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

YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

iter.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#771

Post by antisol »

GuB-42 wrote: post #765
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The primary thing that makes advertisements disagreeable is their irrelevance. That's not true. We don't hate billboards because of their irrelevancy. We hate billboards because they're giant ugly attention grabbers that make the world look worse for everybody in exchange for making someone money. If the billboards were all about driving-related products, they'd still suck. The YouTube ads are hated because that's…

If you saw a giant, attention grabbing billboard for something you are looking for, you wouldn't hate it. In the context of roads, these are businesses putting their signs on the side of the road. For example I usually find billboards/signs pointing to the nearest supermarket, restaurant or gas station to be useful, because that's the kind of thing I may want do do when I am driving, and I am getting useful informati…

> If you saw a giant, attention grabbing billboard for something you are looking for, you wouldn't hate it.

Yes, I would. When I'm looking for something, I search for it until I find it, and then after that I'm not looking for it anymore. I don't go for a drive through the countryside in the hopes that system76 have put up a billboard which blocks the view of the countryside but shows me the specs for their latest laptop model.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#772

Post by felineflock »

There are 3 primary undesirability aspects of ads:

1) ads as irrelevant intrusions (in spite of all data Google collects, ads are mostly irrelevant for any person)

2) ads as ugly or blockers of beauty

3) ads as thieves of attention or downright theft (scam ads, illegal products)

Then, should we pay to get rid of ads or not? Two opposite opinions:

1) paying YouTube support creators

2) paying YouTube rewards the "shitification" of the platform

But even for those who pay there are issues: the content creator's own sponsorships, shorts, the risk of account banning by Google.

Then how about compensating creators directly? (Patreon or PayPal for example)

What I don't get is the questioning on the morality of ad blocking. No one should be obligated to watch an ad in one's own device, regardless of whatever "Terms of Service" (which is not a contract). It may be unfair to the content creator who relies on that revenue though.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#773

Post by antisol »

sandworm101 wrote: post #454
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The primary thing that makes advertisements disagreeable is their irrelevance. That's not true. We don't hate billboards because of their irrelevancy. We hate billboards because they're giant ugly attention grabbers that make the world look worse for everybody in exchange for making someone money. If the billboards were all about driving-related products, they'd still suck. The YouTube ads are hated because that's…

>> 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.

Do you know what's better on those surfaces than ads? Art. Or nothing.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#774

Post by bayindirh »

felineflock wrote: post #772

There are 3 primary undesirability aspects of ads: 1) ads as irrelevant intrusions (in spite of all data Google collects, ads are mostly irrelevant for any person) 2) ads as ugly or blockers of beauty 3) ads as thieves of attention or downright theft (scam ads, illegal products) Then, should we pay to get rid of ads or not? Two opposite opinions: 1) paying YouTube support creators 2) paying YouTube rewards the "shiti…

> the content creator's own sponsorships, shorts...

Many of the people I watch add "jump ahead" buttons for these sections now, which is neat.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#775

Post by stickfigure »

solannou wrote: post #387
stickfigure wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'm barely sure that the long term strategy of YouTube is "more ads". The premium account won't be always ads free

If that ever happens then we can reopen the discussion of the morality of adblockers on youtube. In the mean time, just pay for it.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#776

Post by NetOpWibby »

I don’t have a YouTube account and yet their algorithm creates a feed for me anyway. Pretty sweet.

This means they’re also collecting data about some random person in my area but I don’t have a Google account either so that data isn’t really useful.

Ad block FTW

At some point I gotta do a network-wide block instead of per computer.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#777

Post by galangalalgol »

strken wrote: post #769
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #414

The primary thing that makes advertisements disagreeable is their irrelevance. That’s not to say whether or not the advertisement is for a product or service for which the viewer is interested in purchasing but how it relates to the context in which it is viewed. People complain about billboards next to a countryside highway because it is entirely irrelevant to driving through the countryside. Actual complaints may b…

It's not irrelevance, it's lack of trust. I could see an ad for the exact thing I need and I still wouldn't click it. Either it's a scam, or it's technically not a scam because offering 90% off in the first month of a 12 month contract is legal, or it's the worst product on the market and the only way it can get users is blowing VC cash on ads, or there's something else that will surely disappoint me.

I think the theme you and other posters are stating in various ways, is that being expised to persuasion always has negative value. The motivation for some actors can be good, but it will never be universal. When seeking out information to make a purchase, one of the primary taks is to identify and filter out persuasion in the process, in the form of sponsored listings, or reddit shills. I have seen calls to ban paid persuasion, or even all paid speech. I don't know if that is compatible with the notion of free speech, or if I agree it is a good idea, but it certainly would have some good effects in addition to any bad ones.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#778

Post by immibis »

bayindirh wrote: post #774
felineflock wrote: post #772

There are 3 primary undesirability aspects of ads: 1) ads as irrelevant intrusions (in spite of all data Google collects, ads are mostly irrelevant for any person) 2) ads as ugly or blockers of beauty 3) ads as thieves of attention or downright theft (scam ads, illegal products) Then, should we pay to get rid of ads or not? Two opposite opinions: 1) paying YouTube support creators 2) paying YouTube rewards the "shiti…

> the content creator's own sponsorships, shorts... Many of the people I watch add "jump ahead" buttons for these sections now, which is neat.

Install the Sponsorblock extension. It does this automatically, provided someone watched the video before you and told it where the sponsor is. It can also, optionally, skip over "like and subscribe!", "buy my merch", intro and outro jingles, and other potentially low-value segments.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#779

Post by someone7x »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #687
randcraw wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Youtube is a monopoly. For a huge amount pf historical video, they are the only game in town. Regulating the hell out of them -- especially gigantic fines for the insane amount of copyright piracy their business model depends upon -- is LONG overdue.

Read up on vid.me, which broke YouTube's "monopoly" back in 2016-2017. Seriously, go see what happened to them. Turns out everyone complaining about YouTube, when given the option to jump to a new fresh user focused service, still blocks ads and refuses subscriptions. This thread, and the hundreds like it, are why people nope the fuck out when considering creating a YT competitor.

You seem so certain on the betrayal of the content-creators.

> Read up on vid.me, which broke YouTube's "monopoly" back in 2016-2017

Okay, sounds interesting.

> May 21 (Reuters) - Alphabet's (GOOGL.O), opens new tab Google has persuaded a federal judge in California to reject a lawsuit from video platform Rumble (RUM.O), opens new tab accusing the technology giant of illegally monopolizing the online video-sharing market.

I see what I expected: that google cheated and got away with it. Where is the betrayal?

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/google-defeats-rumb...

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#780

Post by Xelbair »

GuB-42 wrote: post #765
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The primary thing that makes advertisements disagreeable is their irrelevance. That's not true. We don't hate billboards because of their irrelevancy. We hate billboards because they're giant ugly attention grabbers that make the world look worse for everybody in exchange for making someone money. If the billboards were all about driving-related products, they'd still suck. The YouTube ads are hated because that's…

If you saw a giant, attention grabbing billboard for something you are looking for, you wouldn't hate it. In the context of roads, these are businesses putting their signs on the side of the road. For example I usually find billboards/signs pointing to the nearest supermarket, restaurant or gas station to be useful, because that's the kind of thing I may want do do when I am driving, and I am getting useful informati…

Of course I would hate it.

Ads are just mental warfare against you. Its someone trying to manipulate you for profit.

If I drive somewhere I know where I want to go. If I need supplies I can pull over and check on the map where the nearest store is.

In such case I don't care what store it's, just it's proximity.

Post reply on HN