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

YouTube's ban leads to a record number of users uninstalling their ad-blockers

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 101 posts

Re: YouTube's ban leads to a record number of users uninstalling their ad-blockers

#71

Post by nvm0n2 »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #58
Kwpolska wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who would buy this premium subscription? Most popular YouTubers want to make money from ads displayed on their videos, it's often one of their primary revenue streams.

Well, I would for one. I've made some money from my channel, but mainly through promoting my own courses and other things. I'm not after a lot of wealth, just enough.

That would open you up to arbitrarily large bills which nobody in their right mind would sign up for. If your content goes viral and you're paying to replace the advertising revenue, you could be in a deep hole.

Re: YouTube's ban leads to a record number of users uninstalling their ad-blockers

#72

Post by slowmovintarget »

Ekaros wrote: post #42
simbolit wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would think controlling what the world watches via algorithms with no oversight whatsoever would be a valuable thing to have. But having that AND getting ad money is more valuable, of course, so they do it.

Isn't the first one what makes the later one valuable? And without it would have somewhat less value... And who would actually pay on what people watch? Would that really be sustainable model?

The first one lets you move opinion on things like AI regulation, anti-trust actions, election sentiment, and more... so the first one is valuable on its own. If you have the first, using it to get the second is like using a commercial passenger jet as a reading light (yes that's a Jim Butcher reference).

Re: YouTube's ban leads to a record number of users uninstalling their ad-blockers

#73

Post by dgrin91 »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #13
mrweasel wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but even if not, YouTube is being greedy here While I agree with the greedy part, what do you specifically suggest they do? If they do nothing then the people without an adblocker are effectively subsidizing those who don't see the ads, resulting in them seeing more ads. If you don't want ads there's YouTube Premium ( even if it sucks that you need to get YouTube Music at the same time ). The worst part of that dea…

I think Google should offer a paid tier like YouTube premium, but with the following feautures: (1) You can opt out of any analytics and tracking (2) They would turn off ads for your OWN channel. So for example, if I have a channel and I pay for premium, then I should be able to TURN OFF ads so that OTHERS who view my channel don't see ads. If Google had these features, I would buy premium in a heartbeat.

(1) 99% of the general public is still barely aware of analytics & tracking, let alone care about it

(2) This makes no business sense for Youtube. If you are a serious channel you might bring in tens of thousands of dollars per video easily. If you are a mega channel that might be hundreds or millions of dollars. You want to offset that with a single $10/month subscription?

Re: YouTube's ban leads to a record number of users uninstalling their ad-blockers

#74

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #2

Chances are it's just to install a BETTER adblocker...but even if not, YouTube is being greedy here. They could still make a fairly profitable site and compete based on features and usability, but instead they are maximizing their revenue at the cost of all else. They are greedy, and instead of having a thriving business, they are making the exact same mistake as cable TV providers: choking th life out of viewers wit…

> They are greedy, and instead of having a thriving business, they are making the exact same mistake as cable TV providers:

How are they supposed to have a thriving business with no ads?

Why would anyone pay for YouTube if not to remove the ads?

The videos that get the most views only exist because YouTube shares ad revenue with creators. That content largely wouldn't exist without ad money to fund it.

The cost to run YouTube is enormous.

Re: YouTube's ban leads to a record number of users uninstalling their ad-blockers

#75

Post by renegat0x0 »

malermeister wrote: post #14
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #10

They will win. They will setup DRM, or render the full site in canvas, or with wasm, or something, or requires a TPM trusted signatured in an approved web browser or some shit. The new generation will accept a limited client, because they know mostly locked down phones. So only a few will not accept it, and they will not have to care about it a single bit.

They won't. The movie industry has been trying to stop piracy with technical measures forever. Things still get pirated. Every measure they take will be broken. They'll win over the masses, which is what they really care about. But they won't ever defeat the die-hards.

The landscape is not the same as it was.

Previously Google was not a monopoly in so many areas. Now the Internet goes through Google. It caters to investors, not to users. It controls search engine, and a browser, and phones. It can decide what is happening on client side, and on search server side.

The wild west of the Internet has ended. We have the corporate Internet now, that is surveilled and scanned, and they became quite efficient with that.

Previously you could find pirate links through Google, this has ended. You could run pirate software, but software more and more ask OS for approval to be executed. Android will scan sideloaded apps for example.

While environment becomes safer, it also becomes more controlled by corporations. Piracy eventually will be very hard to do. All blockades can be broken, but there more and more of them.

Re: YouTube's ban leads to a record number of users uninstalling their ad-blockers

#76

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

fluoridation wrote: post #15

There's an argument to be made that a site that permits ad blockers should command a higher price from advertisers than one that forbids them, since a user who would use an ad blocker is the least likely user to ever click on an ad. If you're showing ads to a userbase that consists of a mix of users who would and wouldn't use an ad blocker if able to do it, then you're increasing your impressions by policy without in…

There are different types of ads.

The types of ads run on YouTube have more in common with TV and aren't primarily for direct action.

Unless you think everyone who installs ad blockers is going to plug their ears and look away from the screen for 5 seconds when ads come on - advertisers will be happy to advertise to them.

Re: YouTube's ban leads to a record number of users uninstalling their ad-blockers

#77

Post by BiteCode_dev »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #65
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #10

They will win. They will setup DRM, or render the full site in canvas, or with wasm, or something, or requires a TPM trusted signatured in an approved web browser or some shit. The new generation will accept a limited client, because they know mostly locked down phones. So only a few will not accept it, and they will not have to care about it a single bit.

You forgot the golden rule of anti-piracy measures: they never defeat pirates but do alienate your customers.

Netflix drm wants a word.

Re: YouTube's ban leads to a record number of users uninstalling their ad-blockers

#78

Post by lsllc »

djoldman wrote: post #5

uBlock has been working fine. If you get blocked from youtube, you can go to uBlock options, click purge all caches, then "Update Now." Do a full reload in youtube and you're good to go. Tactics are changing continually.

You can check if the uBlock filters are "working" here:

https://drhyperion451.github.io/does-uBO-bypass-yt/

(it just checks the YT anti-AB script ID against the UB anti-anti-AB script ID to see if it has been updated).

Re: YouTube's ban leads to a record number of users uninstalling their ad-blockers

#79

Post by munk-a »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #13
mrweasel wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but even if not, YouTube is being greedy here While I agree with the greedy part, what do you specifically suggest they do? If they do nothing then the people without an adblocker are effectively subsidizing those who don't see the ads, resulting in them seeing more ads. If you don't want ads there's YouTube Premium ( even if it sucks that you need to get YouTube Music at the same time ). The worst part of that dea…

I think Google should offer a paid tier like YouTube premium, but with the following feautures: (1) You can opt out of any analytics and tracking (2) They would turn off ads for your OWN channel. So for example, if I have a channel and I pay for premium, then I should be able to TURN OFF ads so that OTHERS who view my channel don't see ads. If Google had these features, I would buy premium in a heartbeat.

YouTube premium's cost is unreasonable compared to the ad revenue they're missing out on. I personally don't mind covering the lost income from ads but I'm not going to pay simply to avoid being abused. And this model is repeated across quite a few ad-free services - Meta's program charges triple[1] what it earns per user, Reddit charges 150x[2] what it earns from advertising.

Just let us pay your ad revenue and don't be exploitative.

1. Meta earns about 40/year from EU citizens while their ad-free service will cost 120/year

2. The ad-free reddit experience costs 50/year while for an average user they only earn about 30 cents every year.

Re: YouTube's ban leads to a record number of users uninstalling their ad-blockers

#80

Post by munk-a »

Kwpolska wrote: post #43
vouaobrasil wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Google should offer a paid tier like YouTube premium, but with the following feautures: (1) You can opt out of any analytics and tracking (2) They would turn off ads for your OWN channel. So for example, if I have a channel and I pay for premium, then I should be able to TURN OFF ads so that OTHERS who view my channel don't see ads. If Google had these features, I would buy premium in a heartbeat.

And who would buy this premium subscription? Most popular YouTubers want to make money from ads displayed on their videos, it's often one of their primary revenue streams.

Most mid-sized youtubers make a lot more in patreon than they do in advertising revenue and see their content as a way to generate more patreon revenue rather than caring any revenue directly from their content - I also think it's much more pleasant to have a stable income from patreon instead of working with a constantly fluctuating advertising revenue.
Post reply on HN