YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

Post by wincy » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 5:55 AM UTC

snailmailman wrote: post #409

Waterluvian wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s absolutely #%^*ing insane how bad and often inappropriate the ads are, to the point that I swear YouTube is in growth trouble. It feels like there’s just management layers who need their bonus or promotion, driven by some percent growth or some KPI so their standards are at the floorboards. I’ve seen porn in the still frame ads on mobile once (much worse than Evony Online if you remember those ads…)

I have all ad targeting features turned off on my account - which I assume means i unfortunately get the bottom-of-the-barrel ads. The still frame ads are always NSFW games or ads for viagra-like products. In shorts, the ads are always scams of some kind. Usually deepfakes of elon musk “giving investment advice” but also “medical experts” recommending likely dangerous scams, or “free money the government isnt telling…

Post by hahn-kev » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 5:58 AM UTC

shakna wrote: post #417

yugioh3 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by gausswho » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 6:04 AM UTC

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…

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 6:09 AM UTC

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.

Post by gausswho » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 6:10 AM UTC

Uehreka wrote: post #390

cvoss wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I can actually pay someone for content, then, if I don't pay, I should expect not to be granted access to content. But that's not how YT works. YT doesn't charge you for good stuff. It charges you for not delivering crap. That's not legitimate business, that's a racket. I have no qualm punishing YT for that. Content creators are free to find other ways to monetize their labor, if their labor is actually valuable.…

YouTube gives you two (2!) ways to pay for content. You can choose to pay with money, or you can choose to pay with your time and attention. If you don’t like paying with your time and attention, then either pay with money, or don’t use the service. This “It charges you for not delivering crap.” line is bullshit. Serving video content costs money, they’ve given you the choice of how to pay for it, and you don’t like…