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

301–310 of 1001 posts

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

#301

Post by haburka »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #226

This 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…

I don’t understand why this is top comment. Ads on youtube are skippable after a few seconds and you can pay to not watch them. It’s weird to conflate that with some adspam website, which may have a ton of flashy ads and a video.

However, more importantly, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Ads enable content creators to get paid. Frankly, youtube barely eeks out a profit. When you block ads instead of paying to remove them, you’re making it harder for Youtube to justify its existence.

Personally, I think it’s fine to block ads if you’re actually quite poor or if it makes the web unusable. But if you’re just doing it because “web advertisers deserve it” or some other kind of hare brained rationalization, then you should reconsider your position. It’s not rebellious or brave to use an adblocker when there are affordable paid ad free experiences, it’s simply theft.

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

#302

Post by zarathustreal »

If you can't afford to host the services, don't host the services. If users can't afford to provide you with free content, users shouldn't provide you with free content.

It is immoral to fund an ostensibly free service that you cannot afford to host for free by forcing users to do something they don't want to do.

Granted, Google abandoned "don't be evil" a long time ago

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

#303

Post by 4ggr0 »

INTPenis wrote: post #267

I hate ads so much that I'm actually paying for Youtube premium. I work in IT, I build systems, I know there are various solutions, but none of them guarantee that I can travel freely with my cellphone and connect it to any smart TV and get an AD-free experience. So I'll gladly pay for that freedom. Freedom is very important to me, not just that it's open source, or that I have power over ads, but also freedom of tim…

The only trick I know of is to use a VPN provider to connect to Argentina or Turkey and buy YouTube Premium from there. Works with your normal account. Showed this trick to my dad and he now pays $2 per month instead of $16. In India you can buy a whole year for $16, but our credit cards didn't work.

I'm happy with uBlock Origin :D

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

#304

Post by southwesterly »

nness wrote: post #231
Verdex wrote: post #222

I 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…

It's almost like the growth plan of every tech company in the last decade or so... Grow big by burning capital ("to hell with cost of acquisition our CLV will be so high once they're locked in"); build an ad network; realise an operating profit; fight tooth and nail to protect that ad network... Even Uber is becoming an ads company...

On a long enough timeline every company becomes and ads company.

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

#305

Post by zarathustreal »

jvolkman wrote: post #250
RamblingCTO wrote: post #215

You know, if YouTube wouldn't insist on absolutely annoying the living shit out of me with unskippable, bad, long, and frequent ads I wouldn't mind that much. But YouTube with ads is one of the worst things there are.

There are no ads if you pay

Imagine paying for an ostensibly free service. It's like getting mugged and then offering to give the mugger even more money. Whose fault is it that YouTube isn't charging enough to cover hosting costs?

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

#306

Post by pengaru »

traveler01 wrote: post #240
kitsunesoba wrote: post #226

This 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.

Adblocker use is not responsible for Google's need to constantly impress its shareholders every quarter.

Don't forget YouTube used to let you skip all ads, it wasn't even that long ago.

None of this is the result of blockers. It's the result of Alphabet needing to earn more money and becoming increasingly desperate to snatch up every little bit left on the table.

On the plus side, this is only making it easier to compete with them. They're increasingly turning YouTube into what broadcast television has become; a raging dumpster fire of advertising and propaganda.

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

#307

Post by highwind »

haburka wrote: post #301
kitsunesoba wrote: post #226

This 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…

I don’t understand why this is top comment. Ads on youtube are skippable after a few seconds and you can pay to not watch them. It’s weird to conflate that with some adspam website, which may have a ton of flashy ads and a video. However, more importantly, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Ads enable content creators to get paid. Frankly, youtube barely eeks out a profit. When you block ads instead of paying to…

I block ads by default and turn it on for the sites that I want to support. Main reason for blocking by default is privacy. I don't want super targeted ad. If I'm on a particular site consuming particular content, that should be sufficient context for choosing what ad to show me. Do not follow me around all over the internet trying to sell me on stuff.

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

#308

Post by kurthr »

haburka wrote: post #301
kitsunesoba wrote: post #226

This 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…

I don’t understand why this is top comment. Ads on youtube are skippable after a few seconds and you can pay to not watch them. It’s weird to conflate that with some adspam website, which may have a ton of flashy ads and a video. However, more importantly, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Ads enable content creators to get paid. Frankly, youtube barely eeks out a profit. When you block ads instead of paying to…

I'm not sure how variable this is, but I've definitely experienced unwatchable levels of ads (mostly on mobile/Android). Having an ad before you even know if the content has interest is already a challenge (eg a how to video), and most that I see are in the 5-15sec range before watching and every 5-10min after that.

However, I have had a dual 30sec ad before starting a video that repeated every 2min on something I actually wanted to watch, but quickly stopped, because it was "unwatchable". I consider that level to be at about 10% of watch time (regular TV is about 25% 8/30 min in larger blocks).

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

#309

Post by mcpackieh »

I block ads because they're psychological warfare that corporations wage against me. I don't care how unobtrusive the ads are. I don't care if the ads don't track me. I grew up changing the channel on TV when ads came on, and ripping adverts out of magazines before sitting down to read them. I vote for billboard bans whenever I can. I have zero tolerance for ads of any sort.

Advertisers have no morals, they're completely depraved. They'll eagerly exploit a teenager's self-conscious body issues to sell useless beauty products. They sell sugar water to fat people and at every turn promote the rampant consumerist culture that is destroying our planet. They're lower than pond scum and I never want to see a single ad from them ever.

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

#310

Post by kitsunesoba »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #294
kitsunesoba wrote: post #226

This 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…

Compare it with TV though, which is what youtube is; nobody blocked ads because they couldn't, there was no escaping them unless you physically exit the room. In my country that worked, because ads were neat 5 minute blocks every 15 odd minutes, but in the US it seems every few minutes there's an ad interrupting - but they're too short to tune out / do something else. The news channels are even worse, where the energ…

Back when I still watched cable which was ~14 years ago at my parents' house, I used a TiVo to do so partially because it allowed me to skip ads (the other reason being so I could catch late night programs the next day).

After moving out I never subscribed to cable or satellite and don't watch terrestrial broadcasts either, partially because of the advertising. If I were to subscribe now it'd probably be contingent on my ability to use a modern TiVo-like DVR for the same reasons.

Post reply on HN