31–40 of 132 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are you also boycotting every other large company that uses the tax system in a legal way that you don't agree with? Umm, where possible why wouldn't one choose to avoid giving your money to companies that behave in ways you object to?
Voting with your wallet is always the best, my point was that most (all?) big companies will use the tax system in a way to give them the best outcome that's possible through legal means.
What value do advertisers get in losing a portion of their ad spend to those who are even less likely to engage? I would be curious to see what click through rates typically look like post this change.
And advertising to the guy who sees 100 adverts a day might have much higher impact than advertising to the guy who sees 1000.
From Google's perspective, they want to get paid, so the more ads the better. If the advertisers, users and content creators don't like it, why would that matter to Google? The farmer doesn't care about the turkey's opinion on christmas.
This may be controversial but YouTube ads are surely ones that meet all the reasonable criteria. They're not a surprise, you know it's an ad supported business. They're served from YouTube so it's not random companies tracking you while you use a different service. And you can get rid of them by paying for the service. What's the proposed alternative where you contribute for the service? Just paywall the whole thing?
> And you can get rid of them by paying for the service. Get rid of _some_ of them
It only has to be relatively less ad laden than the free version. Whenever ads get cranked up on the “free” normal person YouTube, they’ll get cranked up on sucker pay-pig YouTube in direct proportion. If anything, they have less concern about the small fraction who (amazingly) pay them for what they’re doing.
What value do advertisers get in losing a portion of their ad spend to those who are even less likely to engage? I would be curious to see what click through rates typically look like post this change.
Google is desperate to display ads on YouTube. YouTube videos, even of poor quality, often rank highly in Google search results. This means that Google can double its profits by displaying ads on YouTube, in addition to its search advertising revenue.
Google is too big. All of the giant tech companies are. This behavior is a symptom of reaching across industries in search of growth. Is there any reason a grocery store should be a movie studio? This sucks the air out of the room for smaller companies to innovate. Search would be much better if it wasn't being shoved down our throat by a single company that controls (or buys access to) all of the panes of glass Amer…
If you ever tried to host videos yourself, you'll quickly see that it costs a stupid amount of money to manage. Why would a standalone YouTube LLC. allow anyone to access it with an adblocker and without subscription?
(People seem to lose their mind on HN every time someone even tries to recommend something as ridicolous as paying for YouTube.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't mind paying for YouTube if its subscription cost was anywhere close to reasonable.
I wouldn't mind paying for youtube if I wasn't already paying for it because they are stealing my data.
If you gave a shit, you wouldn't use YouTube.
This may be controversial but YouTube ads are surely ones that meet all the reasonable criteria. They're not a surprise, you know it's an ad supported business. They're served from YouTube so it's not random companies tracking you while you use a different service. And you can get rid of them by paying for the service. What's the proposed alternative where you contribute for the service? Just paywall the whole thing?
Ha! Try getting 10 minutes into this example and not bring surprised by a fucking pasta ad. https://
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The alternative might be Google paying their fair share of taxes. I might consider supporting their product then. Ad blocking is not as severe as tax avoidance though. I have no sympathy for the service. If it's not profitable, Google can cover it from their other revenue streams with ease.
That sounds like one of these reasons that people come up with to justify their unwillingness to pay. Are you also boycotting every other large company that uses the tax system in a legal way that you don't agree with? I'm all for big companies paying their fair share, but I'm not blaming the company, I'm blaming the people in charge who don't close these loopholes. Same issue as with Ireland in the EU, undercutting…
Somehow it seems really hard for people here to be honest with themselves and admit that they really just want YT for free and someone else (Google) to shoulder the cost. And they also whant to rant at Google while they pay for their services. :)
Never forget that Adblock Plus is a commercial product developed by a company which you can pay to get your ads listed as "acceptable ads" which makes them pass the filtering. uBlock Origin is still probably the best tool for blocking ads: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/
what’s the best ad-blocking option for safari on macos?
Never forget that Adblock Plus is a commercial product developed by a company which you can pay to get your ads listed as "acceptable ads" which makes them pass the filtering. uBlock Origin is still probably the best tool for blocking ads: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/
i love ublock origin and have used it for years. i recently migrated to macos and was disappointed to find that ublock origin doesn’t work with safari. what’s the best ad-blocking option for safari on macos?