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

831–840 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#831

Post by chippiewill »

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…

No one is obligated to watch ads though. No one is obligated to use the service.

As someone who uses an ad blocker I do think it's immoral, and I do pay for YouTube premium and other stuff where reasonable.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#832

Post by mythrwy »

Never once have I seen an ad and thought "I need that" and purchased the item. Not in my entire life that I recall and I'm 54.

Maybe this is not the norm but I don't perceive most advertising as being particularly effective.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#833

Post by Kamq »

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…

> Just because I'm a middle aged male I see trucks, and beer, and football advertisements all day long

Well, yeah. Those companies will pay to send their ad to all middle aged men. Those companies could slice and dice more to get better demographics, but they don't think it's worth it.

Google's business isn't to slice and dice the demographics to show you better ads. It's to slice and dice the demographics in any way that the advertisers will pay for.

Because the people who are willing to pay money are, ultimately, the customers.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#834

Post by noqc »

simianwords wrote: post #468
akersten wrote: post #209

Thank you for your important work fighting this battle, it must be exhausting. The more Google insists on forcing advertising on us, the more we should look closely at the wildly inappropriate and downright scammy ads they are hosting. If they can't leave well enough alone and look the other way on ad blocking, (which is the only way to avoid exposing myself and family to these dangerous ads), they need to be under a…

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.

You are no more freeloading by ignoring the ads they serve you than by watching them.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#835

Post by noqc »

chippiewill wrote: post #831
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…

No one is obligated to watch ads though. No one is obligated to use the service. As someone who uses an ad blocker I do think it's immoral, and I do pay for YouTube premium and other stuff where reasonable.

When you ignore or don't click on the ads, is that also immoral?

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#836

Post by nfRfqX5n »

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 shocking how bad youtube ads are compared to say instagram or google search. maybe i'm just not targeted well.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#837

Post by tzs »

jader201 wrote: post #805
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 —…

> 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.

The mailbox ads can actually be quite useful. Since I started looking at them instead of just tossing them straight into the recycling bin I've discovered they often contain coupons for good deals at restaurants that I semi-regularly already go to. Those coupons have saved me noticeable amount of money on those visits.

Similarly on groceries. In the grocery case it is not coupons but advertisements of sales. 97% of the time I shop at the large supermarket nearest my home, which usually has the best prices. But occasionally there is a very good deal on something expensive like meat somewhere else and it is their mailbox flyers that let me know about it.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#838

Post by ayewo »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #794
Brian_K_White wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What does "disable shorts" even mean?

I think the gp meant YouTube Shorts [1], Google's answer to TikTok and Instagram Reels.

1: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#839

Post by arrosenberg »

al_borland wrote: post #676
cpitman wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just pay for Youtube.... $8/ month gets rid of most of the ads in videos, $15/month to remove ads from music, shorts, and search results.

I pay for Premium, and have for several years now. The Lite version is not what anyone wanted. I want no ads on YouTube, without also paying for YouTube Music (which I never use). If $8/month still gets me random ads on some videos, it’s no good. I’m sure their thought was people would turn the normal YouTube app into their music player, but I’m not so sure. Eliminating background play from Lite may solve that well e…

Bundling services is another mode of anticompetitive behavior that Google/Youtube use to obscure their pricing.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#840

Post by dimator »

zwnow wrote: post #523
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.

Why would you pay though its really simple to block ads and youtube is already rich enough. Why bow down to consumerism and enrichment of the already rich?

Why pay for clothes? Nordstrom's is already rich enough, just walk in and take something.
Post reply on HN