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

YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

iter.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

751–760 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#751

Post by comprev »

franga2000 wrote: post #622
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #414

The primary thing that makes advertisements disagreeable is their irrelevance. That’s not to say whether or not the advertisement is for a product or service for which the viewer is interested in purchasing but how it relates to the context in which it is viewed. People complain about billboards next to a countryside highway because it is entirely irrelevant to driving through the countryside. Actual complaints may b…

10000x NO! I absolutely hate advertisements in stores specifically because of their releavance. If I go there to buy cereal, I expect to go to the cereal shelf, look at the options, evaluate them and pick the optimal one for my set of criteria. What I absolutely do not want is for one cereal brand to be placed right as I come in, exploiting my psychological quirks to get me to either buy it on the spot without going…

When you are next in the cereal aisle take a close look at how they are arranged. What you see is advertising. Shelf space is at a high premium and companies tussle for your attention.

The product which is easiest to reach - for an adult on cereal shelves and a child in the toy section - pays a premium to be there. The smaller unknown brands are pushed to the bottom and on top where you have to stretch.

It's no different to a large Kellogg's cereal advert in your face as you walk in the shop.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#752

Post by _Algernon_ »

bitpush wrote: post #363
zarzavat wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ARE YOU OVER 40 AND THE ONLY AI YOU KNOW IS CHATGPT? The burden of proof is on the ads to justify why they should be watched, given that the ads themselves provide zero value to the viewer. YouTube ads in particular are a cesspit of scams. I don't want to watch ads for things like Scientology.

Huh? You're on their website to watch videos. And it costs them money to send you those bits. And they offer two ways for you to compensate. Watch ads, or pay premium. What is so difficult for you to understand this business relationship?

It's funny that you think that me sending a GET request to an IP makes me enter a business relationship.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#753

Post by ndriscoll »

thejazzman wrote: post #586
Defletter wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steel-manning the argument, near where I live, it's not that uncommon to see small to moderately sized advertisements along the road, such as a sign outside/near the entrance of a farm that's selling eggs, meat, etc. I am wholly unopposed to this. In fact, I'm very supportive of this, and used them to find a farm to buy local honey from. Whereas the stereotypical massive slabs whose advertisements get wallpapered on,…

And where I live it's an ever growing hell of political signs, dominos pizza, and anyone else who realizes there is no enforcement against this wide scale littering. The signs are never removed and continue piling up. Abandoned / unmonitored lots are also a frequent target. And it's rapidly getting worse Glad you're cool with it though, I guess? Cuz I've considered running for office on the sole platform of having th…

Where I live, there are sign regulations (total 30 sqft of road signs per lot, or less for smaller lots, 6ft maximum height, minimum 200 ft spacing, up to 2 temporary signs/lot for a maximum 60 days/year, regulations around needing to look nice, etc.). There are signs, but they are much less noticable and more function as a navigation aid rather than a call for attention.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#754

Post by jekwoooooe »

asadotzler wrote: post #459
jekwoooooe wrote: post #372

I pay for YouTube premium. Surely everyone here can too. This stuff isn’t free so either deal with ads or pay for premium

This stuff is freely available on the open web and I don't deal with ads or pay for premium because there's zero compelling reason to do so. If creators have a problem with the revenue loss, their contract is with Google and they should take up those concerns with Google. If Google has a problem with how I consume their public content, they can make it non-public or try to block me in some other way. I owe neither of…

It’s not “freely available” it’s available with ads. You are just circumventing the ads which is akin to piracy. I’m not making a moral judgement but at least be honest about it. You are trying to consume nonfree content without paying anything

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#755

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #428
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #414

The primary thing that makes advertisements disagreeable is their irrelevance. That’s not to say whether or not the advertisement is for a product or service for which the viewer is interested in purchasing but how it relates to the context in which it is viewed. People complain about billboards next to a countryside highway because it is entirely irrelevant to driving through the countryside. Actual complaints may b…

> The primary thing that makes advertisements disagreeable is their irrelevance. That's not true. We don't hate billboards because of their irrelevancy. We hate billboards because they're giant ugly attention grabbers that make the world look worse for everybody in exchange for making someone money. If the billboards were all about driving-related products, they'd still suck. The YouTube ads are hated because that's…

> If the billboards were all about driving-related products, they'd still suck.

To be clear, this is my primary point because I’m driving, not shopping. Something that gets close to maybe agreeable (I would still dislike it) would be an advertisement for a gas/charging station on a long highway. But even then we already have official roadsigns that only show logos and are otherwise relatively unobtrusive. Similar ones for fast food, actually.

Such signs seem agreeable given there is some relevance (I legitimately might be low on gas/battery charge/food satiation levels in a context which I am actually likely to have a specific product need from one or more of the advertised businesses) and they are small enough to be ignorable when they are not actually relevant. The biggest issue I think about with that is how a business gets themselves on the sign but it’s probably not that hard once they are operating next to a highway exit.

(I loathe advertisements, so when I say “agreeable” I mean something like “not wholly disagreeable”.)

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#756

Post by grogenaut »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #414

The primary thing that makes advertisements disagreeable is their irrelevance. That’s not to say whether or not the advertisement is for a product or service for which the viewer is interested in purchasing but how it relates to the context in which it is viewed. People complain about billboards next to a countryside highway because it is entirely irrelevant to driving through the countryside. Actual complaints may b…

Lol you sweet summer child, they don't care if the ad is relevant to you, you're not the customer. https://medium.com/@Glenames/programmatic-advertising-101-c9...

Your eyes are the supply. The demand (customer) is people wanting your eyes. Relevance in ads is if your eyes are a candidate to at some point buy their orid8.

What your taking about at costco is essentially house ads or really signage.

Remember unless you are a brand you are not the customer for ads.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#757

Post by grogenaut »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #414

The primary thing that makes advertisements disagreeable is their irrelevance. That’s not to say whether or not the advertisement is for a product or service for which the viewer is interested in purchasing but how it relates to the context in which it is viewed. People complain about billboards next to a countryside highway because it is entirely irrelevant to driving through the countryside. Actual complaints may b…

Lol you sweet summer child, they don't care if the ad is relevant to you, you're not the customer. https://medium.com/@Glenames/programmatic-advertising-101-c9...

Your eyes are the supply. The demand (customer) is people wanting your eyes. Relevance in ads is if your eyes are a candidate to at some point buy their product.

What your taking about at costco is essentially house ads or really signage.

Remember unless you are a brand you are not the customer for ads.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#760

Post by interestica »

tlogan wrote: post #239

Why do we justify blocking ads, even when we know the content we’re consuming isn’t free to create and even if the content is free, it still costs money to store and distribute? We often rationalize using ad blockers because ads can be intrusive or annoying. But let’s asking ourselves: Why do we feel entitled to get this for free? This isn’t a moral judgment. I genuinely want to understand the reasoning.

What does “free” mean to you?
Post reply on HN