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

YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

androidpolice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#171

Post by ryan-allen »

sircastor wrote: post #115

So YouTube is going to make it impossible to watch without ads. Reddit's communities are going dark because Reddit (essentially) wants more ad revenue. Facebook and Instagram have been plastered with ads for longer than they haven't. And we're just a short hop from ads being "Attention required" with eyeballs tracked. I wonder if there's a possibility that this will shake Youtube from it's dominance.

The warning screenshot posted in the article says that you can enjoy YouTube without ads if you sign up for Premium.

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#172

Post by latexr »

progmetaldev wrote: post #62
TheBozzCL wrote: post #50

I wonder if we're gonna see an ad-blocker-blocker-blocker kinda race going on here. As long as the code runs in the users' browser, there should be a way around it. Makes me wonder if they'll ever move to WASM... though I assume there's gonna be ways to block ads regardless.

I'm honestly surprised that Google hasn't directly injected the ads into the video itself, so it can't be skipped beyond some kind of AI looking for drastic scene changes.

Right now they force you to watch for a number of seconds before you can skip ahead. If the ad were in the video, you could skip immediately. Perhaps not to the exact moment it ends, but you can scrub or jump in 10 second increments until there’s no ad. You check with your eyes, no AI necessary. It’s basically what we did decades ago with VCRs.

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#173

Post by coremoff »

weeblewobble wrote: post #154
sircastor wrote: post #115

So YouTube is going to make it impossible to watch without ads. Reddit's communities are going dark because Reddit (essentially) wants more ad revenue. Facebook and Instagram have been plastered with ads for longer than they haven't. And we're just a short hop from ads being "Attention required" with eyeballs tracked. I wonder if there's a possibility that this will shake Youtube from it's dominance.

Nah Reddit is pretty much back to normal. The protest is over. There are a few big subreddits like r/interestingasfuck that are still closed, but these are more like meme channels than communities. People can just get the same dozen gifs a day from r/damnthatsinteresting, r/whoadude, etc.

That might be true today - but tomorrow (1st July) may be different; that's when the API changes take effect and 3rd party apps no longer work.

If, as is widely (self) reported, many mods and power users interact with reddit via 3rd party apps; we won't see the true impact of the API changes until they're active.

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#174

Post by DeathArrow »

I would pay, but most of YT is junk, filled with clickbaits and commercials. So, it's not worth it for the rare truly interesting thing I can find there.

If I can't watch it with ublock, I will search for some alternative measures that will still allow me to watch without seeing ads. If no such measures will exist, then I'll quit watching youtube. Maybe I'll go for Vimeo or DailyMotion.

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#175

Post by no_time »

ytthrowaway wrote: post #7

you can use vpn to sign up to youtube premium from india or some other cheap location without strict address requirements and pay two bucks a month

While probably unintended, this still benefits them because this normalizes paying for premium either way. And a few years later when they decide to pull the plug, your chance of paying full price will be greater as a result.

Never give a SV tech company money.

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#176

Post by cyberneticist »

suddenclarity wrote: post #21

I get that people hate companies but $7 a month for unlimited video on any device with 500 hours uploaded every minute. That's a decent deal. The only drawback is that you don't get Sponsorblock on smart devices. People seem to overestimate how much the average person care about online outrage. Netflix, Reddit, Twitter.. They all seem fine despite being declared dead numerous times.

[dead]

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#177

Post by DeathArrow »

garciasn wrote: post #83

From the article: >“YouTube’s ad-supported model supports a diverse ecosystem of creators, and provides billions of people globally access to content for free with ads,” the company’s statement says. Let's at least be 100% honest with everyone and stop with the disingenuous garbage: 1. Ad-blocker usage is roughly 25-30% of US users. 2. The average YouTube content creator makes less than 0.02 per ad view and thus why…

>>“YouTube’s ad-supported model supports a diverse ecosystem of creators, and provides billions of people globally access to content for free with ads,” the company’s statement says.

Before I switched to using adblocking on my phone for youtube (like I did for my desktop), I made sure I will never ever buy whatever crap was presented in YT ads.

I believe I am not the only one for which ads have a contrary effect to the desired effect.

So, some companies payd Youtube money and end up actually losing money from sales.

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#178

Post by Moldoteck »

tetris11 wrote: post #87
Moldoteck wrote: post #51

Strange move, people use adblockers for a reason, 2-3 unskipable bs ads. Instead better limit quality to 480/720p. This way they'll save money for traffic. No adblocker?, Can go up to 1080p. Yt premium?, Welkome to 4k. Yt premium+?, Welcome to >8k

Its not worth it. You don't watch YouTube videos for the fancy graphics, you listen to it for the commentary with some visual guides. 480p is more than enough for most

imo it's woth it not for the sake of user conversion, but for the sake of minimizing the cost for network load. Technically they'll have the same revenue, but profit will increase due to optimizing the delivery and since most yt users dont have premium I believe this can be a big chunk of money

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#180

Post by DeathArrow »

FrostKiwi wrote: post #165

Anyone know, if there is an adblocker with a "hide" mode instead of a "block" mode? I mean, instead of blocking the connection fetch the ad, but hide it visually? I would be fine with a YouTube ad blocker, that allows ads to play, but just mutes and `display:none`'s the video player element.

That's really a clever idea. And when companies will realize they are paying lots of cash to YT but very few users are actually watching the ads, maybe they'll stop paying YT.
Post reply on HN