111–120 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right, YouTube ads are notorious for being JavaScript heavy and served by a third party.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic? YouTube ads are served by Google, just like the rest of YouTube. You can verify this by looking where your network requests go in devtools. (I used to work on ads at Google, but in a different area and don't know anything about YouTube beyond what I can see in devtools.)
This is where I get conflicted with ad blockers, on the one hand most website ads are trash, on the other hand there is great content on YT and I want those creators to make enough to carry on to get to the level where they proper sponsors. But, YT is so egregious with its ad insertions at times that it drives me mad and I don’t trust the creators will get fairly compensated if I go to premium.
Louis Rossman has been saying that he gets much more money if you purchase something from his store rather than from ads, and that for this reason he doesn't care if viewers use an adblocker or not. This is just a single data point though, other youtubers have a different stance on this matter.
I do not understand why people refuse to pay for other people's work, even indirectly. YouTube Premium gives creators a pretty decent cut as well, coming from someone with monetized youtube vids...
As soon as I get that, I'll be having yt-dlp very handy.
While that works for now, if Google ever took interest in it I think it would be pretty straightforward to break any libraries like that. If you change either the endpoints or the model or etc with any reasonable frequency the library authors couldn't possibly keep up. Google can orchestrate their rollouts so their things always keep working while the library users are always in for a surprise. This is one of those t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That requires them to pre-serve you the bits for the part of the video after the ad, which they aren't going to do.
Unless they want to completely break the ability to seek in the video timeline, regardless of ad placements, that's not going to work.
I do not understand why people refuse to pay for other people's work, even indirectly. YouTube Premium gives creators a pretty decent cut as well, coming from someone with monetized youtube vids...
How much is this decent cut?
^^ Reasons I don't like youtube. I will keep looking. If I remember correctly it was like 15-20% of total revenue I was getting - of course it depended on the period.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It used to be the case that you had to be a YouTube partner to monetize your videos. They changed it so that you now have to be a partner in order to de monetize your videos. So anyone who just uploaded a video in the ~12 years between YouTube having monetization and monetization being mandated got ads put on their work retroactively and without permission.
There's a difference between being monetized (i.e. creator gets money) and YT running ads. So are you saying that YT used to only run ads on monetized videos, and recently they started running ads on non-monetized videos too? Because I remember starting to see ads on clearly non-monetized videos quite a long time ago, like 2014. And it doesn't seem like a big deal; they didn't promise to host your video without ads f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is, in my opinion, shortsighted. It's straightforward to create ads that you can't block on the client so long as you are the server of the ads yourself, as Google is. I'm not going to detail how since I don't want anyone on HN to get any ideas and build a business of it, but I'm sure it will happen eventually. For the time being I suspect it's cheaper to keep the current tech running since it brings in enough r…
I used to work in ads, and I agree this is an arms race that the advertisers could win, at least in cases like YouTube where they control the whole stack. I don't think it would be trivial, but YouTube could do it if they decided to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Give me a break. You don't want advertising, you don't want to subscribe, and you don't want a network of sites using the same subscription. What possible solution exists that satisfies your criteria, which are way more demanding than "remotely reasonable"? This is just an excuse you've fabricated to justify your own convenience, stinginess and/or laziness.
I don't want advertising tracking me. I don't want advertising introducing products I don't want. I want advertising to let me choose what advertising I want to see. I want to see advertising promoting environmental friendly products. I want advertising to promote cleaning up litter, but you don't see that do you? We have the tech. Advertising, a blood sucking evil exploitive parasite. I would turn off all blockers i…
That'd be a bad idea, actually, because advertising is a massive security problem as well as being bad for your brain.
Just a week or two ago they announced a WebP library bug that allowed simple images to own any of the major browsers. It's just not a good idea to let hundreds of random sources stick content on every page, even if you think you've somehow sanitized it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sponsorblock would be easy to work around if ad-breaks were randomly selected. Whenever you upload a video YT could process the video and "search" for good ad-break locations, at display time client bits get pushed ads randomly, making time-code blocking useless. They could even upsell to content creators by giving them the means to dynamically replace sponsors in old videos using the same tech, maybe with some knobs…
Maybe someone could use train a AI for something useful like skipping advertisement? Switching from time to content id, i.e. like they use for copyright strikes, would work even better than status quo.