YouTube's new anti-adblock measures • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#671

Post by commandersaki » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 10:59 AM UTC

AlienRobot wrote: post #649

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 enoug…

There is a simple way to stop watching ads

Requires getting out a credit card. Even simpler is an ad blocker.

As for the ethics of ad blocking, I'll consider unblocking ads when Google stops with the unethical (think Tai Lopez) and downright malicious ads (deepfakes of Elon suggesting to invest in crap like "Quantum AI"), and only then will I reconsider removing the blocker and maybe even paying.

Put simply, ad blockers provide a safer browsing experience.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#672

Post by mycatisblack » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 11:00 AM UTC

AlienRobot wrote: post #654

mycatisblack wrote: post #597

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 th…

First it was "I hate how much ad companies track me and build profiles on me." Now it is "I hate how ads are irrelevant." People need to understand that ads will never be 100% perfect, otherwise you would buy something every time you saw an ad. 99.99% of the ads will miss the target, and that is normal. It would be insane if it worked any other way. For what it is worth Google has a page where you can customize what…

You’re turning things around.

When the largest ad company in the world, which also has the largest fingerprint silo in the world, spews out ads that are 100% irrelevant …

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#673

Post by dxdm » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 11:03 AM UTC

vprcic wrote: post #661

AlienRobot wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 enoug…

> There is a simple way to stop watching ads: pay for premium. It's 100% effective and works right now. For now. With the ever increasing number of "premium" services that promised no ads, but slowly start introducing them, it is just a matter of time before YouTube does the same.

At which point, if it ever gets to that, you're free to stop paying them. I do not understand what point you're making here.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#674

Post by kerkeslager » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 11:03 AM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #277

mcdeltat wrote: post #234

I recently stopped watching youtube altogether and surprisingly haven't been missing it. And I used to watch a LOT (like hours per day) of youtube, mostly quality educational/scientific content. But ultimately you'd be surprised how much you don't need in your life. And side effect is no more ads. If someone sends me an occasional youtube video to watch, I'll take a look, but otherwise no engagement with the platform…

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??

I will never pay for an ad-supported product. As long as YouTube accepts money from advertisers, their loyalty is split between users and advertisers. And advertisers will eventually win: if YouTube Premium gains traction, advertisers will be willing to pay more for access to premium users, and YouTube can only ignore that for so long. YouTube Premium will have ads eventually--it's just a matter of time. It already happened to cable, it happened to Prime, and it will happen to every streaming service that relies on ads eventually.

The only answer is to support companies that do not receive any money from ads (i.e. Kagi). Until that exists for streaming, I'm blocking ads and not giving them a cent.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#675

Post by NoLinkToMe » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 11:06 AM UTC

AlienRobot wrote: post #649

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 enoug…

Agreed. I've probably got a few thousand hours on youtube, more than just about everything else. It's immensely valuable, yet I refuse to pay for Youtube. Not quite sure why.

I'm perfectly happy paying for two $5 coffees a month that I hardly remember consuming, just because I was perched and a bit tired while on a walk in the city. I pay $25 for a more comfy seat for a 3 hour flight. I pay $15 for a single movie ticket, and another $15 for $3 worth of snacks. I pay $30 for a 30 minute cutting of my hair. I pay $20 for a 3 minute slingshot at the fair. I pay $30 for a 20min taxi.

Yet I refuse to pay $14 for Youtube that I use 30 hours a month, because with adblockers I don't have to. And if Youtube makes adblocking awful enough, I simply will pay. As annoying as youtube ads are, I'd never think to complain about them because it has an easy solution.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#676

Post by al_borland » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 11:11 AM UTC

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.

I pay for Premium, and have for several years now. The Lite version is not what anyone wanted. I want no ads on YouTube, without also paying for YouTube Music (which I never use). If $8/month still gets me random ads on some videos, it’s no good. I’m sure their thought was people would turn the normal YouTube app into their music player, but I’m not so sure. Eliminating background play from Lite may solve that well enough. I’d be fine with that as a compromise. I watch a lot of music related content on YouTube that isn’t stuff I’d just listen to in a music app, that I think would get caught my the music filter. On the Apple TV, videos it thinks are music don’t show comments (even when there are comments on the website). I assume all those videos would get ads on the Lite subscription, and there are a lot of them.

I’ve tried cancelling my subscription, thinking it would make me watch less YouTube. I didn’t last 48 hours. The ads were too annoying and I signed back up.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#677

Post by Cthulhu_ » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 11:11 AM UTC

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,…

There's laws dictacting ads for TV, one of them was raising the volume for ads, the other was banning increasing the loudness of the ad to have the same effect as raising the volume without raising the volume. I presume these all apply - or should apply - to YT and co as well.

It's not enough of course.

Anyway, ads being annoying and disruptive is the point, they want to sell premium subscriptions because a steady $10 a month on a subscription often forgotten about for years is more valuable and profitable to them than showing ads. (I presume)

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#678

Post by NoLinkToMe » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 11:11 AM UTC

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?

Even if they pay per impression, pricing is ultimately driven by clicks.

Even if you pay-per-view of an ad, a company selling tampons will not pay as much for 1 thousand views of their ads on a youtube channel for construction workers, as on a youtube channel for girl's fashion. Because the former drives no clicks/revenue, and the latter does.

So yes relevance is extremely relevant to make money.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#679

Post by dxdm » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 11:12 AM UTC

commandersaki wrote: post #671

AlienRobot wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 enoug…

There is a simple way to stop watching ads Requires getting out a credit card. Even simpler is an ad blocker. As for the ethics of ad blocking, I'll consider unblocking ads when Google stops with the unethical (think Tai Lopez) and downright malicious ads (deepfakes of Elon suggesting to invest in crap like "Quantum AI"), and only then will I reconsider removing the blocker and maybe even paying. Put simply, ad block…

Of course it's nicer to get stuff for free. Leeching is leeching, though, no matter how you try to justify it. Maybe you can find some alternative way to support the creators of the content you seem to be enjoying.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#680

Post by freedomben » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 11:13 AM UTC

wiseowise wrote: post #519

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.

Found marketing director of an ad agency.

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.[1]

> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html