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

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#601

Post by Prickle » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 8:59 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.

They are actually removing the ability to control ads in the near future. To my understanding, the only ads creators will have full control over are midroll ads.

They will be improving ads on the platform by removing the creator's control over them.

> optimizing creator revenue and taking the guesswork out of which ad formats to use by removing individual ad controls for pre-roll, post-roll, skippable, and non-skippable ads on newly uploaded videos.

https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/233723152/simplify...

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#602

Post by literalAardvark » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 8:59 AM UTC

greatNespresso wrote: post #576

wodenokoto wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

Hah, I'd given some thought to malinvestment in capitalism but never quite connected it to malinvestment under central planning.

It feels about right... it's almost the same thing. Except there are multiple competing "central authorities" with money, so the ones who fuck up do get burned a lot harder than they would if they were part of the very big government.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#603

Post by literalAardvark » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 9:03 AM UTC

philistine wrote: post #476

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 no, I won't pay for YouTube Premium — because that wasn't part of the deal either. There's also the ridiculous fact it is literally impossible to pay to remove the ads without also getting the horrible Youtube Music service.

I really enjoy YTM and see YT Premium as a wonderful perk.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#604

Post by dageshi » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 9:12 AM UTC

philistine wrote: post #476

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 no, I won't pay for YouTube Premium — because that wasn't part of the deal either. There's also the ridiculous fact it is literally impossible to pay to remove the ads without also getting the horrible Youtube Music service.

I wonder if there are licensing shenanigans with music that mean they have to be bundled together otherwise you might not be able to watch pure music videos on youtube.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#605

Post by dageshi » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 9:17 AM UTC

adhesive_wombat wrote: post #580

seydor wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Is it illegal though? Who owns it?

General principle of the internet seems to be people can host what they like till someone who has legal ownership of it tells them to take it down at that point they're expected to take it down and keep it off their service unless added by the owner.

That's what google is sticking to because frankly any other method would be a nightmare.

The old tv episodes might have muddy/unclear ownership and so things continue to coast along until someone exercises their right of ownership.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#606

Post by nvm0n2 » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 9:17 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…

> To me, there's currently no alternative to going onto YouTube

Vimeo, Rumble, DailyMotion, Facebook Video and self-hosting all still exist you know. There are plenty of alternatives.

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#607

Post by nvm0n2 » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 9:22 AM UTC

happytoexplain wrote: post #51

philipwhiuk wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they didn't have such entitlement they wouldn't be blocking the ads in the first place.

The technology that constitutes the internet is fundamentally incompatible with this opinion, despite that businesses would absolutely love if they could convince people otherwise. Trying to prevent me from modifying whatever you send me for my purely private use is mostly infeasible and potentially immoral, regardless of how that simple reality affects your business model. It is not the user's responsibility to alte…

It isn't incompatible actually. Remote attestation exists and platforms that allow rampant ad blocking will go the same way as PC gaming did due to rampant piracy and cheating: become a second tier platform that gets some stuff late and other stuff never :(

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#608

Post by jonathanstrange » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 9:22 AM UTC

fennecbutt wrote: post #345

crop_rotation wrote: post #9

Apart from the Youtube stuff, the post also highlights something else, entitlement towards free services like uBlock origin. > It’s one thing to play cat and mouse with YouTube. It’s quite another to deal with a wave of angry users. > And then one of the moderators actually deleted their Reddit account. “The ID in the post wasn’t updated because my mother was hospitalized,” they said. It’s sad to see them leave becau…

Doesn't the same apply to YouTube then? People who want to block ads are entitled imo. Those people outright refuse to pay or to simply not use the service if they don't like ads. And it enrages so many people when this is pointed out. Google made a mistake in offering free drive, gmail, Google docs, etc etc. Imagine telling someone in the 90s all the shit we get for free with a couple ads/our data being sold. People…

The way I see it, Youtube feels entitled to get some of my ad viewing time. If they'd pay me 14.95 USD per month, I'd probably watch their ads. But they never made me that offer, they believe I should spend my time to increase their business revenue for free. Not only that, they've convinced tens of thousands of unemployed people to make content for them!

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#609

Post by mrtksn » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 9:23 AM UTC

mkesper wrote: post #597

mrtksn wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that the whole premise of the SV tech? Give a dollar(unprofitable and unsustainable service) for a pennies by burning the money of the investors to capture a market then switch to high profit margin business practices and milk out the captured market thereafter. Sure, it can be framed as spend money when developing a product then make profit of it when released but the winners are determined by keeping alive th…

Everything you said is right except for the "rightfully".

Why?

Re: YouTube's Anti-Adblock and uBlock Origin

#610

Post by nvm0n2 » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 9:23 AM UTC

gwd wrote: post #191

wredue wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that for YouTube to get that payment, I have to give them, and other ad networks a major view in to my whole life. Ad networks are currently scum of the earth, easily giving lawyers a good name. If ad networks were riddled with crime, invasion of privacy, and other bullshit, people would be much more willing to entertain them. Today though, they’re obnoxious AND invade your privacy AND may actually jus…

> The problem is that for YouTube to get that payment, I have to give them, and other ad networks a major view in to my whole life. Wait... does that mean, Google could offer "DoubleClick Premuim", where I pay to not see any DoubleClick ads whatsoever, anywhere on the web, but the websites I visited would still get their funding? I think I'd pay $10/mo for that.

Google has repeatedly experimented with that. It always fails because the amount advertisers subsidize your internet experience is more like on the order of hundreds or thousands of dollars per month, not ten.