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

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#801

Post by chistev »

anton-c wrote: post #790
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…

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.

Have you read those comments about how people who says ads don't work on them fail to realize it works on them subconsciously when they go shopping?

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#802

Post by tlogan »

wiseowise wrote: post #532
tlogan wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why isn’t simply avoiding YouTube considered a viable solution?

“Why isn’t simply avoiding de facto standard video delivery platform isn’t simply an option?”

You brought up something I’ve been thinking about too: the real issue is that YouTube has effectively become a monopoly. It’s the de facto standard for online video.

It makes me wonder: is there room for meaningful competition or an alternative platform? And if so, how could it be made sustainable? Are there any viable revenue models beyond ads and surveillance capitalism?

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#803

Post by trinix912 »

bobsmooth wrote: post #225
vjulian wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it hard to discern whether your post is sarcasm. Assuming it’s not, I’m surprised that someone is so cheerfully and voluntarily paying an extra fiat to the virtual landowner.

Video hosting is expensive. Making videos is expensive. You're not noble for stealing from Youtube or its creators.

If it's costing YouTube so much, then they can freely switch to showing no videos to non-paying users at all. But they won't do that, because people watching without paying is what got them to where they are.

As for the creators, it's up to them to decide whether they want to publish under these terms and risk having their content viewed without being paid for, or not put it on YouTube.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#804

Post by setsewerd »

kccqzy wrote: post #713
Corrado wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree, though with a twist. Google knows everything about me and yet I get ADs for things that I would never purchase. Just because I'm a middle aged male I see trucks, and beer, and football advertisements all day long. Those are irrelevant to me. If Google would only use their immense knowledge of me and what I like, I might be more amenable to watching their ADs. Where are the ADs for geeky movies tha…

> Google knows everything about me No it doesn't. Google is highly restrained when it comes to using what it knows about you to serve you ads. Way more restrained than for example Meta or the newer Chinese apps like TikTok.

I agree with your point, but you're also making a different argument than the point you're replying to. Google knows way more about you than they're legally able to apply to advertising. Just because they can't use it for that specific purpose doesn't mean they lack the information.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#805

Post by jader201 »

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…

Ads have been on TV since the beginning of TV. And before that, that were — and still are — on radio.

Where they’re also “irrelevant”.

But the relevancy to our current activities isn’t tied to their effectiveness.

I know that they’re effective, because I had impressionable teens tell me they wanted me to pick up Prime drinks at the store, all because they were convinced drinking Prime was cool.

But let me be clear — I hate ads, too. I hate them on TV, radio, YouTube, billboards, in my mailbox, in my email inbox, and when they cover up 50% of real estate on websites. Pretty much everywhere they show up.

But the purpose of ads aren’t for me to like them, or to be tied to where I’m at a place I can purchase something.

The purpose is to leave a lasting impression.

And, like it or not, they’re effective enough, for some people and for some products, that they’re going to keep doing them, regardless of the fact that nearly everyone hates them.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#806

Post by chistev »

kccqzy wrote: post #713
Corrado wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree, though with a twist. Google knows everything about me and yet I get ADs for things that I would never purchase. Just because I'm a middle aged male I see trucks, and beer, and football advertisements all day long. Those are irrelevant to me. If Google would only use their immense knowledge of me and what I like, I might be more amenable to watching their ADs. Where are the ADs for geeky movies tha…

> Google knows everything about me No it doesn't. Google is highly restrained when it comes to using what it knows about you to serve you ads. Way more restrained than for example Meta or the newer Chinese apps like TikTok.

Is there a reason? Is it a matter of principle or?

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#807

Post by bevr1337 »

Corrado wrote: post #556
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 completely agree, though with a twist. Google knows everything about me and yet I get ADs for things that I would never purchase. Just because I'm a middle aged male I see trucks, and beer, and football advertisements all day long. Those are irrelevant to me. If Google would only use their immense knowledge of me and what I like, I might be more amenable to watching their ADs. Where are the ADs for geeky movies tha…

It's an established strategy to serve you irrelevant ads. When the targeting gets too specific, the people start to notice and panic.

Target is a fun example - they had cases where they revealed pregnancies through targeted ads. Now, they'll put an ad of a lawnmower (untargeted) next to the bassinet (targeted) and customers are less creeped out

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#808

Post by GuB-42 »

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…

The thing is that you are not looking for a new laptop while you are driving, but you may be looking for a gas station because your "low fuel" light just turned on. And how are you going to find that gas station (which may not be exactly on the road you are driving on) if there is no sign advertising for it?

You can tell me you can pull over and look at a map, or program it on your navigation app. Not only it is not the most convenient, maybe even unsafe, but how do you think that gas station ended up on that map? Most likely the business paid for that, making it an ad.

That's the idea, we dislike that laptop ad because we usually don't buy laptops while we are on the road, it is an irrelevant attention grab, especially when that billboard is disproportionately large. But a gas station, restaurant or convenience store is relevant to a significant fraction of the people on the road, and when the sign is reasonable, we don't usually call it a billboard, even though it is an ad and not a sign like a speed limit.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#809

Post by BLKNSLVR »

What about the gross content of their shorts clips?

I'm not the kind of person to be inclined to buy 'premium' because they progressively enshittified their free service to make premium seem like the only rational option, but I'm even less inclined to give money to a company that promotes the complete trash and borderline adult and often fraudulent content of their shorts.

I usually refuse to login to YouTube to find the occasional thing, and I'm always bombarded with this trash.

How can anyone support that? Gross.

Also, it should not be forgotten that the FBI, no less, recommend ad blocking just for general internet safety. YouTube has just as much scam advertising as the rest of the internet, since it's almost all Google (who don't seem to be able to police their own platform, and don't seem to be held to account for such dereliction of duty).

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#810

Post by delecti »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #641
simianwords wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk man instead of freeloading how about paying for the service? I generally avoid dismissive comments like these but I think it needs to be said. If you don’t like ads pay for the service. You don’t deserve content for free.

Even if you pay for YouTube you will still see ads inserted by the content creators.

No, this is clearly a false equivalence.

You see the content you choose to click on. Should my premium membership mean that Youtube blocks me from viewing Superbowl commercials the day after? Or movie trailers? Premium is simply paying Youtube so that Youtube will not show you Youtube's ads.

Post reply on HN