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

591–600 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#591

Post by sokoloff »

Nextgrid wrote: post #557
Corrado wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree, though with a twist. Google knows everything about me and yet I get ADs for things that I would never purchase. Just because I'm a middle aged male I see trucks, and beer, and football advertisements all day long. Those are irrelevant to me. If Google would only use their immense knowledge of me and what I like, I might be more amenable to watching their ADs. Where are the ADs for geeky movies tha…

Their incentive is to make money, not serve you relevant ads. If a geeky movie studio pays X to show an ad to people of your profile, while a car manufacturer pays X*2, Google is better off showing you the car, even if they are internally 100% sure you'd buy the movie instead.

The next Superman movie might correctly conclude that you’re going to go see it anyway, so advertising it to the hypothetical you isn’t very valuable.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#592

Post by raincole »

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.

By this logic you lose in long term no matter what you do.

If you pay premium: they'll add ads to premium too.

If you watch ads: they'll add more ads.

If you use ad-blocker: they'll embed ads into the video.

If you use another platform: the said platform will need to monetize and you are back to square one.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#593

Post by mrob »

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #559
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 most successful marketing campaign of all time was the marketing department convincing companies that they need marketing. If you’re Coca Cola and you spend £1,000,000,000 on a Christmas TV ad of a bear drinking cola, does that increase your sales? No. It does nothing. But every year they’ll do it. The only marketing that works is at the point of sale, and free samples. Anything which is just random and in public…

I don't drink cola myself, but it seems logical to me. The point of the expensive advert is showing everybody how rich Coca Cola is. That increases the trust people have in their products being safe and reliable because they know Coca Cola has something to lose. If they didn't advertise they'd be like those Chinese sellers named as random strings of uppercase letters. I definitely wouldn't buy cola from one of those.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#594

Post by mrkramer »

I also noticed fake buffering[0], it is disgusting but it seems like they are usually on their adblocker blocking spree for a few weeks and then they give up. Their goal is to annoy you not to unblock adblocker and watch ads but to make you buy YouTube Premium because they would earn more money from subscription than they would from you watching ads.

[0] https://i.imgur.com/v1YSWVM.png

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#595

Post by raincole »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #515
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.

I pay for youtube too and it still completely sucks. I hate when people try this bs. * I don't want to have to have an account and be logged in to it. * I pay for youtube but I don't always get to use my account. Other people's houses and devices exist. Other people's accounts exist even on my own device. * I pay for youtube and still have to get all the baked in ads. * I pay for youtube and have a wonderful black sc…

Sure. All you said is completely true. I have a good solution: don't use YouTube then.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#596

Post by JanneVee »

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.

I've harped on this before: the problem is that the ads if they are fraudulent or harmful in other ways and the companies making money when presenting deserve get their shit blocked. Especially if they can target ads to vulnerable people. These are huge profitable companies that moderate the content they profit of but as soon as someone pays them they turn the blind eye.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#597

Post by mycatisblack »

Here’s something many people probably don’t know.

I live in a west-Eu country with several well-defined language borders. Each time we cross a border (on holiday), the youtube ads change language. When I’m logged in. I don’t have a driver’s license, yet the most common ad I get is for second hand cars. I’m in a relationship, yet I regularly get ads for dating sites. I have a job, get ads for jobhunting advice. And the other day I got an add specifically for people born before my birth-year minus one.

YouTube’s ads are on the same level as Spotify’s nagging for their subscription: it’s meant to annoy users into buying their ad-free plan. They use real ads as a thin veneer.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#598

Post by qwery »

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're right to point out the "relevance factor" is not what people commonly take it to be. The context is (as always) crucial. Of course, the degree to which an individual tolerates advertising varies for a multitude of reasons.

> billboards [...] countryside

I think people simply find this to be an ugly thing. They object to the ugliness of it. They're in the countryside -- i.e. not the town/city -- and they find themselves unable to escape (even here!) from this seedy miasma. Putting disgust into words is not a simple thing, perhaps this is the reason for the inconsistent reasoning you've noticed.

All advertising is ugly, it's an ugly business -- money grubbing manipulation. It's inherently weird to be subjected to the endless torrent of uncanny twisted art that is advertising every day for your entire life. The ads on Youtube are normalised by the same force that normalises all the other advertising -- the ads in one context normalise the ads in another. The ads on the side of the bus, on the LCD panels on the train, on the same screen that shows the timetable at the station, before the movie starts, by the seemingly sensible ads in Costco. One hand washes the other.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#599

Post by ChromaticPanic »

raincole wrote: post #592
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.

By this logic you lose in long term no matter what you do. If you pay premium: they'll add ads to premium too. If you watch ads: they'll add more ads. If you use ad-blocker: they'll embed ads into the video. If you use another platform: the said platform will need to monetize and you are back to square one.

You just described the evolution of every streaming platform out there

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#600

Post by ManlyBread »

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.

The value I get for paying YouTube doesn't match the price.

Ad blocking is already free and was free for two decades, why would I want to start paying for it now? It's not like I am breaking ToS (despite their pop-ups stating otherwise) and even if I did it is my computer and it is entirely up to me what kind of content it is and isn't going to display.

Personally I don't care if creators get paid or not, I have enough financial problems as it is and I have no capacity to add the problems of complete strangers on the internet to the pile.

Everyone wins aside from me, the end user. I am paying for something that is already free to do, I get nothing out of it (I still have to run stuff like Sponsorblock to get the content I actually want) and I participate in the upkeep of a business model that not only doesn't have my interests in mind but also has no issues with tricking me (there is no content moderation for YouTube ads and there are plenty of cases in which users are served scam ads).

Post reply on HN