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

YouTube's 'War' on Adblockers Shows How Google Controls the Internet

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 316 posts

Re: YouTube's 'War' on Adblockers Shows How Google Controls the Internet

#171

Post by karmakaze »

MarkusWandel wrote: post #161

It's their toy and they can pick it up and go home with it (i.e. Google and Youtube). Network TV got so annoyingly ad infested that I gave up on it in 1998 or so, never to return. Others soldiered on with record-and-then-clip solutions (TiVO). Record-and-clip would work with Youtube too. The adblocker "watches" the whole video, ads and all, and then when it has enough buffered up plays back the clipped version to you…

I was watching some free Tubi programming (on someone's smart TV) and they seem to do really well with ad placement. More at the beginning and end and the midway ads seem to come at good pause points for a bit longer but less frequent interruptions. I ended up watching quite a bit, taking bathroom breaks or getting drinks the old fashioned way. Their content unlike Netflix isn't the most popular titles which most everyone's already seen, but lesser known but still a curiosity to someone like me.

Re: YouTube's 'War' on Adblockers Shows How Google Controls the Internet

#172

Post by 0xfae »

ljm wrote: post #16
nwellinghoff wrote: post #10

I think it would be better if they made the video author choose the ad points in their video rather than having it happen automatically. Maybe it gets bypassed if you move forward in the video or whatever. But its the ad just fires off in the middle of sentence or something that is crazy annoying.

Do they not do that? I remember watching one or two videogamedunkey videos that included ads and he specifically scripted the video around when they would appear.

I think the creator can do that, so some use it creatively. Otherwise, the algorithm seems to pick the "most rewatched" places, so the most interesting part of the video will be interrupted by an ad, regardless of how jarring it is for the viewer.

Re: YouTube's 'War' on Adblockers Shows How Google Controls the Internet

#173

Post by hightrix »

bloppe wrote: post #124
contravariant wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't about paying for youtube, this is about ads. People don't want youtube ads, and frankly it's their good right to not have to download, display and watch them if they so choose. What youtube now wants is proof that people have watched ads. This is problematic for 2 reasons. The first is that there is no way to prove you've watched an ad in a way that's not a privacy nightmare and extremely hostile to users.…

Paid youtube is the default. Ads are just an alternative option for people who don't want to pay. Why do you feel so disgusted that they're providing you with an alternative option?

I’m not the OP but my response is that I will not pay for content twice and it is impossible to get a truly adfree experience on YouTube by paying for premium.

Re: YouTube's 'War' on Adblockers Shows How Google Controls the Internet

#174

Post by royalsand »

ljm wrote: post #16
nwellinghoff wrote: post #10

I think it would be better if they made the video author choose the ad points in their video rather than having it happen automatically. Maybe it gets bypassed if you move forward in the video or whatever. But its the ad just fires off in the middle of sentence or something that is crazy annoying.

Do they not do that? I remember watching one or two videogamedunkey videos that included ads and he specifically scripted the video around when they would appear.

[dead]

Re: YouTube's 'War' on Adblockers Shows How Google Controls the Internet

#175

Post by gretch »

HlessClaudesman wrote: post #129
slimsag wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another possible endgame is all YouTube videos are livestreams and you cannot skip on the timeline, with ads inserted directly into the stream. In that world, the best an adblocker would be able to do is show a blank screen for 30s while it waits for the real video's frames to resume.

If YT only live streams content, content caching services will strip out the ads, and play with a delay. Youtube will never monetise tech savvy users and should just stop trying. We only need to be slipperier than the average gazelle and the lions will never catch us.

> content caching services will strip out the ads, and play with a delay.

To achieve this, you’ll need computation, storage, and bandwidth on the scale of YouTube. Do you think whoever offers that service will do so without ads or payment?

Your whole scheme is based on hoping “kind” and knowledgeable volunteers do free labor for you. Good luck.

I for one am tech savvy and am happy to pay $20 for the ad free service. Pretty reasonable trade if you ask me.

Re: YouTube's 'War' on Adblockers Shows How Google Controls the Internet

#176

Post by bhelkey »

lamontcg wrote: post #159
mentalpiracy wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google destroying goodwill with a low-effort rent seeking agenda, after years of effort to extinguish real competiton. Giving money to Google for programmatic ads ≠ funding creators. Most creators are small and don’t make any real money from YT anymore, and every year fewer and fewer are willing to endure the infinite mystery box of YT moderation and contentID policy.

Yeah, if it wasn't run by Google, I'd be more likely to pay for it. And paying for it will result in most of my money going to Google and asshats like xQc even though I'd never willingly watch one of his videos and barely know who he is. And I've watched the algorithm wreck some youtube channels that I used to enjoy as the creators chase after revenue. (Not to mention that the ads that Google shows are fucking awful)

> And paying for it will result in most of my money going to Google and asshats like xQc even though I'd never willingly watch one of his videos and barely know who he is.

55% of the subscription goes to the channels you watch [1]. This money is divided based on your watch time [1]. If you don't watch a channel, none of your subscription pays for that channel.

[1] https://support.unionforgamers.com/hc/en-us/articles/3600488...

Re: YouTube's 'War' on Adblockers Shows How Google Controls the Internet

#177

Post by hightrix »

JAlexoid wrote: post #43
yifanl wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you can't pay for Youtube. You can pay for a bundle of some mostly unrelated products that's named Youtube Premium, or you can live with an insanely degraded product experience on Youtube, but you can't pay for Youtube.

YouTube Premium is ad-free YouTube. That's literally "paying for YouTube". But it sure seems that you're trying to rationalize your unwillingness to pay for something and it does sound very entitled.

It isn’t adfree. It is “no ads inserted by Google”.

In-video promotions are ads. You cannot pay to block them.

Re: YouTube's 'War' on Adblockers Shows How Google Controls the Internet

#178

Post by scubbo »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #15

It strikes me as so odd that people readily pay for netflix, hulu, HBO etc, but when the idea of paying for youtube comes along, who directly profit shares with small creators you adore, people fall over backwards in disgust. I guess it has to do with initial value proposition. If you hand out lemonade for free, people are going to be pissed when you start charging a dollar, regardless of how good of a deal it is. Ev…

Alongside the distaste of the bait-and-switch, I suggest that there's a perception among most folks that what is primarily being paid for is the content, not the services (hosting, transmission, recommendations, etc.). In that sense, paying for Netflix "feels" less bad because, in some sense, Netflix "owns" the content in its catalog for which you are buying access - whatever you may feel about the rights or wrongs of copyright law, it is undeniably a practical fact. By contrast, it feels less accurate (though is, in fact, still just as legally accurate) to say that YouTube "owns" the content uploaded to it - the content feels more personal, and YouTube is merely the conveyance mechanism. Part of the negative reaction might be due to this perception of being asked to pay for a support mechanism rather than for what you actually care about - the content.

> youtube [...], who directly profit shares with small creators you adore

Citation very much needed :P every report I've seen and insight I've heard is that anyone below the very top echelons earns negligible profit from their YouTube content. A commenter lower in the chain points out that "many of the YouTubers I watch have Patreons earning thousands of dollars", which...sort-of proves the point that YouTube, in isolation, is insufficient.

Re: YouTube's 'War' on Adblockers Shows How Google Controls the Internet

#179

Post by Aunche »

timeagain wrote: post #30
Workaccount2 wrote: post #15

It strikes me as so odd that people readily pay for netflix, hulu, HBO etc, but when the idea of paying for youtube comes along, who directly profit shares with small creators you adore, people fall over backwards in disgust. I guess it has to do with initial value proposition. If you hand out lemonade for free, people are going to be pissed when you start charging a dollar, regardless of how good of a deal it is. Ev…

As it has been framed before, it’s like the lemonade stand put all the other stands out of business by handing out free lemonade.

Imagine if you walk into a 7/11 and just fill your bottle with soda for free without paying. They eventually decide that too many people were doing this, so they decide to place their soda machine behind the counter, so you're required to pay. Then you complain that they're putting all the other convenience stores out of business because they used to give you soda for free. This is how entitled you sound.

Re: YouTube's 'War' on Adblockers Shows How Google Controls the Internet

#180

Post by zeruch »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #15

It strikes me as so odd that people readily pay for netflix, hulu, HBO etc, but when the idea of paying for youtube comes along, who directly profit shares with small creators you adore, people fall over backwards in disgust. I guess it has to do with initial value proposition. If you hand out lemonade for free, people are going to be pissed when you start charging a dollar, regardless of how good of a deal it is. Ev…

"but when the idea of paying for youtube comes along, who directly profit shares with small creators you adore, people fall over backwards in disgust."

Probably a combination of misgivings:

1. Google cant keep a product/service alive worth a damn, or ones that do get changed to be piss eventually

2. Paying other content providers for content they provide feels different than paying Youtube for mostly content they carry that was pirated/unlicensed anyway (e.g. full disclosure,I mostly use it to watch jazz and funk bootleg concerts or old 80s music videos or other ephemera YT really had damn all to do with and likely dont monetize for the actual creators worth a damn).

3. Somewhere between the two is the fact that for some licensed materials, you still have the region-constraint. If Yt Premium covered truly global reach, it might be more tantalizing, but as it stands...meh.

It's dryshite ROI.

Post reply on HN