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

451–460 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#451

Post by scoofy »

stiray wrote: post #443
scoofy wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can also pay for YouTube. I do. It’s nice, not crazy expensive. No ads. Creators get paid. Everyone wins.

You lose on long run. In few years, you will pay more and still watch ads while YT will no longer be free. (let me remind you of video streaming services) Managers want their rewards that are tied to earnings and stockholders want to earn more. And once they both get their money, the next year reward will be tied to even more earnings. And stockholders will want to earn more.

I’ll switch to Nebula if that ever happens.

Content creators have no loyalty to YouTube and will share their content elsewhere when YouTube annoys their paying fans.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#452

Post by grepfru_it »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #428
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #414

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 b…

> The primary thing that makes advertisements disagreeable is their irrelevance. That's not true. We don't hate billboards because of their irrelevancy. We hate billboards because they're giant ugly attention grabbers that make the world look worse for everybody in exchange for making someone money. If the billboards were all about driving-related products, they'd still suck. The YouTube ads are hated because that's…

Nothing is wrong with billboards, I can look the other way. When the billboards show up on my dashboard and I have to stare at it before I can turn off my exit then we have problems

I don’t mind watching a video with an ad. My child and I can preoccupy ourself. When it’s a 90 second ad we are forced to watch just to watch a 45 second video I’m gonna make certain we don’t watch that ad

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#453

Post by asadotzler »

Belopolye wrote: post #126
southernplaces7 wrote: post #108

If YouTube's ads were like the TV ads of olden days, they might even be marginally tolerable. They're not however. In my experience, they not only deliberately increase volume to pretty much screech whatever insipid bullshit is being offered at you, but they also can sometimes run for dozens of minutes unless you manually go to your device and press "skip". TV ads never did these sorts of utterly shitty, tedious thin…

> TV ads never did these sorts of utterly shitty, tedious things. Until the CALM Act was passed in 2010, networks actually did increase the volume on advertisements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Advertisement_Loudn...

Some did, some of the time. And many of us stopped watching those stations when it really kicked in back in the early 90s.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#454

Post by sandworm101 »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #428
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #414

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 b…

> The primary thing that makes advertisements disagreeable is their irrelevance. That's not true. We don't hate billboards because of their irrelevancy. We hate billboards because they're giant ugly attention grabbers that make the world look worse for everybody in exchange for making someone money. If the billboards were all about driving-related products, they'd still suck. The YouTube ads are hated because that's…

>> that make the world look worse for everybody in exchange for making someone money.

There are places where billboards act as rather effective sound barriers, shielding quiet neighborhoods from road noise.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#455

Post by bowsamic »

tlogan wrote: post #389
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'…

Why isn’t simply avoiding YouTube considered a viable solution?

Stop playing dumb

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#456

Post by stiray »

scoofy wrote: post #451
stiray wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You lose on long run. In few years, you will pay more and still watch ads while YT will no longer be free. (let me remind you of video streaming services) Managers want their rewards that are tied to earnings and stockholders want to earn more. And once they both get their money, the next year reward will be tied to even more earnings. And stockholders will want to earn more.

I’ll switch to Nebula if that ever happens. Content creators have no loyalty to YouTube and will share their content elsewhere when YouTube annoys their paying fans.

There is no if. This is how corporate greed works.

What will happen is, that content creators will spread to different providers, that also have managers and stockholders/owners.

Look what Netflix was like and how many various payable video streaming providers you have now. More than you are prepared to pay for content.

In few years, you will be torrenting content that today you watch for free.

And only because people decided to pay, showing the world that there is money to be made in YT model.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#457

Post by nielsbot »

grepfru_it wrote: post #452
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The primary thing that makes advertisements disagreeable is their irrelevance. That's not true. We don't hate billboards because of their irrelevancy. We hate billboards because they're giant ugly attention grabbers that make the world look worse for everybody in exchange for making someone money. If the billboards were all about driving-related products, they'd still suck. The YouTube ads are hated because that's…

Nothing is wrong with billboards, I can look the other way. When the billboards show up on my dashboard and I have to stare at it before I can turn off my exit then we have problems I don’t mind watching a video with an ad. My child and I can preoccupy ourself. When it’s a 90 second ad we are forced to watch just to watch a 45 second video I’m gonna make certain we don’t watch that ad

Why should I have to look the other way? It's the billboard that's an imposition, an intrusion, and a nuisance. (Especially when there are multiple)

https://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/07/sao-paulo-city-with-no...

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#458

Post by uncircle »

scoofy wrote: post #426
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #414

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 b…

You can also pay for YouTube. I do. It’s nice, not crazy expensive. No ads. Creators get paid. Everyone wins.

I have paid for Youtube Premium for a long time. Now it’s pushing shorts (you tried to hide the section and it told you “ok, we won’t show you shorts for 30 days.” I don’t want to see them ever, respect my goddamn choices. Now you can’t hide shorts any more), telling I’m not interested is like yelling into the void, search is useless to the point of being insulting and full of clickbait. Youtube Music is so smart it keeps putting non-music videos in my playlists. Creators are deplatformed, demonetised and paid even less.

Youtube can take a hike, I’m not giving that company a dime and hope it fails. After some changes in my personal life as well, it’s good that I am not spending too much time on that awful website

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#459

Post by asadotzler »

jekwoooooe wrote: post #372

I pay for YouTube premium. Surely everyone here can too. This stuff isn’t free so either deal with ads or pay for premium

This stuff is freely available on the open web and I don't deal with ads or pay for premium because there's zero compelling reason to do so.

If creators have a problem with the revenue loss, their contract is with Google and they should take up those concerns with Google. If Google has a problem with how I consume their public content, they can make it non-public or try to block me in some other way.

I owe neither of those entities anything and until they either make the content non-public or find a way to block me without blocking others they want to see their content, I'll keep on consuming it how I like.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#460

Post by Derbasti »

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.

How much is a media service worth? How much does it cost to produce? Can I pay a reasonable fee to the right people?

Most websites do not offer reasonable payment options. They'd earn fractions of a cent from the ads they'd show me, but the cheapest subscriptions they offer are several dollars.

On YouTube, the value of the service is provided by creators, but too little of the subscription is going towards the creators. To make matters worse, Google seems to pull every string they can to make creators as miserable as possible. Their actions are a detriment to the service, and not worth supporting. An 80/20 revenue split would seem much more reasonable.

Post reply on HN