Live data from Hacker News

YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

iter.ca

71–80 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#71
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paying 13 bucks per month, which is a non trivial amount for a lot of people if it competes with other subcription services, merely to block ads on a website that doesn't even produce its own content is in my opinion one of the worst deals on the internet. That's equivalent to a Netflix subscription, which puts what, 20 billion into original content each year?

> doesn't even produce its own content How do you think those video bits get streamed all around the world? Magic?

I assume with the same amount of magic as they do at all the other streaming platforms, but they still manage to serve up original content. Hence, as a consumer, this seems like a shoddy deal. You're basically paying for ad-free slop, which by the way like Amazon these days you have to crawl through an entire mountain of because the site barely has any content management features either

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#73

If they ran less hostile ads, people wouldn't be as hostile to watching their ads. Some of the ads they run are just ridiculous and awful. Ads for scams, soft-core porn ads, just the worst of the worst.

All my ads are local brands, supermarkets, sport stores and delivery apps. Never seen any had ads, they are annoying but nothing abnormal.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#76
post #7

If they ran less hostile ads, people wouldn't be as hostile to watching their ads. Some of the ads they run are just ridiculous and awful. Ads for scams, soft-core porn ads, just the worst of the worst.

I think that’s a rationalization. Most people just don’t like ads no matter what they are. And I can’t blame them, ads are terrible. But this is a case where they offer a nice subscription that takes them all away, so people ought to buy that instead.

I pay for YouTube Premium, but what I am afraid will happen is that once enough users opt to pay for the service, YouTube may pull an Amazon Prime and show ads, and then ask for more money to not see the ads.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#77
post #65

I pay for YouTube premium (which gives me YouTube music too) and am happy with the lack of ads, even though many creators still mix paid sponsors into their videos. It seems the creators are motivated to keep things minimal or they will lose engagement. What I am not happy with is a lack of control over the homepage and recommendations. I would really like to be able to easily block channels from ever showing up, but…

The "don't show this channel" feature also feels like there is some kind of expiry because I've blocked a few channels multiple times now via that method.

Totally a theory but sometimes YouTube has a button that says roughly "show me something new". I think that may be the source of those channels returning.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#78
post #23

I have no respect for Youtube/google developers, like they have apps where you need to pay to use them with the screen turned off, so they screw your battery (reducing your device live) and wasting energy so their boss gets a bigger yacht (cecause it seems ads are not enough)

I don't necessarily disagree but it's not a Google problem. It's a human problem. For example: What value does your comment provide the world? Enough value to offset the carbon emissions from transmission/storage/retrieval/display? Personally, I'd answer no. Thus your comment itself is a waste of energy.

Reframing a problem with anything as a human problem is a tautology - why even go out of your way to write?

Only pointing it out because of the irony given the content of your post

Otherwise yeah, don’t understand what parent comment is trying to say

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#79
post #58
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if Google didn't horde whatever data it could about me from the analytics systems that it has installed on a myriad of websites without my consent? What if Google wasn't a monopoly who amassed insane amounts of capital to do this? What if Google didn't lobby governments around the world for special treatment?

> What if Google didn't horde whatever data it could about me from the analytics systems that it has installed on a myriad of websites without my consent? Arent you voluntarily using their website? Nobody is forcing you to open your browser, and type y-o-u-t-u-b-e-dot-c-o-m. > What if Google wasn't a monopoly who amassed insane amounts of capital to do this? MKBHD, LTT and others are willingly uploading videos to You…

Google analytics tracking is embedded in probably millions of non-Google websites, and YouTube videos get embedded in all sorts of pages.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#80
post #78
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't necessarily disagree but it's not a Google problem. It's a human problem. For example: What value does your comment provide the world? Enough value to offset the carbon emissions from transmission/storage/retrieval/display? Personally, I'd answer no. Thus your comment itself is a waste of energy.

Reframing a problem with anything as a human problem is a tautology - why even go out of your way to write? Only pointing it out because of the irony given the content of your post Otherwise yeah, don’t understand what parent comment is trying to say

> Reframing a problem with anything as a human problem is a tautology

I respectfully disagree.

> don’t understand what parent comment is trying to say

They're trying to say Google and those who work there are greedy. I shared my "tautology" to illustrate while OP's point may be largely correct, greed is not unique to Google.

Post reply on HN