YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#571

Post by seydor » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 8:03 AM UTC

eqvinox wrote: post #427

This is of course bringing up the discussion on the "morality" of Adblocking. I'd like to point out something that I don't think is getting enough attention. There was a point in the past where video platforms were competing, and by no means was it clear that YouTube would end up dominating this area to the point of being close to a monopoly. When YouTube won that race, they won it with a given set of parameters, inc…

And the platforms that were free and distributed, i.e. torrents became illegal. Youtube started with a ton of illegal stuff (and still contains tons of illegal stuff, but mostly in languages/regions that "don't matter").

Internet speeds are maturing, and maybe it is time to try again a self-hosted or distributed model. The hard part is to put ads in it, because ad-supported is traditionally the best medium for videos. However most video creators are already having sponsorship deals

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#572

Post by iforgotpassword » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 8:03 AM UTC

bongobingo1 wrote: post #538

amadvance wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also a heavy user of ad blockers, but there is something to be said in defense of YouTube. Creators have the final decision on the ads shown. I have a YouTube channel, and I always disable monetization on all my videos, so no ads are ever shown on my channel. If you see an ad, it's because the creator decided to include one. YouTube is simply the platform that enables this choice.

Is it an on-off switch, or a slider for how many and when?

Your can individually toggle pre- mid- and Post-Roll ads. Your can even set suggested spots within the video for the mid-roll ads, but that doesn't really control how many will actually be played.

This applies to videos with no copyrighted content. If you use any excerpts or music that someone else claims, anything might happen to your video regarding ads.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#573

Post by mda » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 8:03 AM UTC

healsdata wrote: post #124

ketzo wrote: post #8

Why, from first principles, should YouTube allow this? Why shouldn’t they go thermonuclear? I understand ads are annoying - I block as many as I can! - but I’ve never seen someone put together a coherent defense of the practice.

Almost every argument is readily dismantled because Google offers a paid, ad-free version of the service. I can see a privacy argument being made by folks who don't want their viewing history associated with one account but also don't want ads. I'm not an expert, but I'm not sure what monetization strategy would appease those folks. Proof of work on crypto mining for each video you want to watch, with any found coins…

Simple, because most of the people wants to have the cake and eat it.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#574

Post by xxs » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 8:05 AM UTC

eqvinox wrote: post #427

This is of course bringing up the discussion on the "morality" of Adblocking. I'd like to point out something that I don't think is getting enough attention. There was a point in the past where video platforms were competing, and by no means was it clear that YouTube would end up dominating this area to the point of being close to a monopoly. When YouTube won that race, they won it with a given set of parameters, inc…

>This is of course bringing up the discussion on the "morality" of Adblocking

No, it does not. There is no discussion to be had.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#575

Post by xxs » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 8:06 AM UTC

zarzavat wrote: post #453

eqvinox wrote: post #427

This is of course bringing up the discussion on the "morality" of Adblocking. I'd like to point out something that I don't think is getting enough attention. There was a point in the past where video platforms were competing, and by no means was it clear that YouTube would end up dominating this area to the point of being close to a monopoly. When YouTube won that race, they won it with a given set of parameters, inc…

My perspective: Google is not an agent directed by morality when they interact with me, therefore I don’t allocate any morality when interacting with them. It’s a power relationship not a moral relationship. I do feel bad for the creators, but I would rather donate to their Patreons than buy YT premium.

The issue is that the content (format/pacing/etc.) is made to show ads which pretty much makes 'premium' a weird thing.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#576

Post by greatNespresso » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 8:07 AM UTC

wodenokoto wrote: post #469

boredpeter wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of the concept of predatory pricing which is when a business lowers their prices to below cost in order to drive out all its competitors and create a monopoly. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... I do wonder if it could be argued (maybe even in the current monopoly case against google) whether youtube engaged in predatory or below-cost pricing in order to drive out all of i…

They did. They ran at a huge deficit for a very long time while expanding. But this seems to be the play book for all VC funded web apps. Facebook and MySpace did the same. In fact, you can argue that moving towards profitability too soon and too fast is what killed MySpace. But that argument only works if you are willing to see the growth phase as something other than predatory pricing. I think your comment is a sob…

Agreed. Bruce Schneier allocated a chapter in his last book, .A hacker's mind':

"Venture capital itself is not a hack. The hack is when unprofitable companies use VC funding to ignore the dynamics of the market economy. We don’t want some central planner to decide which businesses should remain operational and which should close down. But this is exactly what happens when venture capital firms become involved. The injection of VC money means that companies don’t need to compete with each other in the traditional manner, or worry about the normal laws of supply and demand. They can do what would normally be crazy things—give away their products, pay extravagant salaries, sustain enormous financial losses, provide a service that actually harms people—because of that external funding source. It’s basically central planning by elite investors, something that would be called communism if the government did it."

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#577

Post by amlib » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 8:09 AM UTC

raincole wrote: post #563

amlib wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many reasons why youtube reigns supreme but I wonder if newer, extremely efficient video codecs designed with AI inference (as shown in some demos for the last 2 years) would help in breaking up youtube's moat. It's very clear to me that the cost of hosting video content is one of the main things keeping alternatives from popping up, and maybe a codec 50x more efficient than what we have now will finally he…

I didn't do the calculations, but it sounds like trading hosting cost for GPU cost. Or you can decode on client side, but what if the client device is not powerful enough? Maybe decode on server or client depending on if the user has better internet connection or GPU...? But anyway it's not my point at all. My point is that if your "killing feature" to attract existing YouTube users to your platform is "No ads", then…

Arguably having a more efficient video codec lowers the financial burden on those types of sites, tough probably not enough. Going a bit further, I'm also not just thinking of content aggregation "tube" sites but such advances could allow content creators to self host video in their own websites, just like we do with images on a blog post for the last 25 years. But of curse, hosting your own site is a bit out of fashion nowadays :(

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#578

Post by dessant » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 8:12 AM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #491

dessant wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also feels awful to be called a beggar and a panhandler just because you're trying to find a balance and build a sustainable project by having a donation popup (that can be disabled) in your software. This disgusting review was sitting at the top of the review page for Search by Image on the Chrome Web Store: https://i.imgur.com/P1QU176.png This person has edited their review a couple of times in the past year whi…

> This disgusting review was sitting at the top of the review page for Search by Image on the Chrome Web Store: https://i.imgur.com/P1QU176.png > This person has edited their review a couple of times in the past year which pushed it to the top, and also emailed me with a similar demeaning message. I've reported it to Google staff, and they thought that the review did not break their content policy, so they did not re…

You've lost the plot if you think that it is normal or acceptable to call the maintainers of an app or extension beggars and panhandlers if there is a donation prompt shown once a year when you open the app. Most people would in fact find it appalling and demeaning to treat people with such little respect. I think you should also take a second look at your own performance in this thread, and maybe ask a friend for an opinion about your comments, because that behavior is not normal either.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#579

Post by windowsrookie » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 8:15 AM UTC

amadvance wrote: post #534

eqvinox wrote: post #427

This is of course bringing up the discussion on the "morality" of Adblocking. I'd like to point out something that I don't think is getting enough attention. There was a point in the past where video platforms were competing, and by no means was it clear that YouTube would end up dominating this area to the point of being close to a monopoly. When YouTube won that race, they won it with a given set of parameters, inc…

I'm also a heavy user of ad blockers, but there is something to be said in defense of YouTube. Creators have the final decision on the ads shown. I have a YouTube channel, and I always disable monetization on all my videos, so no ads are ever shown on my channel. If you see an ad, it's because the creator decided to include one. YouTube is simply the platform that enables this choice.

That's not necessarily true. If you are not in the Youtube partner program, Youtube can still monetize your videos and keep the ad money for themselves.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#580

Post by adhesive_wombat » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 8:16 AM UTC

seydor wrote: post #571

eqvinox wrote: post #427

This is of course bringing up the discussion on the "morality" of Adblocking. I'd like to point out something that I don't think is getting enough attention. There was a point in the past where video platforms were competing, and by no means was it clear that YouTube would end up dominating this area to the point of being close to a monopoly. When YouTube won that race, they won it with a given set of parameters, inc…

And the platforms that were free and distributed, i.e. torrents became illegal. Youtube started with a ton of illegal stuff (and still contains tons of illegal stuff, but mostly in languages/regions that "don't matter"). Internet speeds are maturing, and maybe it is time to try again a self-hosted or distributed model. The hard part is to put ads in it, because ad-supported is traditionally the best medium for videos…

> still contains tons of illegal stuff

I came across whole episodes of British TV on there this very week that were uploaded 12 years ago. I know they have a strict "no humans involved, ever" system going, but the programme name was in the title and the video was one of those ones inset into a fake background and the audio was original. I find it amazing that no one (or rather nothing) with a ban button has noticed that for so long.

If they actually cared even a microgram and they couldn't even get an intern to do a days' work searching for TV show titles, there'd be enough failed Reddit moderators out there who they could recruit who would gleefully do the job for free. Not that I would want them to - it's bad enough when only bring reactive to often-spurious complaints - but it's such a completely perfect lack of interest that it must be very deliberate.