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

YouTube doesn't want to take down scam ads

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 375 posts

Re: YouTube doesn't want to take down scam ads

#321

Post by rurp »

bambax wrote: post #239
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd think that creators making people want to use the site would be important, but unfortunately YouTube is a monopoly and is addictive, so content is more or less fungible from Google's perspective. If you aren't viewing ads on creator A's content, you'll probably be viewing them on creator B's content instead. It's not like other streaming services where there is real competition and losing particular content wou…

> YouTube is a monopoly and is addictive Youtube is indeed a monopoly -- but it's not actually addictive. Since they started this war against adblockers I have found that I can perfectly live without it. When I absolutely would like to watch an informative video (for example, about how to fix something on my bike, etc.), I first try to open the video in a private window (with ublock on); if that also doesn't work I t…

Being addictive doesn't mean that that literally everyone who uses it will become addicted. Most people who use alcohol, or pain killers, or gamble can stop without much trouble; that doesn't mean that there aren't a subset of users who get dangerously addicted.

It's great that you're in the majority of people who aren't addicted to Youtube, but that doesn't mean everyone has the same experience that you do.

Re: YouTube doesn't want to take down scam ads

#322

Post by Wool2662 »

ChadNauseam wrote: post #309
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a time before people called websites "platforms". A time before gigantic websites full of thousands of other people's uploaded files, where the websites are used for surveillance and advertising delivery. The operators of these mega websites, posing as so-called "tech" companies, argue they are providing a valuable "service" to web users, valued at a price of zero dollars. Truly they are only interested in…

If they were only providing a service to the advertisers, why would non-advertisers use their site, and even sit through ads?

Because they have enough money and data now to just obliterate any kind of serious competition. They only need to keep providing minimal value to actual users. That's why.

Re: YouTube doesn't want to take down scam ads

#323

Post by reactordev »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #311
KMnO4 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it's not actually addictive Youtube is definitely addictive to a large population of people. If you can live without it, the only thing we can infer is that it's not addictive to you .

Maybe it's habit-forming but not addictive?

This is a more scientifically accurate description. It’s not addictive in the sense that your brain craves it’s chemicals but it definitely is habit-forming, watching video after video after video on electric motors and their construction has sent me down rabbit holes. Software topics, talks, how to’s, engineering channels, gaming drivel, it’s definitely a habit.

Re: YouTube doesn't want to take down scam ads

#324

Post by [deleted] »

ben_w wrote: post #266
bcrosby95 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite obvious they either have advertiser problems or their ad serving algorithm sucks. I get so many repeats in stuff I'm not interested in at all, and completely unrelated to what I watch. I don't know if it's a matter of those ads bidding the highest or what. But YouTube's ability to show something I'm interested in is worse than even what the daytime TV ads were back in the day.

I wouldn't buy ads on any of the major platforms. Twitter (when I downloaded my info, they were still called that) classified me as speaking three languages I know zero words of, and as having interests in several sports (I care for none); my YouTube ad experience is like yours; my Facebook experience today was about renouncing my US citizenship (I'm a British national); the Instagram ads are only marginally less bad…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube doesn't want to take down scam ads

#327

Post by onion2k »

ivanbakel wrote: post #77
Takennickname wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are almost irrelevant to the conversation. The scammers only need 100 people to believe them from the potentially millions of people who view their ad to make it profitable. You are not grasping the scale of the matter.

You're missing the GP's point. They're claiming that scam ads pollute the ad marketplace and drive away engagement. Why click on an ad, or even pay attention to it, if there's a good chance it's a scam? And why would advertisers pay for ads if consumers are not engaging with them? Thus, Google has an incentive to keep the ad space free of scams - it makes Google users more valuable to advertisers.

Maybe the fact Google doesn't police Ads is a signal that advertising isn't as lucrative as it once was...

Re: YouTube doesn't want to take down scam ads

#328

Post by nomel »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #82
GaryNumanVevo wrote: post #64

Twitter actually has some of the best ad oversight, almost entirely by accident too. Community Notes (formerly Birdwatch) lets users flag tweets that are misleading. Since Ads on Twitter are just normal tweets, they can be fact checked. Twitter's average ad quality has plummeted recently, but most of the scam ads I see have a massive user-added disclaimer outlining how it's a scam. I wonder how this affects the click…

I've been thinking about this for a while. I've seen many of these community notes - how exactly do these work ? Is a community note borne out of "most upvoted" replies to a particular tweet ? If so, how does it go from a simple upvoted reply, to a "community note" ?

Paper explaining it in detail: https://github.com/twitter/communitynotes/blob/main/birdwatc...

It's somewhat adversarial, with the idea that if people who have disagreed in the past agree on a note, then it's probably true.

Re: YouTube doesn't want to take down scam ads

#329

Post by thrillgore »

GaryNumanVevo wrote: post #64

Twitter actually has some of the best ad oversight, almost entirely by accident too. Community Notes (formerly Birdwatch) lets users flag tweets that are misleading. Since Ads on Twitter are just normal tweets, they can be fact checked. Twitter's average ad quality has plummeted recently, but most of the scam ads I see have a massive user-added disclaimer outlining how it's a scam. I wonder how this affects the click…

It works until Elon has to step in.

Re: YouTube doesn't want to take down scam ads

#330

Post by bambax »

rurp wrote: post #321
bambax wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> YouTube is a monopoly and is addictive Youtube is indeed a monopoly -- but it's not actually addictive. Since they started this war against adblockers I have found that I can perfectly live without it. When I absolutely would like to watch an informative video (for example, about how to fix something on my bike, etc.), I first try to open the video in a private window (with ublock on); if that also doesn't work I t…

Being addictive doesn't mean that that literally everyone who uses it will become addicted. Most people who use alcohol, or pain killers, or gamble can stop without much trouble; that doesn't mean that there aren't a subset of users who get dangerously addicted. It's great that you're in the majority of people who aren't addicted to Youtube, but that doesn't mean everyone has the same experience that you do.

> Being addictive doesn't mean that that literally everyone who uses it will become addicted

Not everyone, sure, but a majority. People can get addicted to anything; yet we don't just call any activity addictive -- only those where most people have a hard time controlling their behavior.

I don't think watching youtube qualifies (not just being on your phone, or watching tv).

Post reply on HN