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

491–500 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#491

Post by aucisson_masque »

ranger_danger wrote: post #9

I'm surprised they don't just inject the ads directly into the video stream, I think that would solve their issue overnight (not that I want any ads personally). You could also rate-limit it to the playback speed to prevent pre-downloading the stream easily. But now that everything uses HLS/DASH, it's easy to inject different content right in the middle of the stream without re-encoding anything.

I think it’s only a matter of time before it’s reality.

They own the hosting website, if they want to show their user ads, they will find a way, even if it takes a few year.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#492

Post by morsch »

jfoster wrote: post #401
inetknght wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait until Google shows ads in premium too. Paid-for cable TV did the same rugpull decades ago.

So what's your argument? That YouTube shouldn't exist, or that it should be a charity? Something else?

Both sound like good options to me. Split it up or turn it into a nonprofit. Although I suppose the former would man paying 15 bucks to each baby YouTube, so maybe not.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#493

Post by bitpush »

noman-land wrote: post #462
bitpush wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but ad blockers are on borrowed time. This is like saying I was able to sneak into a concert. Sure, but at some point the restrictions are gonna come down hard.

All I ask is that I can pay the creator directly for content without any middle-man. Anything less will be routed around. It's not like sneaking into a concert. It's like attending a free concert at a mall and wearing a mask so the cameras can't read your lips. Or covering your phone screen with your hand when you show a friend a private photo of a special moment.

> It's like attending a free concert at a mall

Who pays for the electricity, upkeep, security and airconditioning of the mall? Who pays for the sound stage, the technicians, the lighting of the mall?

The band decided to perform at the mall, because they like the facilities there. They always had a choice to perform at their house ("own website"), but they chose the mall ("YouTube") and as long as YouTube is hosting their videos, YouTube deserves to be compensated.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#494

Post by Freak_NL »

jfoster wrote: post #401
inetknght wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait until Google shows ads in premium too. Paid-for cable TV did the same rugpull decades ago.

So what's your argument? That YouTube shouldn't exist, or that it should be a charity? Something else?

How about advertising without the tracking? Advertising not shown specifically to me because of any attributes Google thinks apply to me? Advertising limited to a 5s lead in at the start of the video (today, this video is sponsored by …) and a static banner hidden when going full-screen. Advertising held to high standards, and advertising which can be vetoed by the video's uploader. In short, ethical advertising.

Google can surely figure this out and still turn a profit on Youtube. Greed stops them from doing this.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#495

Post by mcdeltat »

stickfigure wrote: post #277
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…

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??

My higher point was you probably don't need video entertainment in your life. Surely you would agree that just about any hobby is more holistically enriching than watching youtube? Not to mention other issues surrounding mass video content.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#496

Post by oefrha »

inetknght wrote: post #348
okdood64 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just pay for Premium... No one's forcing you to do anything.

Wait until Google shows ads in premium too. Paid-for cable TV did the same rugpull decades ago.

That’s the thing about modern capitalism. Making profit isn’t enough, the profit has to keep growing. So once the market is saturated, you either reduce perks, jack up prices, bundle new features to jack up prices (my GSuite bills doubled in ~3 years before I went in and adjusted the plan; the latest price hike “reflects the significant added AI value”), or find new ways to monetize the same users (ads, “partners”, etc.). It’s inevitable.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#497

Post by FranzFerdiNaN »

sandworm101 wrote: post #454
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…

>> 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.

Then build a sound barrier , no need for an advertisement on them. Or decorate it with art if you want to make them less ugly.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#498

Post by jfoster »

hirvi74 wrote: post #416
jfoster wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, it's a perfectly suitable model. I don't have a problem with it. (but I do use YouTube frequently enough that I decided to pay for premium)

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#499

Post by matwood »

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.

Agreed. This isn’t a situation where you can’t pay. YT has a clear, reasonably priced solution for no ads. It also comes with YT music.

If people don’t think there’s enough value in YT, then don’t pay and don’t use it.

Reminds me of the early justification of Napster where people would complain the latest B. Spears song was garbage and not worth paying for, yet it was the most downloaded song.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#500

Post by debugnik »

otterley wrote: post #233
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Out of curiosity, what pays your own salary?

Not the same poster, but: Products and services that someone actually signed a contract to pay for. Google is free to not send me free video if they don't want to, I'm just connecting to their website using my browser.

But the only reason so many creators are exclusively on youtube is the fact that anyone can watch there. Google tolerates my ad blocker to some degree (unlike other sites) because the alternative is losing market share and they know it.

If creators feel cheated, they can ask youtube to stop serving their videos for free for its own interests. I'd like to see the status quo change actually.

Post reply on HN