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

81–90 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#81

Post by crazygringo »

edwardbernays wrote: post #26
crazygringo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you located? I've never seen any of those. Pretty much all of my YouTube ads are for TV shows, movies, cars, mobile games, consumer products, and various consumer services. Volkswagen, Dove, TurboTax, etc. All incredibly mainstream. Maybe you're located in a country or region maintain advertisers avoid?

I'm in America. I only see these scummy ads I talk about, and I assume it's because I'm extremely aggressive about preventing myself from being tracked and profiled. My friends made the horrible mistake of looking into cryptocurrency on Google while signed into their account, so they got targeted by scum crypto ads.

It sounds like you've explicitly opted yourself into the lowest common denominator ads. It's understandable that mainstream companies want to maximize their advertising impact by only targeting the viewers where there is data to suggest the viewers will actually be interested in their products.

I'm honestly not really sure why you're complaining. If you don't want to be tracked or profiled, you're going to get the lowest quality ads. Why do you think higher-quality advertisers should be wasting money trying to reach you, when you are going out of your way to avoid any interest in them?

To be clear, I'm not criticizing what you're doing to avoid tracking, or your stance against it. But I'm questioning why you would then complain about the ads you receive.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#83

Post by mikequinlan »

crazygringo wrote: post #16
edwardbernays wrote: post #5

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.

Where are you located? I've never seen any of those. Pretty much all of my YouTube ads are for TV shows, movies, cars, mobile games, consumer products, and various consumer services. Volkswagen, Dove, TurboTax, etc. All incredibly mainstream. Maybe you're located in a country or region maintain advertisers avoid?

Victim blaming much?

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#84

Post by edwardbernays »

hellotheretoday wrote: post #44
crazygringo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you located? I've never seen any of those. Pretty much all of my YouTube ads are for TV shows, movies, cars, mobile games, consumer products, and various consumer services. Volkswagen, Dove, TurboTax, etc. All incredibly mainstream. Maybe you're located in a country or region maintain advertisers avoid?

I don’t get soft core porn ads but I do scams all the time. Bullshit supplements, pyramid schemes, “buy my program to make money” type things. Otherwise it’s mostly political ads, more legitimate consumer products like dishwasher detergent, gambling, and mobile games. NE USA for reference

Personally, for my own value system, I consider the gambling ads to be as bad as scam ads. I think we'll soon come to see the social harm of gambling ads to be as bad as tobacco ads. We should strive for a culture where people see an ad for addictive services or substances and feel an instinctive, pre-conscious disgust. They are the dirty, disgusting, bloodsucking bedbugs of society.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#85

Post by pirates »

ranger_danger wrote: post #56
simion314 wrote: post #13

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)

How else would you propose they make money (and satisfy contract obligations)? Because nobody else has figured out a better solution.

it’s funny that you bring up contractual obligations while google ignores the iOS app store rule (contractual obligation) about locking features like PiP behind paywalls.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#86

Post by simion314 »

jahsome wrote: post #23
simion314 wrote: post #13

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.

Can you guess how much is my comment energy usage compares versus all the devices that run YouTube with the screen on?

What about those electronic devices that will end their life sooner because of that?

My hope is that other people will read my comment, add their own support or feedback and maybe at least one single person will think mroe and had the morals to refuse implementing anti environment and anti user features.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#87

Post by simion314 »

ranger_danger wrote: post #56
simion314 wrote: post #13

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)

How else would you propose they make money (and satisfy contract obligations)? Because nobody else has figured out a better solution.

>How else would you propose they make money (and satisfy contract obligations)? Because nobody else has figured out a better solution.

Do they make money from those millions of devices that run with the screen on? How ? Is some devil paying them for the damage caused to the environment?

For ads it makes sense but not for this shit policy, if they hate the users that they use youtube for free and ads are not enough for them then either put more ads, or find some other methods that do not screw then environment (maybe use the sound of crying babies each 30 seconds if you are not a premium )

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#88

Post by dingaling »

sc11 wrote: post #46

I'd be happy to pay for premium if it actually removed all ads from the platform. I wish they forced creators to declare which segments of a video are ads for their sponsors and then removed or skipped them for premium users. Basically built-in Sponsorblock except not crowd-sourced. Alternatively, many creators already upload ad-free versions to their Patreon or other paywalled platforms, they could upload those to Y…

I don't think YouTube should get further into the dangerous spiral of chaperoning the content of videos. If there are too many sponsored segments in a video, take it up with the creator or stop watching that channel.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#89

Post by briffle »

mbac32768 wrote: post #64
ttyyzz wrote: post #29

Having to pay for something so that's "less annoying" is the worst business model. YouTube Premium is very expensive. I had it for a while when I got a Pixel smartphone with a few months of YouTube Premium included. It was great. I also understand that streaming on this scale must entail incredibly high operating costs; the money has to come from somewhere. It's simply a dilemma. But there has to be a better way. Any…

In 2025 it's actually not that expensive. CDNs aggressively drive down the cost of streaming video. A 1080p music video costs about one tenth of one cent to serve to one person at retail CDN rates. You could easily host this yourself and decide what the terms are to view it. E.g. ads, or paywall or free because you benefit from the exposure. Once upon a time AdSense/YouTube saved you from getting an unmanageable $5,0…

Youtube is $14/month. netflix is $17/month. That is VERY expensive, considering that most of Netflix's cost is production. Youtube has almost no production costs. Their users create content.

Maybe if they paid their users more, so they didn't also have to add 'sponsor segments' inside their video's it would make more sense. The bundling music for the same price is the same crap cable and phone companies have been doing for decades, that most people hate. Let me buy just youtube without ads, and keep spotify.

But as it sits right now, $14/month for video's without youtube ads, but still with ads added by the creators themselves (or paid promotion, I guess) is pretty expensive, compared to $17/month for actual movies with no ads at all.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#90

Post by wat10000 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #38
brentm wrote: post #14

YouTube Premium costs about the same as 2 cold brew coffees and is worth the money.

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?

I don’t care what they pay to create content. I care about how much stuff they have that I want to watch. YouTube knocks this out of the park. Netflix fails. I actually have Netflix for free (with some ads) through my cell phone plan and I haven’t used it in a year. I use YouTube daily and the subscription fee is well worth it to remove the ads.
Post reply on HN