Time to stop using my Google account when using YouTube. Too bad for all those subscriptions YouTube channel owners lose.
Enjoy the absolute garbage that will appear on the home screen when you open it up!
YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
251–260 of 1001 posts
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#252This doesn't really affect me since I subscribe to premium, but something that a lot of ad-based services don't seem to grasp is why people block ads. It's because they've become increasingly obnoxious. Nobody blocked ads when they were a simple column of links in the gutter or maybe an animated GIF banner with 3 frames. No, adblockers became popular because ads kept getting more loud (both visually and audibly), in…
Worst thing is even if you pay, they'll throw them at you. Looking at WSJ, FT, NYT,...
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#253Time to stop using my Google account when using YouTube. Too bad for all those subscriptions YouTube channel owners lose.
Maybe try FreeTube[1]. You can subscribe to channels with it.
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#254I already have backed off of youtube so much because of how awful they have made the experience, this will be it for me entirely if they implement this.
Honestly, my feed is so full of rubbish, clickbait thumbnails and misinformation that I really can't even believe it's a Google product. It's just so polluted.
It's really come to the stage where I actually "hope" the search helps me find what I'm looking for, the sea of bullshit on YT is vast and difficult to navigate now.
For a time, I would say I was quite addicted to YouTube, but now I'm so turned off by it and I find that it is mostly full of really low grade content. I hardly even think to look the front page it unless I'm looking for something very specific. I treat it like a bank job now, race in, get what I need then straight back to the get away.
Personally, I feel similar to you, if they force me off it with Ads, good. I had though about paying but the smut they suggest I watch is just a turn off.
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#255From 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…
I think you're being completely disingenuous here. Using an ad-blocker is free-riding and nothing less. We consume a service provided by Google through server capacity, monetization enginea, and improved discovery and by the creators through sweat and tears in creating video content without paying for it. You can consume the content without being exposed to ads while paying Google and the creators their share by buyi…
Still not free-riding when you consider the data they are collecting from viewers even with ad-blockers. People still have accounts to save channels/videos, lots of people or households have Android phones that makes it stupidly easy to link to people, places and purchases. There is significantly more value they still gain from it even if youtube itself operates at a loss.
Maybe if they weren't allowed to collect so much information, or had to pay back the users they are collecting data on could I see the point that ad-blocking is free-riding.
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#256This doesn't really affect me since I subscribe to premium, but something that a lot of ad-based services don't seem to grasp is why people block ads. It's because they've become increasingly obnoxious. Nobody blocked ads when they were a simple column of links in the gutter or maybe an animated GIF banner with 3 frames. No, adblockers became popular because ads kept getting more loud (both visually and audibly), in…
Worst thing is even if you pay, they'll throw them at you. Looking at WSJ, FT, NYT,...
No longer a WSJ/NYT subscriber specifically because of this; why is my subscription money not enough?
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#257I don't really understand either side of the equation here. So, on the one hand you have people who use ad blockers. The first retort that comes to mind here is: Well, we'll take our business elsewhere. Which is odd because without ads they aren't paying and them leaving is the goal. Of course on the other hand ... when I read the title my thoughts weren't that I would be okay because I don't ad block youtube. My tho…
Why would you not use an ad blocker?
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#258If Google had the power to implement a device that forced your eyelids open to look at ads they would do it. Their company is user hostile and we should move as far as possible away from their services.
How are they user hostile? It's people who do not want to pay for the service and do not want to watch ads to use the service who are the problem. How else should Youtube make money from those users? They must literally lose money on those users.
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#259This doesn't really affect me since I subscribe to premium, but something that a lot of ad-based services don't seem to grasp is why people block ads. It's because they've become increasingly obnoxious. Nobody blocked ads when they were a simple column of links in the gutter or maybe an animated GIF banner with 3 frames. No, adblockers became popular because ads kept getting more loud (both visually and audibly), in…
Its a vicious cycle. The more adblocking people do the worse that ads get since they need to be more agressive to make more money to make for the people who use AdBlock.
"Need to" is doing a lot of work here; do they really need to, or are they just hungry for countless more low-tax billions (i.e. want to)?
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#260I don't really understand either side of the equation here. So, on the one hand you have people who use ad blockers. The first retort that comes to mind here is: Well, we'll take our business elsewhere. Which is odd because without ads they aren't paying and them leaving is the goal. Of course on the other hand ... when I read the title my thoughts weren't that I would be okay because I don't ad block youtube. My tho…
They could also, like, go back where they would show a meaningful ad every 10 videos. and not 4 with every video you attempt to watch.