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

571–580 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#571

Post by bspammer »

spudlyo wrote: post #327
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.

I'd love an option to be able to filter out all videos from my feed that have sponsored segments. For me, I find the best content is the underground stuff made by folks who don't have a clear profit motive.

This is a feature that could probably be added to sponsorblock. They have the data already.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#572

Post by SilverSlash »

I've seen several people argue about the quality of ads on YouTube. For me it's not about that. I've been using ad blockers for almost 15 years now. Youtube has been free AND ad free for me for a very long time. I don't want to be interrupted with ads now or ever regardless of their quality.

The point is, I'm making zero excuses about why I don't want to see ads on youtube. It's been that way and I want it to remain that way. No subscriptions and no ads. People watching yt on their phones and TVs will still see ads or pay for premium and they can support the service.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#573

Post by _Algernon_ »

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…

The terms of the contract are the terms encoded in the HTTP protocol. They are:

- I, as the user, (or my user agent on behalf of me) ask for a resource.

- YT, as the provider, (or the server on YT's behalf) decide whether to send that resource to me.

- If you do, I'll use or not use it in accordance with my user agent configuration.

I asked for the video, and YT chose to send it to me. I'm not going to lose sleep over the morality of using the web as it was intended to be used.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#574

Post by blitzar »

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.

Content creators have loyalty to the magic money tree on the internet, they will shake as many of the trees they can, right down to begging for $1 from every 'fan' to add to the $50,000 they make a month.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#575

Post by conradfr »

cpitman wrote: post #224
timmg wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The more Google insists on forcing advertising on us... You can... just not visit youtube, right?

Or just pay for Youtube.... $8/ month gets rid of most of the ads in videos, $15/month to remove ads from music, shorts, and search results.

Lite is not available everywhere, also those streaming services basically up their price every year, like we're frogs.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#576

Post by efdee »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #285
mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube spent about a decade and a half running unintrusive banner ads. Until they secured enough of the market that network effects locked content creators and consumers together in a two-sided market where it's hard for either group to leave unilaterally. Then they ramped up the length and intrusiveness of their ads while flouting content regulations on what they're even allowed to advertise. Why should I reward th…

You can keep bringing up Google, but you're still glossing over the part where you're not paying the people creating the content you're watching. Seems awfully convenient.

I'm very much willing to pay for their content, but not in the way of watching ads during the videos.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#577

Post by probably_wrong »

cebert wrote: post #258
mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube spent about a decade and a half running unintrusive banner ads. Until they secured enough of the market that network effects locked content creators and consumers together in a two-sided market where it's hard for either group to leave unilaterally. Then they ramped up the length and intrusiveness of their ads while flouting content regulations on what they're even allowed to advertise. Why should I reward th…

Ok, well either pay or don’t use YouTube then if you don’t want ads.

If YouTube agreed with this point of view they would put up a paywall, the same way neither Nebula nor Netflix are available for free.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#579

Post by rascul »

anon7000 wrote: post #531
sandworm101 wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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

It'll block some. It's not generally big enough to be effective.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#580

Post by shakna »

hahn-kev wrote: post #473
shakna wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So is your DVD player but it doesn't mean you don't have to pay for the movies

Google are free to ban me, free to not hand me the data. But if I tell them who I am, what agent I'm using, and then they hand me data... I'm also free to throw half that data in the bin.

Especially if I'm protecting myself.

Post reply on HN