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

YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

iter.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#411

Post by snailmailman »

hirvi74 wrote: post #403
dylan604 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we should look closely at the wildly inappropriate and downright scammy ads they are hosting This is one of the things that kills me. Even in broadcasting TV, you get typical :15, :30, :60 ads with the occasional :45 or longer :90. The ad pods are also defined so that you get a set number say something like 3:00 max. YT has scammy ads where if you are just trying to let something stream in the background while you…

> This is one of the things that kills me. Even in broadcasting TV, you get typical :15, :30, :60 ads with the occasional :45 or longer :90. You are absolutely on to something. I think the seemingly random length of ads makes them feel somewhat more jarring to me. I also hate how sometimes the ads are just randomly interjected into a video. I know creators can control this to some degree, but older videos seem to suf…

I’m curious if YouTube tracks the phone angle/motion through the gyroscope. I swear I always get the hour-long ads when my phone is not in my hand, and I’m not able to skip it immediately.

I doubt they actually do that, but I’m sure it would increase ad view times. Im probably just only remembering the ads I don’t immediately skip.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#412

Post by asadotzler »

tjlingham wrote: post #371
gregoryl wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do it now? I use Firefox on all devices, it's completely fine.

I agree, but I do need to keep a chromium browser around for the odd times that: my webcam decides to flicker uncontrollably during a meeting, a website just happens to put JS that runs terribly on Firefox in the hot path and it slows to a crawl, or a new feature is being demonstrated with Chrome only support. Beats ads, as far as I'm concerned, but I can't help but feel like your average user wouldn't agree.

I worked for Mozilla for 25 years and kept other browsers around the whole time. There's nothing wrong with having other browsers, and nothing technical that prevents it, so do that :D

I can't think of a time I didn't have more than one browser, even in 1995 when I made Netscape my default, I kept Cello around for some things. More browsers are better than fewer, not only for the industry, but for individuals too.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#413

Post by beefnugs »

tlogan wrote: post #239

Why do we justify blocking ads, even when we know the content we’re consuming isn’t free to create and even if the content is free, it still costs money to store and distribute? We often rationalize using ad blockers because ads can be intrusive or annoying. But let’s asking ourselves: Why do we feel entitled to get this for free? This isn’t a moral judgment. I genuinely want to understand the reasoning.

Your brain baffles me. I have already decided that i will never ever buy any of the shit in these ads, it would save THEM TIME AND MONEY AND LYING TO THE AD BUYERS to not show me the ads. THEY are doing the immoral thing here to force waste my time for no positive benefits

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#414

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

The primary thing that makes advertisements disagreeable is their irrelevance. That’s not to say whether or not the advertisement is for a product or service for which the viewer is interested in purchasing but how it relates to the context in which it is viewed.

People complain about billboards next to a countryside highway because it is entirely irrelevant to driving through the countryside. Actual complaints may be about how the billboards block a scenic view but that also seems like another way of complaining about the irrelevance. Similarly, if I am watching a Youtube video, I am never thinking that a disruptive message from a commercial business is relevant to my current activities (uh, passivities?). No advertisement is relevant, not even in-video direct sponsorships, hence SponsorBlock.

If I go to Costco and see an advertisement for tires... well, I’m at Costco, where I buy stuff. Things are sold at Costco and people go there to have things sold to them. I might need tires and realize I can get that taken care of while I’m at Costco. Nearly every advertisement I see at Costco is relevant because it’s selling something I can buy in the same building, indeed usually something juxtaposed close to the advertisement.

I don’t complain about advertisements at Costco because that would be insane. I complain about the advertisements on Youtube because they’re irrelevant and weird but somehow normalized.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#415

Post by jvolkman »

solannou wrote: post #387
stickfigure wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just pay for it? I have my whole family on my plan. Nobody gets ads. It is a bargain. You're right, I could probably finish my motorcycle build projects without videos. But why??

I'm barely sure that the long term strategy of YouTube is "more ads". The premium account won't be always ads free

But it is now. And there's no contract, so it's easy to cancel if that ever changes.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#416

Post by hirvi74 »

jfoster wrote: post #402
cyberax wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but Youtube got to keep its servers up somehow and pay the content creators. This means ads. If you don't like them, then pay for Youtube Premium and you can get ad-free experience. Although if it's not available in your country, then adblocking is a reasonable approach.

The sheer resistance to paying for YouTube Premium is proving the need for ads.

YouTube has an estimated worth, if it were a stand-alone company, of $475 billion to $550 billion. I'm sure they'll survive off just fine continuing to sell my personal information just like that always have.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#417

Post by shakna »

yugioh3 wrote: post #235
akersten wrote: post #209

Thank you for your important work fighting this battle, it must be exhausting. The more Google insists on forcing advertising on us, the more we should look closely at the wildly inappropriate and downright scammy ads they are hosting. If they can't leave well enough alone and look the other way on ad blocking, (which is the only way to avoid exposing myself and family to these dangerous ads), they need to be under a…

people deserve to get paid for the work they put into creating content and building platforms, no? books, movies, tv shows, news, etc, are all distributed in some way or another that costs the consumer either money or their time viewing advertising. if you don't want to watch ads, pay YouTube for a subscription.

I block ads, everywhere, because I keep getting epilepsy-inducing ones.

The browser is my agent, just like my screenreader is.

Google is to blame here - and I'm saying that as an author who does advertise there because of marketshare.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#418

Post by asadotzler »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #173
Toritori12 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity I clicked the link and it is funny how they try to blame the extension when is them actually causing the problem.

The extension is stealing from them. I get stealing a zero marginal cost good is minor but the agreement you make with YouTube is that you watch an ad in exchange for the video. Why should they serve you the video if you refuse your part of the agreement?

TOS is not an agreement, it's a notice, an assertion from the provider that mandates absolutely nothing from you.

TOS is like me putting a sign up at the end of my driveway saying if you approach my home, you owe me $10. If you pull up to my house, I demand the $10, and you don't pay me, I cannot forcibly take $10 from you, nor can I call the cops or sue over the $10.

You never agreed to anything and certainly not in any legally binding format.

Notices are not contracts and TOS notices are notices.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#419

Post by Dylan16807 »

tlogan wrote: post #239

Why do we justify blocking ads, even when we know the content we’re consuming isn’t free to create and even if the content is free, it still costs money to store and distribute? We often rationalize using ad blockers because ads can be intrusive or annoying. But let’s asking ourselves: Why do we feel entitled to get this for free? This isn’t a moral judgment. I genuinely want to understand the reasoning.

> Why do we justify blocking ads, even when we know the content we’re consuming isn’t free to create and even if the content is free, it still costs money to store and distribute?

In this situation, the ads are contributing barely anything to the content creation, and storage and distribution drop in price every year while youtube increases the amount of ads and decreases the video quality. So people get upset and block everything. That's part out of being fed up, and that's part out of having no way to make the ads become less bad in a non-block way.

Post reply on HN