YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers • Hacker News Board

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

#651

Post by Exuma » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 8:50 PM UTC

mcpackieh wrote: post #309

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 comple…

I feel exactly the same as you about ads, and have built/owned my own ad network, as well as run nearly 90% of my business through ads. My business partners don't use ad block but I always use it, and they always tease me about it. Even if 1 second of my precious energy and mental well being is spent on hearing an ad accidentally I feel sick.

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

#652

Post by AlwaysRock » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 8:51 PM UTC

mynameisash wrote: post #643

There's a 402 PAYMENT REQUIRED[0], but apparently it's been reserved for future use forever. I'm surprised there isn't a scheme by which websites can charge micropayments for content. In principle, I'm not opposed to loading up an account with $20 and paying $0.10 for an Economist article or $0.02 for a YouTube video or whatever. I honestly don't know if this exists now or has ever existed, but I would love to direct…

I wish this could become a thing. I'd pay for a stupid NYT article every once in a while. I don't want a subscription. Let me just give you 25 cents or something. Even the work arounds are annoying so I end up just not reading the article. No one wins there.

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

#653

Post by jawr » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 8:55 PM UTC

mcpackieh wrote: post #309

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 comple…

Storing and streaming is an expensive model, and the subscription price is a premium in the majority of the world. It’s actually impressive that so much content (both incredible and bad) is available, for “free” to so many.

I’m an ideal world there would be no ads, but we don’t live in one.

If you have such disdain for ads you should probably pay the premium or not use YouTube.

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

#654

Post by lizknope » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 8:56 PM UTC

Part of the reason youtube ads are so annoying is that many of them are played at random times while you are watching a video. There is no smooth transition to the ad. When watching news or sports on television the announcers will say "And now we're going to a commercial break" and they play some outro music. Then they play some music to welcome you back.

When watching a sitcom or drama the script writers plan in the commercial breaks where you would have the different acts in a play. They are natural stopping points to take a short break.

Youtube ads are just random interruptions.

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

#655

Post by Buttons840 » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 8:59 PM UTC

lolinder wrote: post #357

mcpackieh wrote: post #309

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 comple…

> It is really not so repulsive to see the poor asking for money as to see the rich asking for more money. And advertisement is the rich asking for more money. A man would be annoyed if he found himself in a mob of millionaires, all holding out their silk hats for a penny; or all shouting with one voice, “Give me money.” Yet advertisement does really assault the eye very much as such a shout would assault the ear. “B…

> It is a complete mistake to suppose that common people make our towns commonplace, with unsightly things like advertisements.

In other words, the average person isn't advertising; at least, not in an intrusive way.

Indeed, the best at any particular job probably are not advertising, because the effort they spent on advertising is effort that was not spent on the job. After buying expensive medication in the United States, I come home and the TV is showing a 90 second commercial from a pharmaceutical company with a catchy song and is overall very well made--guess I know why my medication was expensive. Do we even need advertisements for prescription medication?

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

#656

Post by dkjaudyeqooe » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 9:01 PM UTC

lennixm wrote: post #198

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…

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…

Google is free-riding on my internet connection.

Add up all their users and that's many billions of dollars of networking they're getting for free, paid for by those users.

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

#657

Post by hedora » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 9:02 PM UTC

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…

People also block ads because they are worried about privacy and profiling.

I can’t pay google to stop profiling me, so there’s no way I’m paying for youtube premium.

[edit: honestly, the new three strikes for ad blockers policy looks like a usability improvement to me. It makes sure I don’t watch more than three videos without clearing cookies]

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

#658

Post by Macha » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 9:03 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

As many services like Hulu, cable TV or even just premium hardware have shown, paying for a service doesn't mean a company will never succumb to the perceived revenue opportunity of showing ads to paying subscribers too. I also pay for premium, but it's very much a case of "Doesn't affect me.. yet"

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

#659

Post by dkjaudyeqooe » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 9:07 PM UTC

Ajedi32 wrote: post #199

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…

> Google made nearly $70 billion in Q1 Very disingenuous argument. That's their revenue, not their profit, and that includes their entire business, not just YouTube. Or is your point just that Google is big, therefore even if YouTube is operating at a loss (I don't know if it is or not) they should maintain that indefinitely just because they can?

No one is forcing YouTube to operate, at a loss or otherwise. They can stop any time they want.

If YouTube disappeared tomorrow it would arguably the best thing that happened to internet video since its inception. You can only imagine the variety of services that would spring up, maybe a standard way of finding and viewing videos would emerge.

People don't realise how damaging (essential) monopolies are, abusive or not.

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

#660

Post by giantrobot » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 9:09 PM UTC

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…

> Web advertisers seem like a classic case of taking miles when given an inch.

Besides the sensory assault "ads" are also running arbitrary code in your browser and trying to track you individually across websites. I find it absurd when an ad block detector says something like "please support us". It's really "please support us...by letting AdTech track everything you do without informed consent and resell all of that information to innumerable downstream buyers also without consent by the way watch this blaring ad for something entirely unrelated to the topic of this webpage".

To make things even worse AdTech networks have ended up to be major malware vectors because they do effectively zero filtering or curation of uploaded content.

In principal I don't mind advertisements. Someone has a thing for sale they want to show me is for sale. It's not a big deal. I never really had issues with print advertisements, even a full page ad wasn't intrusive on my life and I could just turn the page if I was uninterested. But modern web "advertising" is just the worst fucking thing. The only sane option is to block it because it is so invasive and intrusive.