Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube steps up fight against ad blockers again

ghacks.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 100 posts

Re: YouTube steps up fight against ad blockers again

#61

Post by bjourne »

sanswork wrote: post #35
bjourne wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has exploited network effects and the essentially free labor of millions of content creators to create a video platform no one can compete with. I don't find it the least immoral for me to block ads, while I watch someone play a game I like on a channel with less than 2k views/video. It's like running a farm at a huge deficit until everyone else goes out of business and then jacking up prices.

Google has offered free hosting for millions of content creators and once they are profitable offers them a revenue source. It further helps those creators by trying to stop freeloaders. You talk about Google exploiting creators while at the same time talking about removing their income. Google offers an easy way to support creators and avoid as. If you were really concerned with creator well being you could go that…

Most content creators have no ad revenue at all and didn't create their videos with the intent to profit from them. Yet they help build YouTube's back catalogue and get nothing in return for it. They have no Patreon accounts or donation links. I am a "content creator" too. Not like I give a shit if people watch videos of me playing guitar with their ad blockers on.

Re: YouTube steps up fight against ad blockers again

#62

Post by mu53 »

zahlman wrote: post #23
mu53 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

increasing friction for ad blockers will increase ad views will increase revenue. It is pretty easy for a company whose existence depends on ads to see people that use ad blockers as leeches or freeloaders or other derogatory terms to justify making their lives more difficult. Youtube premium is around $15, and depending on people's video usage, it pays for itself

> Youtube premium is around $15, and depending on people's video usage, it pays for itself How many ads does YouTube have to serve in order to net $15 from the advertisers? How much would they gross in this circumstance (vs. what they pay out to content creators)?

If Youtube's services (streaming/storage) are not paid for, they can't pay content creators.

When people do not pay for services directly with a credit card, they pay for it indirectly with ads and data collection. The internet would be a better place if companies didn't have to worry so much about monetizing indirectly. Plus, the only companies that can give out free services often have monopolistic intent.

This whole debate embodies why the internet has become what it has.

Re: YouTube steps up fight against ad blockers again

#63

Post by sanswork »

ndriscoll wrote: post #56
sanswork wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do retailers find new products? Why would they bother highlighting new products if there is no pull demand from community awareness. You'd just pick one vendor and agree to only sell their products for better rates

They publish contact information for vendors? They reach out to vendors through their published sales channels? Go to industry trade events or follow industry periodicals where that's the purpose? They'd highlight new products because they believe they're good. The solution to your last problem is to make exclusive dealing contracts always illegal and actually enforce antitrust law.

All your solutions are forms of advertising.

Re: YouTube steps up fight against ad blockers again

#64

Post by ndriscoll »

sanswork wrote: post #59
ndriscoll wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I presume you browse with a vulnerable webp library or something in case sites you do browse would like to use that functionality? You can't know whether they wanted to use it if your browser silently blocks their attempts.

Yes, that sounds exactly like what I'm suggesting and not a bad faith argument at all.

Correct. Web adware/spyware is drive-by malware and a frequent funnel for scammers. Malware blockers are simply prudent. Intentionally allowing their programs to run would be insane. A normal person doesn't stop to consider whether blocking malware is somehow freeloading.

Re: YouTube steps up fight against ad blockers again

#65

Post by ndriscoll »

sanswork wrote: post #63
ndriscoll wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They publish contact information for vendors? They reach out to vendors through their published sales channels? Go to industry trade events or follow industry periodicals where that's the purpose? They'd highlight new products because they believe they're good. The solution to your last problem is to make exclusive dealing contracts always illegal and actually enforce antitrust law.

All your solutions are forms of advertising.

Contacting a sales department at their provided address for that purpose is responding to a request for you to do so. This is nothing at all like taking money to propagandize people.

Putting a product at a prominent part of your store because you think it's a good purchase for customers is also completely different from accepting money from a manufacturer to place it prominently.

Going to an event where everyone specifically went to meet and exchange information about what people in their industry are doing is also again entirely unlike paid promotion.

Re: YouTube steps up fight against ad blockers again

#66

Post by sanswork »

bjourne wrote: post #61
sanswork wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has offered free hosting for millions of content creators and once they are profitable offers them a revenue source. It further helps those creators by trying to stop freeloaders. You talk about Google exploiting creators while at the same time talking about removing their income. Google offers an easy way to support creators and avoid as. If you were really concerned with creator well being you could go that…

Most content creators have no ad revenue at all and didn't create their videos with the intent to profit from them. Yet they help build YouTube's back catalogue and get nothing in return for it. They have no Patreon accounts or donation links. I am a "content creator" too. Not like I give a shit if people watch videos of me playing guitar with their ad blockers on.

They get free hosting and streaming software for it on top of free discoverability.

Re: YouTube steps up fight against ad blockers again

#67

Post by sanswork »

ndriscoll wrote: post #64
sanswork wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that sounds exactly like what I'm suggesting and not a bad faith argument at all.

Correct. Web adware/spyware is drive-by malware and a frequent funnel for scammers. Malware blockers are simply prudent. Intentionally allowing their programs to run would be insane. A normal person doesn't stop to consider whether blocking malware is somehow freeloading.

You will justify wanting things for nothing no matter what. Luckily for the rest of us, people like you are the minority so there are still enough resources for us to get the content we enjoy. But keep telling yourself that your not supporting the creators you enjoy is some moral victory.

Re: YouTube steps up fight against ad blockers again

#68

Post by sanswork »

ndriscoll wrote: post #65
sanswork wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All your solutions are forms of advertising.

Contacting a sales department at their provided address for that purpose is responding to a request for you to do so. This is nothing at all like taking money to propagandize people. Putting a product at a prominent part of your store because you think it's a good purchase for customers is also completely different from accepting money from a manufacturer to place it prominently. Going to an event where everyone spec…

Right direct sales is not advertising. The rest still is.

You're missing a step though. There is no consumer pull for new products so there is no reason for stores to bother with them even if the owner thinks it's a great idea. The demand isn't there

Re: YouTube steps up fight against ad blockers again

#69

Post by zahlman »

general1726 wrote: post #29
zahlman wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, the "wooden cutting board" ad is actually trying to tell you (if you listen to the whole thing) that plastic cutting boards are a source of microplastics but wooden cutting boards will instead result in bacterial contamination; thus they're selling you (supposedly) a titanium cutting board. Which of course will command some ungodly price tag both because of the material (supposing for the moment that this…

> It's also really noticeable how you'll keep seeing the same ads for the same few things, regardless of what your "algorithm" is currently doing. I really have to wonder how much YouTube makes off those cutting board guys. Oh yes, that's true it has been happening to me as well. Israel/Palestine propaganda fight were biggest offenders. Every 10 minutes one or the other sometimes sprinkled with a scam mobile game ad.…

> Btw cutting on titanium cutting board is the fastest way to have dull knives

I would have thought so. But the ad explicitly claims that this helps keep them sharp, IIRC. So there might be a legal case there too....

Re: YouTube steps up fight against ad blockers again

#70

Post by zahlman »

mu53 wrote: post #62
zahlman wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Youtube premium is around $15, and depending on people's video usage, it pays for itself How many ads does YouTube have to serve in order to net $15 from the advertisers? How much would they gross in this circumstance (vs. what they pay out to content creators)?

If Youtube's services (streaming/storage) are not paid for, they can't pay content creators. When people do not pay for services directly with a credit card, they pay for it indirectly with ads and data collection. The internet would be a better place if companies didn't have to worry so much about monetizing indirectly. Plus, the only companies that can give out free services often have monopolistic intent. This who…

I agree with all of that. But I'm not debating; I'm trying to understand what the underlying numbers are.
Post reply on HN