It seems like youtube is ripe to be disrupted by someone. Video hosting isn't as hard as it once was, ads are invasive, and yt is just the middleman not the content creators.
YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers
451–460 of 1001 posts
Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers
#452Earlier quoted context omitted.
> YouTube premium perfectly showcases why ads dominate the internet, because even when there is a paid option for a service much cheaper than any alternative, people do not want to pay There's also a factor of quality and trust. I don't trust YouTube Premium enough to even try it. This is mostly colored by their constant, invasive disruption of my YouTube experience (particularly apparent on mobile) with YT Premium a…
FWIW, I've had it for years and it's great. I've basically forgotten YouTube has ads.
So have I because of invidious[1].
Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers
#453As someone who regularly consumes YouTube videos with uBlock Origin, the only thing this move would make me do is stop watching YouTube.
Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers
#454YouTube premium perfectly showcases why ads dominate the internet, because even when there is a paid option for a service much cheaper than any alternative, people do not want to pay (And I am not talking about too broke to pay cases). Serving an infinite video catalog is very expensive in terms of all resources (And yes Netflix is not comparable, unlike YouTube, Netflix can highly leverage cache boxes at ISPs). Vime…
I'd be ok woth paying for their service, as we use youtube a lot. But youtube forces you to create a google account and stay logged in. This way they can easily track almost everything you do on the web, and I'm definitely not ok with paying for being tracked. If this was a youtube-only account (as it was in the past) then I'll immediately start paying for their service.
That's my beef too. I already pay for twitch turbo which I find to be less valuable, so it's not the cost. I just don't want to be logged into youtube all the time. And I'll never log into my google account from a work computer.
Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers
#455It seems like youtube is ripe to be disrupted by someone. Video hosting isn't as hard as it once was, ads are invasive, and yt is just the middleman not the content creators.
Video hosting is extremely expensive. Look at the pricing of anyone who provides such base services (https://www.cloudflare.com/en-in/products/cloudflare-stream/) or alternate providers like Vimeo (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28547578).
Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers
#456Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paying to skip ads just raises the value of your attention even further because now they know you've got enough disposable income to pay for such frivolous things. The truth is that not advertising to everyone at all times is leaving money on the table and it's only a matter of time before some bonus-seeking executive turns that into his payday opportunity. Besides, even if you pay for premium you'll still get ads ha…
> Ads are immoral How do you justify this claim? How can advertising your product to attract customers be morally wrong?
I think the commenter meant "targeted advertising" which is the norm on the Internet.
Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers
#457YouTube premium perfectly showcases why ads dominate the internet, because even when there is a paid option for a service much cheaper than any alternative, people do not want to pay (And I am not talking about too broke to pay cases). Serving an infinite video catalog is very expensive in terms of all resources (And yes Netflix is not comparable, unlike YouTube, Netflix can highly leverage cache boxes at ISPs). Vime…
Part of the problem for me is that sponsor spots in videos are so common now that I feel forced to run SponsorBlock. If I'm already having to run one extension just to enjoy the experience, then I may as well also use Adblock and not even bother with Premium. But since premium doesn't give that full ad-free experience (referring to sponsors), I just don't see as much benefit.
The amount of my life I save by using adblock + sponsorblock when watching YouTube is such a huge amount of time. Maybe I am just cheap, but I also feel it's a bit on the expensive side of things for what you get.
I do however still like to support creators that I watch a lot, so I'll use things like Patron, or in the case of Linus Tech Tips, Floatplane. I feel like directly supporting the creators I spend a lot more time watching makes more of an impact on supporting the content I enjoy. Creators don't seem to get much out of YouTube Premium viewers.
Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers
#458Earlier quoted context omitted.
> YouTube premium perfectly showcases why ads dominate the internet, because even when there is a paid option for a service much cheaper than any alternative, people do not want to pay There's also a factor of quality and trust. I don't trust YouTube Premium enough to even try it. This is mostly colored by their constant, invasive disruption of my YouTube experience (particularly apparent on mobile) with YT Premium a…
You're not missing anything. The really weird thing about Youtube Premium is that even if you do pay for it, you're better off not signing into your account and still using uBlock Origin and NewPipe. I paid for Youtube Premium for a pretty long while, and the only reason to pay for it is because you want to support Youtube. The official app for Android was awful the last time I used it, I've never been tempted to go…
Same here but I skipped the Premium step. I pay creators directly, through Patreon and similar.
When the "how to replace the thermal cutout in a Kenmore dryer" video helped me (and did so with a minimum of fluff), I bought the parts from the company that posted the video. (A whole set of spares, because why not? Pay shipping once, put 'em on the shelf, and have a zero-minute response time next time something fails.)
When I realize I'm 3 videos deep into someone's channel and I'm wishing the clock wasn't staring at me so judgmentally, I head for their Patreon straight away. Or their merch store. Or whatever lets me tuck some money directly from my pocket into theirs.
The next step is to find hosting elsewhere. I should make another attempt with PeerTube or something, or see if someone's building a video frontend for IPFS or whatever. And then start pestering my favorite creators into double-posting their content. Yes it's more work, and they won't do it unless there's a base of users who likewise feel good about paying creators. But I can be the start of that.
Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers
#459As someone who regularly consumes YouTube videos with uBlock Origin, the only thing this move would make me do is stop watching YouTube.
Mission accomplished for YouTube then
Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers
#460Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paying to skip ads just raises the value of your attention even further because now they know you've got enough disposable income to pay for such frivolous things. The truth is that not advertising to everyone at all times is leaving money on the table and it's only a matter of time before some bonus-seeking executive turns that into his payday opportunity. Besides, even if you pay for premium you'll still get ads ha…
> Ads are immoral How do you justify this claim? How can advertising your product to attract customers be morally wrong?
I'll argue the case here though I go back and forth how strongly I hold this view.
Ads are immoral because modern advertising is carefully engineered brainwashing, often filled with factually incorrect claims (which are legally permitted as "hyperbole"). Beyond creating demand for products that the viewer would be better off without the brainwashing component in many often damages the viewers level of personal satisfaction or feelings of self worth by playing to their insecurities or creating unrealistic comparisons (which by implication or claim the purchase will cure). Because of this advertising can be negative sum -- anytime the benefit of introducing someone to the product is outweighed by the harm created by the effort to convince the user they need it. For example, ads for things you can't afford can create longing that can't be answered, yet don't provide you the benefit of the good (or the seller the benefit of the sale!).
One can construct advertising which is harder to fault morally, but because its less effective its generally outbid by things further over on the brainwashing spectrum.
Even where the ad can't be describe as brainwashing unless its in a catalogue of goods or similar, the user wasn't looking for it right now and so by forcing them to watch it you're taking their time. Because copyright creates a monopoly for goods, the user often doesn't have the opportunity to choose instead "similar to X but with less time wasting ads". Since the user is denied a practical alternative (other than a costly 'go without entirely') you cannot say that their consent to view the advertisement was freely given -- and consent not freely given isn't valid. As such, even a brainwashing free advertisement is ethically dubious because its stealing the user's time.