YouTube's 'War' on Adblockers Shows How Google Controls the Internet • Hacker News Board

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

#311

Post by LightHugger » Thu, Nov 02, 2023, 5:26 PM UTC

gretch wrote: post #175

HlessClaudesman wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

It already exists for twitch, check out TTV LOL. And you can host your own proxies too. Underestimating the sophistication of adblocking is foolish, people understand well that spending time to save time watching ads is worth it.

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

#312

Post by red-iron-pine » Thu, Nov 02, 2023, 7:38 PM UTC

iooi wrote: post #119

hau wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you're right about initial value proposition, but it doesn't seem odd to me at all. There are other things about treating youtube as netflix/hbo/hulu: - I can't upload random video to the netflix, and I have a certain expectation regarding content there - 99% of videos on youtube are not something I would pay for or expected to be paid for uploading - I can pay for youtube subscription and would still get…

I love how there's a perfect counter to every single point you posted. It seems like some people just want to hate. > - I can't upload random video to the netflix, and I have a certain expectation regarding content there That's a bug, not a feature. You're basically restricted to the tastes of Netflix's buyers. > - 99% of videos on youtube are not something I would pay for or expected to be paid for uploading Then yo…

> This is your best one, YouTube has created tons of wealth for creators and has cut out tons of the usual Hollywood intermediaries. Additionally, there has never been a greater investment made on storing and distributing video like the one Google made on YouTube.

Patently not true. Most of the big YT channels these days have sponsors or controlling orgs. Often own wholely or partly by the big dogs.

For example a lot of "gun-tube" channels are owned or work under the Leviathan Group. https://www.leviathangroupllc.com/

Plenty of others like that, e.g. Take 5 Media Group , Wake Up , and INNOCEAN, etc.

There are certainly individual contributors, but if you think most of the big channels aren't 100% owned and operated you're being played.

And in their defense, there is just a lot of dross on YT; allowing anyone to upload anything means 90% of it is crap. Netflix's buyers may have a specific set of tastes, but I don't have to sort through reams of poorly edited memes & reaction videos.

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

#313

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF » Thu, Nov 02, 2023, 7:53 PM UTC

Workaccount2 wrote: post #303

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, that is a non-obvious conclusion. Many people will consider ad-supported to be free for the sole reason that it doesn't affect the amount in their bank account.

Ok? That doesn't change the facts at hand though Watching ads is what covers the cost of watching a video. It's no secret that running a site like youtube is extremely expensive.

In this thread I'm responding to this:

> No one else wants to run a lemonade stand because they can see customers do not want to pay for lemondade.

Of course nobody wanted to pay with ad view time because youtube didn't require that. In practice, one could watch a youtube video without watching any ads and the practice was allowed because it kept competitors down.

> Watching ads is what covers the cost of watching a video. It's no secret that running a site like youtube is extremely expensive.

This is exactly correct, and it's why this practice was so effective. Nobody wants to pay with their time and youtube didn't force them. Why is someone going to go to Vid.me where they will be disallowed from blocking ads? The only reason it wasn't necessary for youtube to show the ads is that they had their losses subsidized by google's profits.

Going back to what you initially wrote:

> No one else wants to run a lemonade stand because they can see customers do not want to pay for lemondade.

Because there was a lemonade stand backed by the profits of one of the most profitable companies in history handing out free lemonade, no questions asked. Yeah, nobody else wanted to pay for something that was free in practice, even in the context of time spent watching an ad.

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

#314

Post by weystrom » Fri, Nov 03, 2023, 10:34 AM UTC

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…

Because it wasn't the deal when they were consolidating the all online video content into themselves. And then once they've gotten "too big to fail", the greed rolled in.

They bait and switched us.

Youtube killed private video hosting. Reddit killed small thematic php-bb forums.

If people knew that they'd eventually do that, none of these platforms would be as big as they are today.

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

#315

Post by bloppe » Fri, Nov 03, 2023, 5:35 PM UTC

contravariant wrote: post #188

bloppe wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The thing is that this argument only works if you just assume that everything people put on youtube is put there with the expectation that people will pay to see it, rather than just to put it out there in whatever way is most convenient. If they want to be paid they should just go paid and see if anyone still wants to share videos on a closed platform, if they don't want to do that why should I need to approve of ev…

It costs Google billions of dollars every year in servers, storage, bandwidth, and electricity just to keep the lights on at YouTube. Just because a video is posted without the uploader expecting people to pay for it, does not mean it can be hosted without any cost to the infrastructure operator.

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

#316

Post by scubbo » Sun, Nov 05, 2023, 10:31 PM UTC

not_your_vase wrote: post #295

scubbo wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can Cloudflare prevent content from being seen? If they stop providing CDN support for a given service, there are plenty of other CDNs - the content is just as accessible to consumers if provided via a different CDN. By contrast, if Google delists something from search results, it becomes much harder to discover - and thus, to be consumed (by the average moderately-motivated customer, not to the dedicated person…

Oh, Cloudflare is much more than CDN. Their DNS routing, internet backbone and DDoS protection has much more powerful effect. Most of the internet traffic touches them one way or another (random internet stats say close to 80%). Sure, you can switch CDN, but most of the world will be able to access your site through IP address only, and/or the site will be DDoS'd in a matter of minutes if CF hints that you are the "b…

TIL, thank you! Yup, DNS delisting would be an even greater impact than Google delisting.

> Do you remember, like 3 or 4 years ago when CF CEO was bragging all over the internet with "oh, today I woke up, and decided to kick off x and y from the internet, lol"?

I do not! And if I did, I would have had a much better idea what you were talking about :)