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

211–220 of 412 posts

Re: SponsorBlock – skip sponsor segments on YouTube

#211

Post by johnnyanmac »

pino82 wrote: post #15
nerdjon wrote: post #4

[flagged]

Yes, it has nothing to do with privacy. The opposite is maybe true in that case (i.e. google can probably see my usage of sponsorblock in the access logs, which makes it simpler for them to identify me). But I do use it. I don't watch video clips very often. When I did, most of the times it was disappointing waste of time. Conference talks are the most obvious exception that come to my mind, and they don't interrupt…

>Once something is in YT (or any other big tech silo), I'm completely outside of charity or goodwill mode.

real shame to publish the creators stuck in a monopoly when they will be the first to fall, and Google last.

Re: SponsorBlock – skip sponsor segments on YouTube

#212

Post by johnnyanmac »

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #133

I suspect if I was creating videos and putting them on YouTube, the best way to make SponsorBlock obsolete would be to put a banner on my video that lasted the duration of my video. You’d then need to create a new type of in-video adblocker that displayed an overlay to cover the advertisement, since you could no longer block it by timestamp.

That may sadly be the next step if this does become prolific enough for ads to stop sponsoring individuals. A race to the bottom of quality against consumers who want free stuff and content creators who want to pay rent.

Re: SponsorBlock – skip sponsor segments on YouTube

#213

Post by johnnyanmac »

fngjdflmdflg wrote: post #128

One issue with SponsorBlock is that people use skip to highlight[0] on music, which should be illegal. To me there often is no highlight for music. You need to hear the first part of the piece in order to enjoy the second. And people have different views on what counts as the highlight. I don't even like seeing the skip to highlight color on the scrub bar in videos that are just music. Skip non music[1] is good thoug…

When people Listen to Giorgio by Moroder, but they skip the "boring talking part". Really shows the kind of respect today's people have for the pioneers. Sometimes I'll just loop the introduction as motivation (still has a really good beat!).

But yea, reason #2 for not wanting to use SponsorBlock. I have niche tastes, I don't trust others to tell me what's "the bad parts".

Re: SponsorBlock – skip sponsor segments on YouTube

#214

Post by OnlyLys »

kawsper wrote: post #118
chankstein38 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always wondered why YouTube themselves didn't start restricting sponsored segments. I don't necessarily agree with the idea (not a big fan of how restrictive youtube already is) but I always thought it was odd they were ok with their premium offering being devalued by sponsored segments.

Someone spotted a "SKIP"-button for sponsored segments and posted about it on the LTT-subreddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/1ekajmt/is_y...

I have YouTube Premium and on my phone I sometimes get a "Jump ahead" button that pops up on the bottom right corner when the video is in fullscreen. It doesn't just appear during sponsored segments but also during "less exciting" moments of a video like the introduction.

Re: SponsorBlock – skip sponsor segments on YouTube

#215

Post by shiroiushi »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #202
shiroiushi wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>IRL people don't, there's a reason piracy is big. It is? That's not my observation. In fact, music piracy seems to be all but dead, thanks to the streaming services. Movie piracy is not, and seems to be increasing (hard to say though), because of people getting frustrated with the fragmentation of streaming; back in Netflix's heyday, it seemed like movie piracy was much smaller, because you could just pay $7/month t…

> Movie piracy is not, and seems to be increasing (hard to say though), because of people getting frustrated with the fragmentation of streaming I feel that proves the point. When everything is all together for $20 people don't mind. when it's spread out, people are too lazy to sub/unsub to other $20 services as needed to watch content on demand. Someone that's a heavy enough power user to watch that much TV shouldn'…

>I feel that proves the point. When everything is all together for $20 people don't mind.

I think this proves my point, that it's a service problem. Put everything together in a single, easy-to-use service for a low price (like Netflix in 2012), and only the true die-hards will still bother with piracy. Ask them to subscribe to a whole bunch of services (with a high total cost) or try to figure out how to save money by strategically subscribing and unsubscribing to see the stuff they want, and have to deal with shows suddenly disappearing or moving to a competing service when they're half-finished watching them, and many will simply go back to torrenting because it's honestly easier than all that BS. But instead you think people are "lazy"... A lazy person doesn't do torrenting; it's really not that easy.

>Premium cable was way more expensive and restrictive back in the day.

Back then, 1) there weren't many alternatives. At the beginning of cable TV's reign, videotapes weren't even commonly available. And 2) back then, people had more disposable income because the cost-of-living was much, much lower (particularly housing). Technology is much better now too, so people expect to pay less.

>Meanwhile, all that conversation and none of these streaming services are even profitable.

Citation needed. Last I checked, Netflix is doing quite well, and even better after cracking down on the password-sharing.

>It's also why people completely raged when Netflix and GamePass increased prices.

Some people raged, but Netflix's subscriber count has increased and profits are up, so obviously those people either got over it, or were a small minority.

Re: SponsorBlock – skip sponsor segments on YouTube

#216

Post by throw10920 »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #210
throw10920 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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. That's really your best list? - Google constnatly double dips. They were cuaght not too long ago scanning Drive folders for potential Gemini use. Slack just had this discussion as well. - WOW cha…

> That's really your best list?

There are dozens more that you can find easily with a quick search, and these alone support my point.

> Google constnatly double dips

Sure, maybe they're not the best choice. Let's use Apple instead.

> Gemini

> And they are double dipping on their own services by selling to AI to train their data

Other forms of double dipping than ads aren't on topic, relevant, or productive for this thread which was specifically about micro transactions not replacing ads because of double dipping. (yes, the problem is real - see later)

> WOW charges subscriptions and for cosmetics in game

Also off topic, but here I don't even see a problem. Unlike ads being involuntarily shoved down your throat, you're not compelled to buy cosmetics.

> It won't be ads for you today. It probably will be tomorrow

This is very speculative, and not supported by the hundreds of SaaS products that do not, even those that have been around for years.

> We're doomed without a fundamental shift in how society consumes content.

Like microtransactions?

Moreover, none of this addresses my points that if you get rid of ads (or user data harvesting), you still have to replace it with something else, and that utx will reduce the pressure to do these other things.

Sure, ultimately you'll need regulation to get rid of user data harvesting, and maybe ads too, but I'm confused as to why "double dipping" is being brought up as an argument against utx after those things are gone - they're almost orthogonal.

Re: SponsorBlock – skip sponsor segments on YouTube

#217

Post by Hawxy »

e44858 wrote: post #184
Dylan16807 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They licensed the required patents from Megapro, but the internals of the screwdriver are bespoke and higher quality than the Megapro equivalent.

Re: SponsorBlock – skip sponsor segments on YouTube

#218

Post by kalleboo »

pino82 wrote: post #147
eropple wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are platforms with worse availability and worse affordances, ranging to nonfunctional once you're on a mobile device. Adblocking technology isn't going to make them better. Making them better is going to make them better, but the unit economics remain not in their favor. A more likely future is less video rather than people move to PeerTube and shake an upturned hat for donations . Which doesn't bother me much,…

> A more likely future is less video You mean I could get a f...ing text again about things, which I could just read at my own speed, skip back and forth by just moving my eyes, use the search function, skip pieces of it, etc etc, in just two minutes instead of ten minutes watching a video clip for the most trivial statements? What a baaad world that would be...

The videos aren't going to be replaced with text, they're going to be replaced with nothing. Text died because it is too hard to get paid for, banner ads paid peanuts to begin with and are now trivial to block. Video ads paid really well which is why people started making video content, if video ads also die, then there is simply going to be no content.

Re: SponsorBlock – skip sponsor segments on YouTube

#219

Post by lotsofpulp »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #190
CuriousSkeptic wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

Yes, I have a limited amount of time so I use curators (or algorithms) to narrow down what I might most like. For example, people used to pay HBO and other TV networks, or these days, Apple/Netflix/Amazon/Disney/etc.

Post reply on HN