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

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#821

Post by noqc »

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.

The primary thing that makes advertisements disagreeable is the system that disputes my indisputable right to ignore them. If I paid someone to cut the adverts out of my newspaper before I read it, would I be stealing from the publisher?

Silicon valley has spent the last 30 years getting the internet to run on lies, and depends upon the charity of people willing to be lied to. Now that trillions of dollars depend upon this system, they can no longer afford to leave it up to charity, and believe that they must go to war. This is a war that they will lose.

Ban advertising, formally enshrine the right of adblockers to operate, and use the new regulation to work out a new business model, or perish in the arms race that you are absolutely destined to lose.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#822

Post by zouhair »

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…

I have only one: Ads.

Ads shouldn't exist. The fact that most human endeavours now are forced to use ads is insane.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#823

Post by kr2 »

snailmailman wrote: post #409
Waterluvian wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s absolutely #%^*ing insane how bad and often inappropriate the ads are, to the point that I swear YouTube is in growth trouble. It feels like there’s just management layers who need their bonus or promotion, driven by some percent growth or some KPI so their standards are at the floorboards. I’ve seen porn in the still frame ads on mobile once (much worse than Evony Online if you remember those ads…)

I have all ad targeting features turned off on my account - which I assume means i unfortunately get the bottom-of-the-barrel ads. The still frame ads are always NSFW games or ads for viagra-like products. In shorts, the ads are always scams of some kind. Usually deepfakes of elon musk “giving investment advice” but also “medical experts” recommending likely dangerous scams, or “free money the government isnt telling…

> The still frame ads are always NSFW games or ads for viagra-like products. In shorts, the ads are always scams of some kind. Usually deepfakes of elon musk “giving investment advice” but also “medical experts” recommending likely dangerous scams

WHAT?? This (and similar anecdote in parent comments) is completely shocking, I had no idea this was a thing. All ads I get on YouTube are blue chip companies or (big budget) movie trailers...seeing a porn still in an ad on YouTube would floor me

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#824

Post by seadan83 »

bevr1337 wrote: post #807
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…

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

Idk of it is a strategy, would be interested for any background reading.

My XP at an ad-tech is that there is only so many targeted ads, and the advertisers cap how many times they want to show you an ad. When it comes time to bid to show you an ad, all of the targeted ads might have exhausted their campaigns (shown you the ad X times already, or the campaign ran out of spend). In this case, all the advertisers that would bid a _lot_ in auction are sitting out. There are still other bidders, but these are less targeted and are bidding less money. Because the highly targetted ads are exhausted, these lower targeted ads might look random. Their targeting might be instead of based on gender, city, income, the targeting might be based on just geography. The fewer targeting parameters, the lower the bid.

In effect, once all the highpy targeted campaigns are done with you, they stop bidding, and the ads with less targeting which have cheaper bids are now the auction winners. If those are exhausted too, then there is a very large pool of low rent ads which have even less targetting.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#825

Post by Aicy »

zouhair wrote: post #822
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…

I have only one: Ads. Ads shouldn't exist. The fact that most human endeavours now are forced to use ads is insane.

I like adverts. They inform me about good things I could buy that I otherwise wouldn't have known about.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#826

Post by DudeOpotomus »

Ad tech is the reason our society is so polarized. YouTube and Google fund the disinformation and propaganda universe. These fringe people never had a chance to broadcast let alone become wealthy before Google put ads on everything. And now, not only are they given a platform, they're rewarded for being the loudest, most angry, most polarizing, most obnoxious people possible.

Rewarding sensationalism without any oversight is the core problem with society today.

Profits over priciples.

What's nuts is reading thought this thread and reading comments from all the people who think that earning money with digital content is a right. And worse, that because they've earned money in the past, they're entitled to do it forever.

There are no longer any guard rails on sensationalism and since the only measure of success is by the very Fox guarding the Henhouse, it's optimized for the Fox's profit, not public's health and society's principles.

Advertising ruined the world. Ad Tech is a cancer.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#827

Post by DudeOpotomus »

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…

How old are you? I wonder if you were exposed to the world before advertising took over every aspect of our lives. Before the most valueable companies in the world were based on media and advertising sales.

If you were alive before ad tech ate the world, you'd have a very different take on this whole thing.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#828

Post by b00ty4breakfast »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #515
scoofy wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can also pay for YouTube. I do. It’s nice, not crazy expensive. No ads. Creators get paid. Everyone wins.

I pay for youtube too and it still completely sucks. I hate when people try this bs. * I don't want to have to have an account and be logged in to it. * I pay for youtube but I don't always get to use my account. Other people's houses and devices exist. Other people's accounts exist even on my own device. * I pay for youtube and still have to get all the baked in ads. * I pay for youtube and have a wonderful black sc…

>...only a few years ago they suddenly decided to essentially penalize people who don't play ball like good little data cows...

I'm extremely skeptical that the company that makes most of it's money on the collection of data isn't still collecting data on your viewing habits (and other assorted account-related activities) just because you clicked a checkbox. I don't have a lot of great evidence to back this up but I would still see videos related to my viewing history in the after-video suggestion grid as recently as a few months ago ( before I realized I could zap it with Ublock)

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#829

Post by lblume »

Aicy wrote: post #825
zouhair wrote: post #822

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have only one: Ads. Ads shouldn't exist. The fact that most human endeavours now are forced to use ads is insane.

I like adverts. They inform me about good things I could buy that I otherwise wouldn't have known about.

You seem to use the word "good" very liberally.
Post reply on HN