341–350 of 375 posts
It seems very much more likely that YT has ineffective moderation than that it doesn't want to take down scam ads.
That's kind of the same thing. They don't improve their moderation because they don't want to take down scams, so they can make as much revenue as possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also increases the cost of the ad, though, by introducing more buyer competition for the available slot. And a higher cost per available slot is good for the seller AND for the middlemen involved in the transaction.
Does it increase the cost of the ad? Or does it decrease the cost of ads because the larger number of legitimate products don't want to be there and so are not buying ads at all.
https://reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/18gjiqy/youtube_doesnt... So much whining from YouTube addicts. Never seen any ad like this. And I block ads manually all the time for other more 'regular' things. Maybe if you weren't always watching videos about Elon and Crypto you wouldn't see these thrown in the mix. You're the target!
Ad-free content really is possible, and Amazon is showing us how to do it. (Despite the fact that they themselves host ads.) Amazon (however unlikely) could viably come out with an ad-free YouTube competitor, backed by Prime subscription dollars. As long as the costs are in order they could let it stew for a decade while it slowly pulls users away from other platforms. Heck Netflix could do the same thing, although t…
I’m not sure I understand. Amazon Video requires a paid subscription, by that logic YouTube also has ad-free content (if you pay for Premium). Not to mention, Prime Video is introducing ads next year unless you pay an extra ad-free fee.[1]
1: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/entertainment/prime-video-u...
It may be extreme, but I think we need to pass legislation to make advertising networks civilly liable for fraud facilitated by their services. Google will change its tune quickly when it's their wallet on the line. As a bonus, this also provides a restitution path for victims (most of these frauds are run overseas, so the perpetrators are out of reach of the justice system).
AdBlock tried gently with "acceptable ads". https://getadblock.com/en/acceptable-ads-faq/ I don't mind the antagonistic method today since I will NEVER accept the idea that an ad is acceptable. The law you propose would help weaken advertising and that would make me happy. Apple killing targeted ads also made it worst. Sports gambling also makes the environment worst.
Coincidentally, the effort was paid for by the very same companies that ended up on the whitelist. From the outside, at least, this gave the impression that the whitelisting was simply paid for and covered up by a fig leaf process.
I haven't checked in a while, but that program always struck me as deeply problematic.
Today, that no longer matters, as ublock origin has emerged as a time-tested, no-compromise, user-choice content blocking solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd think that creators making people want to use the site would be important, but unfortunately YouTube is a monopoly and is addictive, so content is more or less fungible from Google's perspective. If you aren't viewing ads on creator A's content, you'll probably be viewing them on creator B's content instead. It's not like other streaming services where there is real competition and losing particular content wou…
> YouTube is a monopoly and is addictive Youtube is indeed a monopoly -- but it's not actually addictive. Since they started this war against adblockers I have found that I can perfectly live without it. When I absolutely would like to watch an informative video (for example, about how to fix something on my bike, etc.), I first try to open the video in a private window (with ublock on); if that also doesn't work I t…
But the real problem is that Youtube makes all this money but it still took a decade+ to start looking profitable. It's extremely hard to compete with them even if you somehow got over the network effects because it's hard to make money while also paying content creators. Google could do it because they could commoditize youtube's early unprofitability to their ads revenue.
Ideally, something like Netflix spawns and lets "amateur" content creators host as well, which solves many problems. But netflix doesn't seem interested and the few competitors doing that are still in the discovery phase.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I should just give up, have a talk about media habits with my parents and if they don't want to change, just hand YouTube the money? You freely admit that it is designed to be this bad and by giving them money actually just rewards their shitty behavior. I gave an example of a video showing how creators on YouTube can select which ads to show. Get-Rich-Quick is a category, YouTube could just take the decision to n…
Wanted to point out that “Just take the decision to not carry those ads” isn’t as easy when you’re at YT scale. Not excusing them but I think we all understand the challenges of content moderation at scale for organic content — now amplify that for paid content where the incentives get even thornier. Yes YT should invest more in review and policy work — but it’s a forever expanding cost with no silver bullet. I appre…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's one of few things at Twitter that work shockingly well and reliable. Elon doesn't think so. I would expect it to change soon. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1733882978781053383
The way he was corrected by a community note on that statement... kinda hilarious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So basically I'm supposed to pay protection money? Yeah, I don't give into extortion...
You are not a shopkeeper being extorted for protection money, you are a (unwelcome) shop customer demanding things you don't want to pay for while being free to go to another place.
Except the timeshare pitch is hyper-personalized specifically for you based on your entire internet history everywhere and is designed to yield the maximum chance of manipulating you into falling for it.
As a consumer you have easy options to block out the sales pitch, except the store who has a monopoly on the thing you want is now trying to scare users into disabling their ad blockers. The users that do this are disproportionately more likely to be less versed in how these things work and are thus more likely to fall for the scam.
Yes, it's a protection racket. It's just got a funny hat on this time.
It may be extreme, but I think we need to pass legislation to make advertising networks civilly liable for fraud facilitated by their services. Google will change its tune quickly when it's their wallet on the line. As a bonus, this also provides a restitution path for victims (most of these frauds are run overseas, so the perpetrators are out of reach of the justice system).
AdBlock tried gently with "acceptable ads". https://getadblock.com/en/acceptable-ads-faq/ I don't mind the antagonistic method today since I will NEVER accept the idea that an ad is acceptable. The law you propose would help weaken advertising and that would make me happy. Apple killing targeted ads also made it worst. Sports gambling also makes the environment worst.
The acceptable ads was a pay to win thing and very quickly devolved into exactly the kind of cesspool you'd expect