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

Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoying YouTube message

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 433 posts

Re: Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoying YouTube message

#401

Post by epgui »

throw_nbvc1234 wrote: post #235
epgui wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1 I wouldn’t even notice the subscription costs, but at this point Google has only succeeded in alienating me. I have disproportionately negative feelings about this.

If you had willingly jumped from ad block to premium any time in the last 5 years would you still feel alienated? Reacting to google blocking ad-blockers as a reason not to subscribe to premium is just rationalizing not paying creators for content. I personally don't even remember what ads are like on Youtube and have zero idea how they've changed since the Youtube Red days.

Call me entitled, but I believe people should have a fundamental right to refuse spam (errr advertising). In fact in Canada that’s more or less a thing. Basically for the same reason I think people should have a fundamental right to not listen to propaganda, or to not eat fast food. Garbage in, garbage out. You are what you eat, you are what you read/watch.

If Youtube Premium had FEATURES I cared about, I would pay for it. I refuse to pay for the privilege of basic information hygiene.

Re: Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoying YouTube message

#402

Post by Thorrez »

justinclift wrote: post #351
Thorrez wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>instead of them having to advertise for dubious VPN services. Do you think Youtube wants creators to do that? Youtube doesn't get a cut of that revenue, whereas Youtube does get a cut of regular Youtube ad revenue and Premium revenue. Disclosure: I work at Google but not on Youtube, and am just speculating here.

> Do you think Youtube wants creators to do that? Perhaps Google should think upon how things ended up this way then? Like, there are some pretty clear problems with Google's approach to (at least) YouTube, and they don't seem to really want to fix them...

It wound up this way because Youtubers want more money than AdSense and Premium can give them. They earn a lot more from sponsorships than AdSense and Premium.

Are you suggesting that Youtube squeeze out more money per view than it's currently doing? How do you suggest doing this? I guess one way would be to block people from using adblockers...

Re: Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoying YouTube message

#403

Post by inetknght »

olegious wrote: post #380
inetknght wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then subscribe and pay for the service. No thanks. Not so long as the service is owned by a corporation who does not respect users. If I pay for something then I own it. Therefore I should receive a copy of it and can view it as many times as I like on any device I like. Youtube does not do this, so I won't pay for it. I see no value in paying for a delivery mechanism when the mechanism itself is hostile to owning…

That limits content to the producers that have their own distribution mechanisms, which tend to be larger content creators. the small creator that uses Youtube, Twitch, etc for distribution will be the most hurt by such a policy. Do you apply the same "If I pay for something then I own it" rule to content you consume via TV subscription services? What about if you pay to view a movie in a theater?

> Do you apply the same "If I pay for something then I own it" rule to content you consume via TV subscription services?

Yes. I don't pay for TV subscription services. What little TV I watch is freely received from broadcasts and can quite simply, and legally, be recorded.

> What about if you pay to view a movie in a theater?

No. I pay for the experience of being at the theater. The movie is irrelevant. It's like paying for the experience of being at a well groomed park with staff paid to maintain the grounds. Also, I rarely go to theaters because their experiences are terrible and aren't well groomed parks; I only go with friends which is then a group activity. Group activities certainly don't convey the same type of ownership.

Quite simply: I do not believe in renting.

Re: Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoying YouTube message

#404

Post by unshavedyak »

paulcole wrote: post #388
unshavedyak wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is convinced of that (well, in my thread at least), quit strawmaning. I want to pay for what i use. Definitely. I struggle to see how a few dozen videos in hosting fees and possible ad revenue accounts to $14/m. It's insulting, upcharged, loaded with data mining and obfuscated for extreme profit in my assumption. If they want to use ads as a justification for paying, great - show me how much i owe. How me how…

> I want to pay for what i use Lol. You want to pay what you want to pay. > show me how much i owe It’s not complicated. $13.99 for a subscription to YouTube Premium in the US. https://www.investopedia.com/youtube-premium-now-costs-usd2-... Do you go to the grocery store and say, “Show me the baker’s salary as well as what the wheat, yeast, salt, and water cost and I’ll pay that happily?” No, you pay what they charge…

> It’s not complicated. $13.99 for a subscription to YouTube Premium in the US.

Lol you understand, you're clearly avoiding the core idea.

> Do you go to the grocery store and say, “Show me the baker’s salary as well as what the wheat, yeast, salt, and water cost and I’ll pay that happily?” No, you pay what they charge for bread or you don’t buy bread or you steal the bread.

The grocery store isn't offering a free product with ads vs a paid subscription, using the missed ads as justification for paying. The grocery store isn't forcing you to also buy steak if you want to buy bread. The grocery store isn't offering a single tier price, subsidizing those who eat a lot by those who eat a little.

In the grocery store if you listen to a little, you pay a little. With Spotify, i can subscribe to a single service without upcharging to the $30/m unlimited podcasts (though that's changing it feels like, and i'll cancel them too). In the grocery store, if you buy a product you like you support that content creator by the amount they agreed to.

By justifying paying for missing ads they put a relationship between ads and the "cost we're stealing". So i'm offering to pay what i'm "stealing", but of course that's no where near enough because there's no way the handful of videos i watch a month equates to $14/m.

Look i agree with you in principle. Believe it or not, i'm not justifying avoiding ads and "stealing". I am however, saying everything Youtube has done is scummy and i'd much rather see content creators move to something that is inline with both the creators and the viewers. Where data isn't harvested in mass. Where outrage algorithms don't reign supreme.

I'm not paying Facebook anymore than i'm paying Youtube.

edit: Keep in mind i pay for a lot of services. Hell i pay for my search! You know what my search does? Be honest, transparent, and clear in the relationship between what i'm buying and what i'm getting (Kagi, btw)

Re: Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoying YouTube message

#405

Post by Thorrez »

SoullessSilent wrote: post #328
Thorrez wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>tripled the costs. According to this article, when Youtube red was introduced in October 2015, it was $9.99/month. It's now $13.99/month. That's a 40% increase. If you adjust $9.99 in October 2015 for inflation to September 2023, it's $12.93/month. So inflation-adjusted, the price increased 8.2% from 2015 to now. https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/21/9566973/youtube-red-ad-f... https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?…

Your calculation doesnt take into account increases in income. As mine has not increased since before 2015 then that would still be a 40% increase to me.

Are you interested in

* Increases in income of the population then vs now, which would be good for comparing the economy then vs now (e.g. median income then vs now)

* Increases in income following cohorts, which would be good for see how on average individual people's income has risen due to both the economy and gained experience (e.g. 25 year old in 2015 would be 33 now, and thus likely make more money both due to population-wide changes (e.g. inflation) and due to having more work experience)

* Increases in income of a few individual people (the example you provided)

For the first one, this page[1], says that in 2021 dollars, the median US household income was $68410, and in 2022 (also in 2021 dollars) it was $74580. So adjusting those back to their in-year dollars, that would be $61,426.62 in 2015[2] and $86,662.50 in 2023[3]. So adjusting the Youtube Red/Premium price change, to those numbers, results in Youtube Red/Premium decreasing price by 0.7% once adjusted for the US population's medium household income.

For the second one, I think adjusting for that would should the price decreasing even more. Because each individual person's experience increases, so you would expect an individual's income to increase more than the population's income.

For the third one, I don't see how it's useful to look at a few examples. One person's income might have doubled, showing the Youtube Red/Premium dropped drastically in price. Another person's income might have halved, showing Youtube Red/Premium increases drastically in price. Another person might have become unemployed, showing Youtube Red/Premium's price increased by infinity %. Another person might have gone from unemployed to having a job, showing Youtube Red/Premium's price decreases from infinity % of income to non-infinity % of income, so basically a decrease by inifnity %.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

[2] https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=68410&year1=20...

[3] https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=74580&year1=20...

Re: Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoying YouTube message

#406

Post by Thorrez »

depereo wrote: post #359
Thorrez wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>tripled the costs. According to this article, when Youtube red was introduced in October 2015, it was $9.99/month. It's now $13.99/month. That's a 40% increase. If you adjust $9.99 in October 2015 for inflation to September 2023, it's $12.93/month. So inflation-adjusted, the price increased 8.2% from 2015 to now. https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/21/9566973/youtube-red-ad-f... https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?…

In my local currency it used to be the equivalent of $5.83 USD, with price increases and exchange rate changes it had tripled by 2019 from when I signed up to google play music in 2013.

>when I signed up to google play music in 2013.

Google Play Music didn't remove Youtube ads back then. Youtube Red wasn't created until 2015. So you're comparing the price of something that didn't remove Youtube ads to the price of something that does remove Youtube ads. That's not a fair comparison.

Re: Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoying YouTube message

#407

Post by justinclift »

Thorrez wrote: post #402
justinclift wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you think Youtube wants creators to do that? Perhaps Google should think upon how things ended up this way then? Like, there are some pretty clear problems with Google's approach to (at least) YouTube, and they don't seem to really want to fix them...

It wound up this way because Youtubers want more money than AdSense and Premium can give them. They earn a lot more from sponsorships than AdSense and Premium. Are you suggesting that Youtube squeeze out more money per view than it's currently doing? How do you suggest doing this? I guess one way would be to block people from using adblockers...

Are you suggesting that Youtube is trustworthy, and creators shouldn't diversify their income sources?

Re: Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoying YouTube message

#408

Post by t-writescode »

lacrimacida wrote: post #375
MBCook wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More than the $0 ad blocking gives them? There are anecdotes from creators in this thread explaining they get a lot more from premium than from ads. I hate ads. I like supporting creators. And I like paying for services I use. YouTube premium is absolutely worth it. The number of people I know with very good salaries who refuse to pay a small amount a month for something they use constantly (this or other examples) n…

How much is it going to creators though? If the number is reasonable I’ll sign up for youtube premium now. I doubt it though. And ads for creators don’t do much, especially small channels I follow on youtube. At this point I prefer to support the creators directly through patreon or other ways than google, who doesn’t care about either users, content makers nor anybody else except their own bottom line.

According to this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BC3uI18oLU , there is a 55% revenue share with creators. So, about half of that money goes to maintaining and improving YouTube and the rest goes to the content creators themselves.

Re: Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoying YouTube message

#409

Post by lacrimacida »

t-writescode wrote: post #408
lacrimacida wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much is it going to creators though? If the number is reasonable I’ll sign up for youtube premium now. I doubt it though. And ads for creators don’t do much, especially small channels I follow on youtube. At this point I prefer to support the creators directly through patreon or other ways than google, who doesn’t care about either users, content makers nor anybody else except their own bottom line.

According to this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BC3uI18oLU , there is a 55% revenue share with creators. So, about half of that money goes to maintaining and improving YouTube and the rest goes to the content creators themselves.

That sounds promising. So let’s say I only watch 2 creators judiciously. Will the share of my monthly membership distribute equally to them after the maintenance cut? Let’s say maintenance and google’s cut is 50%. Will the rest of 50 split evenly between the two creators? I genuinely want to understand that. Somehow I doubt google would keep their part of the deal and not put their hand into the honey. If they did keep their word they’re basically a utility and I would not mind paying for it, I would even encourage more to do it.

Re: Anti-Anti-Adblocker uBlock filter to get rid of the annoying YouTube message

#410

Post by spullara »

infamia wrote: post #332
somsak2 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The party that is being inflicted damage are the creators who don't make any money from producing content for you.

YouTube pays most creators zero, treats them like serfs, and allows people to steal any money they might make if some rando says that the channel is allegedly using their song with little recourse and no interaction with humans. Creators live in fear of a strike against their account, that's wrong. I don't have too much sympathy for Google. Google only cares about advertisers and don't give a crap about creators. I'd…

That doesn't matter in this context. They are objectively hurting the creators that made the content.
Post reply on HN