Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SponsorBlock – skip sponsor segments on YouTube

sponsor.ajay.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 412 posts

Re: SponsorBlock – skip sponsor segments on YouTube

#181

Post by throw10920 »

rchaud wrote: post #148
throw10920 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a terrible argument. First, it can be unproductively applied to any monetization system - you can always say that the temptation will still exist to double-dip. Second, because it's ignoring the fact that if you want to get rid of ads, you have to replace them with something else. And third, it's only partially true - microtransactions will make the ad problem better, because ad display by small creators is p…

> First, it can be unproductively applied to any monetization system - you can always say that the temptation will still exist to double-dip. That's capitalism. The Uber app was a straightforward experience, until they started loading it up with ads and tip screens. Paid Hulu and Netflix tiers have ads too, when previously they didn't. If that's a "terrible argument", there should be numerous counterexamples of compa…

> That's capitalism.

That's an utterly meaningless statement. You haven't even defined "capitalism", let alone what it means for something to "be" capitalism. This is political dog-whistling, the opposite of any rational argument.

> The Uber app was a straightforward experience, until they started loading it up with ads and tip screens. Paid Hulu and Netflix tiers have ads too, when previously they didn't.

This is intentionally deceptive and misleading. Uber is the only one of these that is actually correct, and it's a morally bankrupt company in the first place. Hulu and Netflix, on the other hand, have tiers that don't have ads, which is objectively not double-dipping.

> If that's a "terrible argument", there should be numerous counterexamples of companies doing the opposite.

First, no, that's false. There are many reasons why counterexamples would be rare or nonexistent - most obviously, because customers used to getting a free product tend to be extremely unhappy if you now tell them that they have to pay.

You also ignored every one of my points, which soundly rebutted your argument, and explained why it was bad - that your argument is utterly unrelated to microtransaction systems in particular, that you still have to have a alternative monetization system for when ads are removed, and that microtransactions will make the ad problem better.

Second, there are numerous counterexamples of companies that charge consumers directly without double-dipping - Google One, Dropbox, Remember the Milk, World of Warcraft, LegendKeeper, ChatGPT, most video games, Notion, Slack, etc.

Third, there are specific examples of companies moving away from ad-supported models to paid subscription models (without keeping ads), which is likely what you were trying to claim that "double-dipping" was: Medium, Evernote, and the New York Times, despite the aforementioned extreme aversion of consumers to starting to pay for something that they previously got for free.

Re: SponsorBlock – skip sponsor segments on YouTube

#182

Post by pxc »

wanderingmind wrote: post #180
anotherhue wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yt-dlp has a sponsorblock integration that removes the segments from the downloaded file.

Yes I use it in Desktop/laptops, but integrating it in Android through termux was a pain. I recently found out about [Seal]( https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.junkfood.seal/ ) which seems to provide a front end for yt-dlp in Android. Might try this out soon.

I use Seal all the time when people send me links to videos on social media, since, lacking the apps and accounts, I can't reliably or conveniently get them to play at the present stage of enshittification of those platforms. Seal is great! Definitely give it a try.

Re: SponsorBlock – skip sponsor segments on YouTube

#183

Post by throw10920 »

erklik wrote: post #19
noone_youknow wrote: post #16

As a YouTuber, I’m conflicted about this. My main channel (non-tech) is small, but is monetised, and YouTube see fit to throw me a _very_ variable amount of money every month. CPMs are down right now so revenue has tanked along with it, it’ll pick back up at some point, but the variability is itself the pain point. My videos are relatively expensive and time consuming to make, but people seem to find them useful, and…

> blunt instrument like this is likely to kill off sponsorships as a whole That's the dream. Ads are a poison and a blight. Removing them is something many users, including me welcome. If one wants money for their videos, they're welcome to actually allow getting payments i.e. patreon, the "Youtube sponsorship"-thing.

Direct payment is good, but Patreon-type models are unfair (for both consumers and creators), inefficient (in terms of both time and money spent by consumers), and unscalable (to anything but a tiny fraction of the economy).

We need direct microtransactions on the per-video/content-item level.

Re: SponsorBlock – skip sponsor segments on YouTube

#184

Post by e44858 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #111
BonoboIO wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the LTT stupid ideas like watercooling his server room funny but without Sponsorblock it’s a pain. Also their merch … this is so overpriced. A screwdriver for 70 dollar, when nearly the same product costs 20. But there are enough people that buy that stuff.

As far as I'm aware it's a similar price to screwdrivers of similar quality. Much cheaper options exist but I wouldn't call them "nearly the same".

LTT themselves said they worked with Megapro to make a slightly modified version of their screwdriver. The original is $33.

Re: SponsorBlock – skip sponsor segments on YouTube

#185

Post by throw10920 »

noone_youknow wrote: post #16

As a YouTuber, I’m conflicted about this. My main channel (non-tech) is small, but is monetised, and YouTube see fit to throw me a _very_ variable amount of money every month. CPMs are down right now so revenue has tanked along with it, it’ll pick back up at some point, but the variability is itself the pain point. My videos are relatively expensive and time consuming to make, but people seem to find them useful, and…

As a creator - I'd be very interested to know whether a direct microtransaction system (not crypto, imagine something like PayPal) would be appealing to you. (none currently exists, but I want there to be)

Your per-video ad revenue is probably under 1c/video, right? If so, I don't think that many consumers would bat an eye at directly paying that cent (or more), assuming a sufficiently well-designed wallet UI (clear indicator of balance, easy refund system (with anti-refund-abuse countermeasures), current spend amount per session and spend rate prominently displayed, one-click content purchase with low latency, etc.). Does that sound plausible, or am I missing something?

Re: SponsorBlock – skip sponsor segments on YouTube

#186

Post by lolinder »

torlok wrote: post #164

Was looking for this exactly. I understand that you have to make money somehow if you want to dedicate yourself to YouTube, but I always found sponsor segments to be worse than native advertising, and just plain gross to watch.

> worse than native advertising

Hard disagree. Sponsored segments are better in a few ways:

* They're a return to the days where ads didn't need to be targeted at people but instead were targeted at content. "If you're watching this educational video you might like Brilliant" is a heck of a lot less intrusive than "I noticed you were searching for shoes the other day, so here's a Nike ad".

* The creator has to own it. There's no hiding behind the algorithm or Google or whatever, they have to actually read off the advertisement. I find the human in the loop serves as a valuable filter on what gets advertised (at least on the channels I follow).

* The best creators actually make the ad worth watching. See Terrible Writing Advice for an example. I don't always watch the ad, but I sometimes do because it's just fun.

In general I agree that ads are bad in all their forms, but sponsor reads are one of the least offensive items in a bad genre.

Re: SponsorBlock – skip sponsor segments on YouTube

#187

Post by [deleted] »

xena wrote: post #129
ndriscoll wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that's fine, and it is perfectly sustainable for people to do things they enjoy for free. It'd perhaps not be sustainable for someone to play video games as a full-time job, but maybe that's okay (or even desirable from a societal resource allocation standpoint)?

Simply make rent, housing, and food free. Then people need not make money for the majority of needs.

[deleted]

Re: SponsorBlock – skip sponsor segments on YouTube

#188

Post by bdw5204 »

wanderingmind wrote: post #49

Sponsorblock is not as blunt a tool as people make it here. You can only block specific type of ads and you can whitelist whole channels which I do for some niche channels I subscribe to. In Android, I use Tubular [1], the NewPipe fork that integrates Sponsorblock and ReturnYoutube Dislike. My only additional request in this awesome app is if we can download the video after snipping out the sponsor block sections. [1…

I also use Tubular on Android. The one caveat is that Youtube changes seem to break the app on a regular basis so you do need to periodically return to the Github repo to update it.

Re: SponsorBlock – skip sponsor segments on YouTube

#189

Post by braden-lk »

throw10920 wrote: post #181
rchaud wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, it can be unproductively applied to any monetization system - you can always say that the temptation will still exist to double-dip. That's capitalism. The Uber app was a straightforward experience, until they started loading it up with ads and tip screens. Paid Hulu and Netflix tiers have ads too, when previously they didn't. If that's a "terrible argument", there should be numerous counterexamples of compa…

> That's capitalism. That's an utterly meaningless statement. You haven't even defined "capitalism", let alone what it means for something to "be" capitalism. This is political dog-whistling, the opposite of any rational argument. > The Uber app was a straightforward experience, until they started loading it up with ads and tip screens. Paid Hulu and Netflix tiers have ads too, when previously they didn't. This is in…

LegendKeeper will never have ad placements because of how ugly they are. Personally I wouldn’t be able to tolerate an ad messing up the flow of our designs and user focus, lol. Idk how others do it; we also never relied on ads in the first place so maybe that makes it easier.

(LegendKeeper mentioned!! 8))

Re: SponsorBlock – skip sponsor segments on YouTube

#190

Post by johnnyanmac »

CuriousSkeptic wrote: post #134
zamadatix wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it YouTube Premium viewers result in significantly more revenue than ad based viewers do [1] but represent a tiny fraction of viewers [2] and can't be targeted separately. I.e. if most people were willing to pay in just one way, even if that were just YouTube Premium, then there wouldn't be such a strong incentive for channels to rely on sponsored segments but most people prefer not paying anything an…

I would buy premium in a heartbeat if it actually filtered out all ads and sponsored content. Not just the segment, the entire video should be cut if its creation was influenced by “impressions” or what ever filler content is measured in. The current deal gives me no value, it just distributes more money to promote quantity crap over quality. Someone needs to figures out how to take my money and distribute them to pe…

>Someone needs to figures out how to take my money and distribute them to people working on actually valuable stuff.

why do you need a financial advisor to donate to Patreon or even Youtube memberships now? The models are about as easy to (un)subscribe from as you can get, while allowing granular control.

Do you really want some "index fund" where you trust someone else to use your money to fund "good creators"? That sounds like a capitalist's wet dreams. And a consumer hellscape.

Post reply on HN