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

641–650 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#641

Post by tonyedgecombe »

simianwords wrote: post #468
akersten wrote: post #209

Thank you for your important work fighting this battle, it must be exhausting. The more Google insists on forcing advertising on us, the more we should look closely at the wildly inappropriate and downright scammy ads they are hosting. If they can't leave well enough alone and look the other way on ad blocking, (which is the only way to avoid exposing myself and family to these dangerous ads), they need to be under a…

Idk man instead of freeloading how about paying for the service? I generally avoid dismissive comments like these but I think it needs to be said. If you don’t like ads pay for the service. You don’t deserve content for free.

Even if you pay for YouTube you will still see ads inserted by the content creators.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#642

Post by palmfacehn »

Eavolution wrote: post #602
Nextgrid wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I could be wrong but I was under the impression that ads paid primarily per click, in which case surely the relevancy is important too?

In many cases the buyer pays per impression.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#644

Post by perryizgr8 »

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.

It doesn't get rid of the ads. Most medium to big youtubers will have one or more sponsored segments inside the video.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#645

Post by notpushkin »

Oarch wrote: post #502
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.

Agreed, this is one of the times I'm fully behind a Google business model. I'd happily pay for products rather than have them datamine me senseless.

I would gladly pay for YouTube as well, but I’m sure they’ll mine the shit out of me either way.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#646

Post by Workaccount2 »

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.

Ad subsidized is not the same as ad free.

Many hybrid products/services exist to lower costs by taking on some ads. The low tier Netflix plans and $200 smart TVs are examples of this.

Sports TV is just a monopolist scam though.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#647

Post by cesarb »

mrob wrote: post #581
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 think paying for Youtube will increase the chances of my Google account getting banned. I've never heard of Google banning somebody for rejecting adverts. But if I pay them money, there's a chance there will be a problem with the payments, and that risks triggering false positives on automatic fraud detection. If that happens I assume I would be banned with no recourse and no human intervention. The safest thing to…

> I think paying for Youtube will increase the chances of my Google account getting banned. [...] The safest thing to do is never change how you interact with Google in any way unless you absolutely have to. I don't like depending on Google in this way but I've had a Gmail account for a very long time and changing to a different email address would be a major inconvenience.

I recall that even logging into Youtube with your Google account could have that danger: if for some reason Google decided that your name isn't your real name, under its "real names" policy your whole account could get banned, even from other services like Gmail and Google Talk. It's for that reason that I've been very careful to never log into Youtube with my Gmail account, even though that account always used my real name, and even though Google+'s deep integration with YouTube is AFAIK no longer relevant.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#648

Post by dakiol »

v5v3 wrote: post #605
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 don't get it. You are not the target Most advertising is seeking the less intelligent consumer. Or the young and still naive consumer. They outnumber you 1 million to 1. It's why female musicians make more money putting their name to a makeup brand then their music. It's why Elon will make some promise that is unrealistic. It's why Apple put low paid everyday tech support staff in their stores and called them Gen…

Couldn’t youtube easily discern those who are young and naive from those who aren’t so that the latter don’t get ads? It would be a win-win for everyone: youtube spends less (no need to spend bandwidth), companies dont get hated that much, non-naive-young consumers are not bombarded with ads.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#649

Post by AlienRobot »

dkga wrote: post #624

Dear YouTube, It’s not so much that I don’t want to see ads - nobody does, but very very often the ad breaks the vibe of what I am watching and it displeases me to the point I will invest my soul and energy to block ads. Some real-life examples: - watching a video about coding where the creator has a monotonic, calm voice that keeps me engaged, and VS Code in dark mode which is easy on my eyes in my dark room at 2am,…

>All this would create value because people would actually watch much more ads.

I'm very skeptical about this statement.

There is a simple way to stop watching ads: pay for premium. It's 100% effective and works right now.

What you are saying is that you want Google to make your ad experience better because you don't want to pay money to use their service.

You somehow use it enough for ads to bother you but not enough to pay for it.

This paradoxal type of user is too common and makes no sense to me.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#650

Post by NewEntryHN »

dkga wrote: post #624

Dear YouTube, It’s not so much that I don’t want to see ads - nobody does, but very very often the ad breaks the vibe of what I am watching and it displeases me to the point I will invest my soul and energy to block ads. Some real-life examples: - watching a video about coding where the creator has a monotonic, calm voice that keeps me engaged, and VS Code in dark mode which is easy on my eyes in my dark room at 2am,…

Any business model where ads can be paid off has no incentive to make good ads. Ads are meant to be annoying enough so that people prefer paying. Hence the war on ad-blockers.
Post reply on HN