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

531–540 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#531

Post by anon7000 »

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.

I highly doubt a billboard is thick or dense enough to effectively block freeway sound. It’s not like you have a seamless wall of billboards “protecting” a neighborhood

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#532

Post by wiseowise »

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?

“Why isn’t simply avoiding de facto standard video delivery platform isn’t simply an option?”

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#533

Post by climb_stealth »

pier25 wrote: post #197

I'm more than happy to pay for Youtube Premium to remove ads for all the family and ensure content creators can monetize their work.

Hah, this so much. For me it's worth the money for the family plan just to not be exposed to ads playing on family members' devices.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#534

Post by anon7000 »

PurestGuava wrote: post #507
user3939382 wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re disagreeable because you’re having your attention robbed unsolicited for the purpose of someone else trying to get your money. The whole concept is an insult. At best they drive materialism.

You're trading your attention for entertainment you don't otherwise have to pay for.

Not true, cable TV runs ads and costs money. Many sports channels cost money in a cable package and still have ads. The *paid* Netflix plans have ads now.

It’s pretty clear that companies can’t stop salivating over how lucrative ads are, and will continue to shove ads down our throats inside of paid products as long as we live.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#535

Post by layer8 »

mcdeltat wrote: post #495
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??

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.

YouTube provides a lot of information and learning material for hobbies. That’s what I mostly use it for, besides music, and movie reviews which save so much time compared to having to watch the movie (so do reduce time spent with video entertainment).

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#536

Post by latentsea »

Mindwipe wrote: post #503
petesergeant wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or just pay for it? So I do now, but only since I moved to a country where it doesn't cost so much. I watch maybe 6 hours absolutely tops of YouTube a month? I get charged $7/m for it, which still feels usurious, but in the UK they want almost $17/m which is firmly in "go fuck yourself" territory. I'd like them to tier pricing so casual users like me aren't paying for people who are using YouTube as their primary e…

[flagged]

£12.99, which is around $17 USD, which is what the person you're replying to stated, though American defaultism kicked in and they didn't specify which dollar, but still.

So... yes it is?

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#537

Post by idkfasayer »

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…

[dead]

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#538

Post by CaptainFever »

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.

Because I control my computer, and if I don't want to see ads, I have the right to automatically filter them out on my side. (Yes, yes, and Google has the right to block me from accessing their servers.)

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#539

Post by elric »

I wouldn't be adverse to paying for YT (or similar services) if they took cash payments. But no, you have to get a subscription. Which involves giving Google your personal details, thus giving the world's biggest data hoarder even more data.

Imagine going back in time 20 years. You want to buy a newspaper from a stall. And the vendor tells you to wait and stare at an add for 30 seconds before you can pick up the magazine. The alternative is that you give that vendor a copy of your ID and credit card. It's insane.

Most of these problems would go away if we had "online cash" (please don't start talking about cryptocurrency). Want to watch a video? Watch an add or pay €0.01. Of course all the money-laundering hysteria will prevent that from happening.

Ultimately, terrorism is why we have ads.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#540

Post by PurestGuava »

anon7000 wrote: post #534
PurestGuava wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're trading your attention for entertainment you don't otherwise have to pay for.

Not true, cable TV runs ads and costs money. Many sports channels cost money in a cable package and still have ads. The *paid* Netflix plans have ads now. It’s pretty clear that companies can’t stop salivating over how lucrative ads are, and will continue to shove ads down our throats inside of paid products as long as we live.

OK, but we're very specifically discussing YouTube here, which as discussed, you don't have to pay for; but if you do, you don't see ads.
Post reply on HN