[flagged]
People here always suggest paying a subscription instead of viewing ads as a superior revenue model. Google introduced this and people still lose their minds.
Google admits cracking down on people using ad blockers
71–80 of 92 posts
Re: Google admits cracking down on people using ad blockers
#72[flagged]
> STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT ADS No. I believe you missed/ignored a few facts in your screed: 1. Ads are a malware surface 2. Ads are used to pass misinformation and other harmful content Google is failing to perform its due diligence as an ad platform for both sides of the ad two-sided market. Ergo, my browser connection will continue to use its condoms. -- Further, Google paid for little to any content creation that is…
"Google is not providing the service how I'd like. Therefore they are wrong."
How do you even expect someone to argue with you?
Re: Google admits cracking down on people using ad blockers
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
"the only reason this is upsetting to people is because it seemed to be free for so long" The issue, at least to me, is that Google has a sort of monopoly on >99% of content on Youtube. They provide virtually nothing[0] to content creators other than free †⸸ video hosting, and in return they get to gatekeep the content itself. All of the cost is offloaded onto the consumer, and there is little to no incentive (arguab…
> It costs to make, but it's not Google that has to pay Google pays creators 55% of the ad revenue, so yes Google has to pay for those videos. > It costs to deliver, but why should Google be the only party who gets to deliver other people's content? People upload to YouTube because YouTube gives them plenty of ad revenue. They don't upload to sites without a lot of ads since that would reduce their ad revenue.
"Google pays creators 55% of the ad revenue, so yes Google has to pay for those videos."
Google does not have to pay for videos. If a video brings google enough ad revenue, they willingly give some of it to the channel that made the video. They do not pay a fixed or up-front cost, and assume none of the risk/effort in creating videos. To be fully pedantic, Google doesn't pay for videos in any sense, they pay for the resulting attention.
"People upload to YouTube because YouTube gives them plenty of ad revenue. They don't upload to sites without a lot of ads since that would reduce their ad revenue."
The videos people want to watch are only on Youtube -> Viewers only use Youtube -> Content creators only upload to Youtube -> Repeat... Google's centripetal force prevents competitors from competing.
Re: Google admits cracking down on people using ad blockers
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's actually the really annoying part to me - I don't mind paying for content or for useful services, but if you operate one way for over a decade and use that time to consolidate the entire market and get in a position where you have no real competition, and only once you own the market do you drive up prices and make the free experience awful , than that does actually seem quite unreasonable (and in an ideal wor…
That's a legitimate point. Also, I would prefer to pay the content creators directly. Charge me for time spent viewing — give that portion of my subscription to the content creators I was watching.
At the risk of advocating for the devil, I think that's what YouTube Premium does? I don't know whether it pays out by time watched or per view or what, and obviously Google takes a (large) cut, but the biggest argument in its favor is that it does actually put money in the creators' pockets.
Re: Google admits cracking down on people using ad blockers
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah the fallacy of content piracy harm. If I steal content it doesn't cost the creator anything. I was never going to pay for said content anyway. If I enjoy content to to point of being willing to pay, I would do so anyway, even if I could keep getting it for free, if there is an agreeable way to do that. This applies to software, books, video, music and everything else, and has been proven time and again. Google has…
People quit their jobs and make videos full time thanks to YouTube ads. Those videos wouldn't exist otherwise, people would be busy working regular jobs.
Or they might have just created the content and monetised it through their own site.
Re: Google admits cracking down on people using ad blockers
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
People quit their jobs and make videos full time thanks to YouTube ads. Those videos wouldn't exist otherwise, people would be busy working regular jobs.
Or they might have just created the content and monetised it through their own site.
> Or they might have just created the content and monetised it through their own site.
Assuming you could find it since discoverability would probably be lower. Then if a particular video 'went viral', it could cost them a lot of money in sudden and unexpected hosting and bandwidth costs. They would also now have to spend time on dealing with 'infrastructure' instead of focusing on creating content.
There's a reason why so many people use Youtube and Patreon instead of DIYing it: few folks are interested in re-inventing that entire stack on their own.
Re: Google admits cracking down on people using ad blockers
#77The word "admit" in a headline always raises my hackles. This wasn't a secret. Your reporter didn't wheedle the truth out of them. You sent an email, and they responded with what they had already said countless times.
I got banner messages basically telling me they're going to stop allowing ad blockers. lol.
Re: Google admits cracking down on people using ad blockers
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
YouTube kids show ads even with a premium account. Not a surprise since Google is on its way down anyways.
I have never seen this with my kids subaccounts on yt kids or regular yt. I've had premium for a couple years now.
Maybe his account is not true premium as tied to old GM account. I had a few months last year. Quite pleasant compare to usual "naked" YT. But nowhere as good as vanced and then revanced, UBO, VPN+Adguard, pi-hole, and tonnes of fake Google account created from all over the world and outsourced the passworded access to 3rd world to be abused so to confuse Google algorithm. Since using all these to thwart Google tracking and ads, I stopped YT premium after 3rd months as really no point I can do better than their premium service - and cheaper too. I thought premium frees up my time to tinker but they still track and occasionally ads do get thru.
Re: Google admits cracking down on people using ad blockers
#79The free ride is over. I feel like the only reason this is upsetting to people is because it seemed to be free for so long. If you give someone a free meal every day for 15 years, and then suddenly take it away, they'll be pretty upset. But nobody ever asked why the food was free? It costs to make and it costs to deliver. Google have datacenters all over the world and we still expect the food to be free. They literal…
> The free ride is over.
But it was never free. Ads have been on Youtube for years. From a 2011 article entitled "The History of Video Advertising on YouTube":
> In January 2009, YouTube started allowing ads in seven different formats. By October of that year, YouTube was counting more than one billion video views per day.
* https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/infog...
Also:
> The first targeted advertising on the site came in February 2006 in the form of participatory video ads, which were videos in their own right that offered users the opportunity to view exclusive content by clicking on the ad.[29] The first such ad was for the Fox show Prison Break and solely appeared above videos on Paris Hilton's channel.[29][30] At the time, the channel was operated by Warner Bros. Records and was cited as the first brand channel on the platform.[30] Participatory video ads were designed to link specific promotions to specific channels rather than advertising on the entire platform at once. When the ads were introduced, in August 2006, YouTube CEO Chad Hurley rejected the idea of expanding into areas of advertising seen as less user-friendly at the time, saying, "we think there are better ways for people to engage with brands than forcing them to watch a commercial before seeing content. You could ask anyone on the net if they enjoy that experience and they'd probably say no."[30] However, YouTube began running in-video ads in August 2007, with preroll ads introduced in 2008.[31]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_YouTube
Why are people upset about having to watch ads when they've been part of the terms of service and social contract for 'free' content since basically the beginning?
Re: Google admits cracking down on people using ad blockers
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or they might have just created the content and monetised it through their own site.
> Or they might have just created the content and monetised it through their own site. Assuming you could find it since discoverability would probably be lower. Then if a particular video 'went viral', it could cost them a lot of money in sudden and unexpected hosting and bandwidth costs. They would also now have to spend time on dealing with 'infrastructure' instead of focusing on creating content. There's a reason…
Why would discoverability be lower? Oh, that's right because Google is the monopoly search engine and would only show stuff on YouTube.
P2P exists. People haven't had to pay the full cost of hosting for decades.