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

781–790 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#781

Post by stickfigure »

Gareth321 wrote: post #611
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 used to, but I stopped recently. 1. They still serve ads. Often for Google products underneath the videos and in the feed. Content creators are also allowed to turn on contextual ads over the top of videos, as well as merchandise underneath their videos. 2. Sponsored segments are unbelievably widespread now, and can take up significant portions of the video. These are ads, and they are also permitted by YouTube. 3.…

It sounds like you don't like the experience and an adblocker isn't going to change that. If you don't like youtube and you don't watch it... it's fine? Everyone is entitled to their preferences.

Specifically though:

2. Content creators shill for things, sure. Youtube doesn't stop you from fast-forwarding through these segments. These creators are real human beings that put a ton of work into bringing me content and I don't begrudge them making some money. These are the ads that work on me; I deliberately use their affiliate links. I want them to spend more time making content. Hell there are a dozen different Youtube creators I pay monthly on Patreon just because!

I don't find these sponsorships terrible and at any rate it's not Youtube's fault.

3. Yeah I would love to have a Shortblocker extension in my browser, no argument there. But I don't think the visible downvotes make any material difference. The recommendation algorithm is excellent and I don't see spam.

4. The price is still extremely reasonable compared to the value I get. Maybe it isn't for you, that's fine. But the fact is you can pay for no-ads; complaining about adblock behavior rings incredibly hollow.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#782

Post by squarefoot »

It's so ironic that they resort to these tactics that ultimately ruin the experience for everyone and ultimately attract more users into using adblockers. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the number of users with adblockers installed was so small that Google actually spent more money implementing all those techniques against them than it could lose in lost advertising just by not doing anything.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#783

Post by stickfigure »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #428
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…

> 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…

> keeping it from us until they we do something we don't want to do (pay for the service).

Fixed that for you.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#784

Post by sfasdfh123 »

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…

For videos media, you also have to factor in tone and pacing . Totally kill the flow of watching a video essay when a loud talking ads jump out for 5 second. That's why I have a kinder view for Youtube sponsors, since it's read by the literally same person making this video, and have total control when to place it. Even if it's NordVPN ads in a middle of a history channel.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#785

Post by eadmund »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #247
yugioh3 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people deserve to get paid for the work they put into creating content and building platforms, no? books, movies, tv shows, news, etc, are all distributed in some way or another that costs the consumer either money or their time viewing advertising. if you don't want to watch ads, pay YouTube for a subscription.

YouTube spent about a decade and a half running unintrusive banner ads. Until they secured enough of the market that network effects locked content creators and consumers together in a two-sided market where it's hard for either group to leave unilaterally. Then they ramped up the length and intrusiveness of their ads while flouting content regulations on what they're even allowed to advertise. Why should I reward th…

> Why should I reward that by paying them?

Do you want to have a great YouTube experience? Paying for it gets you that.

I watch YouTube videos frequently. Never see an ad. It’s great.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#786

Post by isoprophlex »

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…

The primary thing is that they're there, that they make the world a worse with their nash equilibrium of "everyone is doing it so everyone must continue doing it", and that they're basically rich people begging you to give them more money. Outside of a context where you have made a conscious choice to spend money, at that.

I'd argue that even in a supermarket they're mostly useless and manipulative. I came in to buy bananas, you don't need to tell me doritos are buy 9, get 3 free.

Fuck ads.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#787

Post by Akronymus »

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…

> People complain about billboards next to a countryside highway because it is entirely irrelevant to driving through the countryside.

They also are a distraction, which seems pretty ironic when billvoarda are used to remind drivers to not drive distracted.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#788

Post by therealpygon »

antisol wrote: post #771
GuB-42 wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 la…

This is the problem. Ads may not work as well for some people (who hate them) but they work great on others. Unfortunately, because the ones it does work on spend money, the rest of us are stuck in advertising hell.

I don’t want AR glasses for productivity or the social media bs they want to push; I want them to blight out every f’n ad that is everywhere. When they can do it in-device with no internet connection and I’ll fork over 1k for glasses immediately.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#789

Post by freehorse »

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…

I hate the ad-centered nature of modern web anyway, but I don't understand why ads are not based on the content of a webpage/video. I am much less disturbed by ads eg on a podcast where the podcaster gives a sponsored message about a service relevant to the topic of the podcast. And prob if I watch the podcast I am already most probably part of the target audience. There is no need to profile me over the websites I visit or apps I am using and invade my privacy, and still fail to target me correctly. And even if you can correctly infer that fishing is my big hobby and now you should bombard me with ads about fishing, maybe this is not what I want to see or hear about when I am watching a lecture on a computer science subject, and I will definitely not want to buy anything then? Maybe it would make for a less distracting and annoying experience when I watch some videos about fishing?

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#790

Post by anton-c »

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…

You sound like an ad exec. I never want ads ever, they are by their nature intrusive. I have never bought anything from a targeted ad on social media. If one plays and I can't turn down the volume quick enough I will make noise to avoid hearing it.

If an ad is placed in a way that forces you to look at it you have every right to want to remove it. If it's in my personal power, I do.

Post reply on HN