A lot of people think ads before and after videos, or peppered eveyr 3 minutes within an hour long video are no big deal, but many of us have had enough. I pay google around $20 a month to avoid watching ads. I consider this extortion.
YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
741–750 of 1001 posts
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#742This doesn't really affect me since I subscribe to premium, but something that a lot of ad-based services don't seem to grasp is why people block ads. It's because they've become increasingly obnoxious. Nobody blocked ads when they were a simple column of links in the gutter or maybe an animated GIF banner with 3 frames. No, adblockers became popular because ads kept getting more loud (both visually and audibly), in…
The problem is people can easily ignore the list of links in the gutter and when it’s your main source of income you can’t have that.
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#743I block ads because they're psychological warfare that corporations wage against me. I don't care how unobtrusive the ads are. I don't care if the ads don't track me. I grew up changing the channel on TV when ads came on, and ripping adverts out of magazines before sitting down to read them. I vote for billboard bans whenever I can. I have zero tolerance for ads of any sort. Advertisers have no morals, they're comple…
[flagged]
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#744This doesn't really affect me since I subscribe to premium, but something that a lot of ad-based services don't seem to grasp is why people block ads. It's because they've become increasingly obnoxious. Nobody blocked ads when they were a simple column of links in the gutter or maybe an animated GIF banner with 3 frames. No, adblockers became popular because ads kept getting more loud (both visually and audibly), in…
Google was one of te first that served ads that were small, text based and didn't pop-up or do anything shitty (those were still the macromedia Flash times).
Oh how the turntables... shorts everywhere and ads longer than usable content.
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#745This doesn't really affect me since I subscribe to premium, but something that a lot of ad-based services don't seem to grasp is why people block ads. It's because they've become increasingly obnoxious. Nobody blocked ads when they were a simple column of links in the gutter or maybe an animated GIF banner with 3 frames. No, adblockers became popular because ads kept getting more loud (both visually and audibly), in…
> This doesn't really affect me since I subscribe to premium
It does. Premium doesn't skip ads inside videos added by creator, SponsorBlock addon (that probably will be banned) does.
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#746I don't really understand either side of the equation here. So, on the one hand you have people who use ad blockers. The first retort that comes to mind here is: Well, we'll take our business elsewhere. Which is odd because without ads they aren't paying and them leaving is the goal. Of course on the other hand ... when I read the title my thoughts weren't that I would be okay because I don't ad block youtube. My tho…
The problem is, that in many cases, the amount of ads is higher than the amount of usable content in a video, even without counting the in-video ads (by the content creator). This is also true for many "normal" websites, where (especially some news sites) almost literally beg you to turn adblock off, since they cannot write content without it, and you naively do so once, to be bombarded by 50 different autoplaying ads, popups, overlays, banners, ads that move while you scroll, ads that break content into many small pieces, etc., forcing you to turn the adblock off, or with no alternative, to just close the page, because it's unusable.
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#747I don't really understand either side of the equation here. So, on the one hand you have people who use ad blockers. The first retort that comes to mind here is: Well, we'll take our business elsewhere. Which is odd because without ads they aren't paying and them leaving is the goal. Of course on the other hand ... when I read the title my thoughts weren't that I would be okay because I don't ad block youtube. My tho…
It costs a lot of money to run YouTube. If someone wants to make a competitor, they’re free to do so, but most will charge because of how expensive it is or you could use a PeerTube-like system. I pay for YouTube Premium and get value out of YouTube. I’m also an adult with a decent paying job so it’s not a big deal for me. Maybe the mistake of these conglomerates is getting people accustomed to a certain level of ser…
It costs YouTube a lot of money because they pretended to be a free service and allowed anyone to upload enormous amounts of video data which they now have to continue storing and serving.
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#748Hopefully this will result in YT losing their dominant position. (Saying as a person who pays for Premium)
After Youtube removed dislikes and started pushing "shorts" – it became noticeably worse.
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#749i don't mind it because i pay for premium, but what i mind is not being able to turn off shorts. shorts are ruining the platform and i am very tempted to drop my support because of this.
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#750This doesn't really affect me since I subscribe to premium, but something that a lot of ad-based services don't seem to grasp is why people block ads. It's because they've become increasingly obnoxious. Nobody blocked ads when they were a simple column of links in the gutter or maybe an animated GIF banner with 3 frames. No, adblockers became popular because ads kept getting more loud (both visually and audibly), in…
>Web advertisers seem like a classic case of taking miles when given an inch.
I agree. And for me they're also two (!) good examples of tragedy of the commons.
From the side of the advertisers, your ads are only competitive if they're slightly more obnoxious than your competitors, but as you make your ads more obnoxious you're degrading a common resource - the willingness of the public to put up with your crap. Eventually the public says "this is too obnoxious, I'm going to block it".
And, from the side of the sites showing ads, you'll want (or need) the additional money brought by one more ad. But once you do it, you're creating yet another ad space - making the market value of ad spaces a tiny bit cheaper. And as everyone is doing this, the price of ad spaces drops down to the bottom, so you need to include more and more ads on your platform to stay competitive (or even to stay online).
I would expect governments to intervene in those situations. At the end of the day, a government should, among other things, prevent its citizens from making things worse for everyone, when seeking their own interests. Sadly governments aren't big fans of contradicting megacorps like the Ad Sense (from Alphabet) mafia.