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

431–440 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#431

Post by scoofy »

throwawaygmbno wrote: post #381
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??

Or just block the ads, let others subsidize it for me until the executive greed eventually turns the product to crap and we collectively move on to the newer options that have filled the gap. Cable used to mostly be ad free as well. Now normal TV shows are 21 minutes with 9 minutes of ads. Older TV show reruns are actually sped up with parts cut out of them. Google created a monopoly by making the product great with…

Everyone wants to talk about other people being greedy when justifying their own coincidental preference for not giving away money they don’t have to.

Nebula is there, it’s not free either.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#432

Post by asadotzler »

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.

Advertising is predatory by design. It is my moral duty not only to resist advertising, but to do everything I can to make it as ineffective as possible.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#433

Post by asadotzler »

zdragnar wrote: post #322
whatshisface wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're asking the question in a way that's unreflective of how people think. They can do it and want to do it and would need a reason to not do it. So the question is, what would make someone feel like they were ethically compelled to watch an advertisement? It sounds impossible to me, maybe someone with a very unique perspective could chime in about themselves. Here's an attempt at a double-negative answer: you can'…

There's a very simple answer. You want to watch some content. The content provider offers you two options: pay and get no ads, or watch for free and also sit through some ads. You are not obligated to watch ads. You are opting to watch them in exchange for the free content, then skipping out on a commitment you volunteered for while still taking the free content. The "unethical contact" argument is bullshit, because…

>You want to watch some content. The content provider offers you two options: pay and get no ads, or watch for free and also sit through some ads.

Thee provider made the content public on the Web. That means I can view it under any terms I chose until they find a way to exclude me without excluding all the attention that being on the public Web gives them.

There are not 2 options as you claim. There are infinite options to the user here. Google may prefer you engage in only one of two ways, but they have no legal ground to require that with content on the public Web.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#434

Post by oblio »

yugioh3 wrote: post #252
dingaling wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think YouTube should get further into the dangerous spiral of chaperoning the content of videos. If there are too many sponsored segments in a video, take it up with the creator or stop watching that channel.

yeah I think the free market can figure ad load out. creators who go overboard on sponsored segments will get less views, less engagement. there's a natural equilibrium.

In many countries ad sections have to be clearly marked for another reason the "free market" hasn't solved: disguised advertising. I wish the US got with the times.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#435

Post by tossandthrow »

scoofy wrote: post #431
throwawaygmbno wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just block the ads, let others subsidize it for me until the executive greed eventually turns the product to crap and we collectively move on to the newer options that have filled the gap. Cable used to mostly be ad free as well. Now normal TV shows are 21 minutes with 9 minutes of ads. Older TV show reruns are actually sped up with parts cut out of them. Google created a monopoly by making the product great with…

Everyone wants to talk about other people being greedy when justifying their own coincidental preference for not giving away money they don’t have to. Nebula is there, it’s not free either.

Things at scale are so incredibly cheap if you take out unnatural profits.

This argument doesn't really hold.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#436

Post by asadotzler »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #316
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.

Just want to point out, adding on to OP, that creators on youtube get 55% of revenue. I get that Google has infinite money and infinite evil. But how convenient you also get to skip out on paying the majority expense, which goes to the creator... And yes virtuous commentor, I know you are one of the 1.5% that convert to a patreon supporter. Now ask everyone else why they get to eat for free (while endlessly complaini…

Creators choose to host their content on platform that puts it on the public Web where ads are easily blocked. If creators have an issue, it is with Google, not my ad blocker.

I don't owe creators anything; I have no agreements with them. Google is the one with creator contracts.

Google may owe creators something, but I certainly don't and I'm not going to adopt Google's burden on that.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#437

Post by the_af »

mcdeltat wrote: post #234

I recently stopped watching youtube altogether and surprisingly haven't been missing it. And I used to watch a LOT (like hours per day) of youtube, mostly quality educational/scientific content. But ultimately you'd be surprised how much you don't need in your life. And side effect is no more ads. If someone sends me an occasional youtube video to watch, I'll take a look, but otherwise no engagement with the platform…

For some of us, YouTube is part of our creative and mindful pursuits. It either drives our interests (much like reading a magazine about specialized topics would, in the past), or explains how to do something, or simply builds a community of like minded people all over the world.

I find the argument of "how much you don't need in your life" not very compelling.

On one hand, we "need" very little: health, food, shelter. On the other, a life worth living is made of everything else that is not, strictly speaking, truly needed: ideas, hobbies, passions, entertainment, projects, etc.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#438

Post by tptacek »

asadotzler wrote: post #405
tptacek wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, you could just honor the terms you clearly understand the content is being offered under, and just not use the service. Not as fun to write about as coercion is, though.

Or you could instead give them the middle finger and take anything they put out there. TOS are not binding contracts and until you're contractually bound to do otherwise, taking what they're handing out is completely reasonable.

Alright, but when they give the middle finger back at you in other ways, you made your bed.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#439

Post by asadotzler »

yugioh3 wrote: post #243
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fuck that. My household uses Newpipe we don't pay for shit.

Stealing from creators shouldn't be celebrated.

It's not stealing from creators. The creators have an agreement with Google not with me. If they feel they have been shorted, they can take it up with Google.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#440

Post by the_af »

BeetleB wrote: post #373
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??

If someone really likes Youtube content - sure, I guess. For me the cost isn't worth it - when I compare with other streaming services. I got rid of the Youtube app from my Roku many months ago, and I haven't missed it. That wouldn't be the case for most other streaming apps that I still have. I think for me - right from the day Youtube launched - I never liked the interface. It's the worst streaming interface of all…

Hm, in my opinion there's no such thing as "YouTube content". Content, that's the blanket word I object to.

What there is is people (and companies) uploading stuff. Some useful, some entertaining, some mindless, some for me, some not for me.

I cannot say "YouTube content" is -- or is not -- for me because the notion is meaningless. Individual videos and channels are definitely for me, and are hard to find elsewhere. YouTube by itself is not a thing.

Post reply on HN