check the localization of prices/text on my sites.
Post reply on HN