Vietnam bans unskippable ads • Hacker News Board

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#61

Post by pbasista » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 5:17 PM UTC

cm2012 wrote: post #27

austin-cheney wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not a great regulatory move, in my opinion. Why?

Its market distortionary and makes global advertisers have to customize for the local audience, some might not bother

> market distortionary

I am unsure what you are trying to say here. But if you mean to refer to "market distortion", I cannot see how that can be happening.

The reason is that these rules are supposed to be applicable universally to every company in the same way. And as such, they do not create any market distortion in one way or the other. Because everyone has to play by the same rules. Those are as fair market conditions as one can get, in my opinion.

> some might not bother

Why should that be a problem? If someone does not like the regulation in a particular jurisdiction, it is fine. No one is forcing them to operate there.

The main point is the following: If they want to operate, they have to play by the local rules. Just like everyone else.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#62

Post by jaapz » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 5:18 PM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #26

_jab wrote: post #13

I've often wondered whether the world would be better without ads. The incentive to create services (especially in social media) that strive to addict their users feels toxic to society. Often, it feels uncertain whether these services are providing actual value, and I suspect that whether a user would pay for a service in lieu of watching ads is incidentally a good barometer for whether real value is present. Don't…

I don't think that's impractical - isn't it exactly what YouTube Premium offers, ad free viewing for £12.99 a month. I watch quite a lot of content on YouTube and really should sign up for Premium but I feel that the shockingly irrelevant ads I get presented with on YouTube are trying to drive me to sign for it - they're certainly not going to get me to buy anything!

YouTube has been increasing both the amount, frequency and length of ads in their video's for a long time now. They know people will keep using them anyway because of the network effect, and people who are really fed up with these ads will buy premium anyway. For them it's a win/win.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#63

Post by themaninthedark » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 5:18 PM UTC

cm2012 wrote: post #27

austin-cheney wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not a great regulatory move, in my opinion. Why?

Its market distortionary and makes global advertisers have to customize for the local audience, some might not bother

I would assume that the global advertisers are already having to customize for the local audience since the spoken language is Vietnamese.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#64

Post by DrewADesign » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 5:18 PM UTC

jason_s wrote: post #42

I just uninstalled a game from my mobile phone this morning that had heavy ad usage. It was interesting to note the different ad display strategies. From least to most annoying: - display a static ad, have the "x" to close appear soon (3-10 seconds) - display an animated ad, have the "x" to close appear soon (3-10 seconds) - display a static ad, have the "x" to close appear after 20-30 seconds - display an animated a…

My favorite most annoying ad tactic is the trick slowing down progress bar. It starts off fast making it seem like it’s going to be, say, a ten-second ad so you decide to suffer through it… but progressively slows so you notice at like the 20 second mark you’re only 2/3 of the way through the progress bar, so probably less than halfway done. Murderous rage.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#65

Post by einpoklum » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 5:19 PM UTC

cm2012 wrote: post #27

austin-cheney wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not a great regulatory move, in my opinion. Why?

Its market distortionary and makes global advertisers have to customize for the local audience, some might not bother

Markets are not a natural phenomenon and are themselves the result of complex social arrangements, involving coercion. So, the market is the result of "distortions" before and after various regulatory measures.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#66

Post by sandworm101 » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 5:19 PM UTC

jason_s wrote: post #42

I just uninstalled a game from my mobile phone this morning that had heavy ad usage. It was interesting to note the different ad display strategies. From least to most annoying: - display a static ad, have the "x" to close appear soon (3-10 seconds) - display an animated ad, have the "x" to close appear soon (3-10 seconds) - display a static ad, have the "x" to close appear after 20-30 seconds - display an animated a…

I have fallen asleep watching youtube many times. I swear i have woken up in the middle of 20+ minute ads. I thought it was a news article about china when it was an ad. Who knows when the skip button appeared. The few times i have seen these, it has always been a literal fake news show about china.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#67

Post by BigTTYGothGF » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 5:19 PM UTC

cm2012 wrote: post #27

austin-cheney wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not a great regulatory move, in my opinion. Why?

Its market distortionary and makes global advertisers have to customize for the local audience, some might not bother

> market distortionary

So what if it is?

> makes global advertisers have to customize for the local audience

My understanding of advertising is that there is already substantial customization for local audiences.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#68

Post by simonebrunozzi » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 5:20 PM UTC

Title should be "Vietnam", not "Vienam". I would downvote the submitter just for the reason that he posted this without correting it first.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#69

Post by BigTTYGothGF » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 5:21 PM UTC

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #41

echelon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Second order effects. Many advertisers may avoid advertising or lower their ad budgets. This means the tech platform makes less revenue. This means the platform and the video creator both make less revenue. This means less videos get created. All of these happen at the population level. I hate ads, but regulations that are for things that aren't public health (including mental health), anti-monopolization, etc. are p…

Too many people think removing ads means they'll still continue to get content for free, they just won't have to watch ads. At best, it's as you said, the platform and creator make less money (Youtube gives 55% of ad revenue to the creator). This would naturally lead to less content eventually. At worst, video content becomes unsustainable without a subscription.

> This would naturally lead to less content eventually

I, personally, am drowning in "content".

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#70

Post by simplicio » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 5:22 PM UTC

_jab wrote: post #13

I've often wondered whether the world would be better without ads. The incentive to create services (especially in social media) that strive to addict their users feels toxic to society. Often, it feels uncertain whether these services are providing actual value, and I suspect that whether a user would pay for a service in lieu of watching ads is incidentally a good barometer for whether real value is present. Don't…

Maybe, but on the otherside, ads make available a huge amount of media and services to people who would otherwise be unable to afford it. Like, I suspect a non-trivial percentage of people wouldn't have email if it weren't for gmail and other free w/ads services.