YouTube's new anti-adblock measures • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#861

Post by Viliam1234 » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 5:28 PM UTC

kr2 wrote: post #823

snailmailman wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 budge…

I haven't seen porn in an ad, but there was a month when I kept getting deepfake Elon Musks giving investment advice every time I tried to watch something on YouTube.

Maybe YouTube puts us into different ad groups, or something like that.

So, from my perspective, YouTube ads have an opposite effect... when I see something advertised on YouTube, I automatically suspect that it is some kind of scam.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#862

Post by IshKebab » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 5:31 PM UTC

kolektiv wrote: post #819

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…

As spoken by thousands of tech companies over and over - if only the ads were more relevant, users would like them! No, they never will. That's because an advert is effectively an unasked-for imposition on my attention intended to benefit somebody else more than it benefits me (should it be considered to benefit me at all ). There's a name for behaviour like that: rude. I am not blind to commercial imperatives, but e…

I totally disagree. There have once or twice been adverts that I've seen where I've thought "yes! I do want one of those!". Obviously I like those adverts.

If there really was a way to magically make all adverts relevant then yes - users would like them!

But that's a totally impossible ask. Not only do websites mostly have no idea what's relevant to me (even with all the tracking) but they obviously have huge financial pressure to show me crap that I wouldn't ever want.

So, yes. Relevant advertising is good, but also basically impossible.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#863

Post by draugadrotten » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 5:36 PM UTC

raincole wrote: post #592

stiray wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You lose on long run. In few years, you will pay more and still watch ads while YT will no longer be free. (let me remind you of video streaming services) Managers want their rewards that are tied to earnings and stockholders want to earn more. And once they both get their money, the next year reward will be tied to even more earnings. And stockholders will want to earn more.

By this logic you lose in long term no matter what you do. If you pay premium: they'll add ads to premium too. If you watch ads: they'll add more ads. If you use ad-blocker: they'll embed ads into the video. If you use another platform: the said platform will need to monetize and you are back to square one.

> If you use ad-blocker: they'll embed ads into the video.

Someone will eventually make an AI adblocker that will dynamically update the video with all ads removed or replaced. For example, let's say that I specify to my AI streaming video editor that "detect all bottles and glasses with alcohol and replace their contents with water and their labels with Liquid Death"

Similar technology will be/is already used to e.g. display a Coke can for some markets and a Beer can for other markets, depending on who paid for that market.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#864

Post by ljm » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 5:37 PM UTC

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 better they don’t. Hyper-targeting of ads to achieve political aims has been happening for the past decade with Meta leading the way.

There is zero situation where this technology doesn’t get co-opted by adverse interests to make your life measurably worse.

Better to keep them dumb and then grow a regulatory spine to put a stop to the endless proliferation of ads. It was done for advertising on other media.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#865

Post by thowawatp302 » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 5:38 PM UTC

bitpush wrote: post #364

vehemenz wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s my GET request. I can do what I want with it. If Google want to force ads, they can put them in the video stream. If not, then they’re trying to have it both ways.

Great analogy. Its the same reason why I grab stuff off of supermarkets and walk out. If they really cared about it, they'll invest in better technology to stop me. Suckers.

Your analogy is terrible. GET requests can be denied.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#866

Post by Brian_K_White » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 5:40 PM UTC

b00ty4breakfast wrote: post #828

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…

>...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…

Absolutely there is no reason to believe they aren't still collecting data.

But the checkbox claims that they aren't logging, and so by clicking it they know your intention is not to cooperate in their fundamental business model.

It's just yet another little deniable dark pattern pressure, making the service suck a little when you don't do what they want.

And my outrage point is you get this dark pattern pressure even while you are actually paying money at the same time.

They make more money from the free users and ads than they do from subscriptions. They actually don't want paying users, they just kind of hsve to offer the option to keep those users pacified.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#867

Post by wintermutestwin » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 5:40 PM UTC

wwweston wrote: post #848

Paying for YouTube has probably been the digital subscription with the single greatest return on a dozen dollars. Content is uninterrupted without having to engage in the arms race. Music selection is great. Random movies are available.

I’d gladly pay for ad free youtube if they weren’t double dipping by stealing my data.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#868

Post by nbf_1995 » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 5:52 PM UTC

strathmeyer wrote: post #857

wwweston wrote: post #848

Paying for YouTube has probably been the digital subscription with the single greatest return on a dozen dollars. Content is uninterrupted without having to engage in the arms race. Music selection is great. Random movies are available.

But how is it different than those of us who access it for free? I get a popup asking me to pay once a month but that's about it. Are you just happy to throw your money away if it goes to a giant corporation?

> Are you just happy to throw your money away if it goes to a giant corporation?

45% (which is a lot) of the money goes to the giant corporation. The other 55% gets divided up among the people whose content you watched.

I mostly watch smaller creators, so I don't mind 55% of my membership fee ending up in their pockets so they can keep making videos for me to enjoy.

I don't watch ads, the people I watch get paid because I watched. And obviously I'm not happy about the cut google takes and I would rather a higher percentage of my money go to the creators.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#869

Post by socalgal2 » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 5:52 PM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #246

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…

> we should look closely at the wildly inappropriate and downright scammy ads they are hosting This is one of the things that kills me. Even in broadcasting TV, you get typical :15, :30, :60 ads with the occasional :45 or longer :90. The ad pods are also defined so that you get a set number say something like 3:00 max. YT has scammy ads where if you are just trying to let something stream in the background while you…

You realize don't have to watch youtube right?

I'm not saying I like it. I'm saying that because I don't like it I don't watch.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#870

Post by owisd » Sat, Jun 21, 2025, 5:55 PM UTC

PurestGuava wrote: post #507

user3939382 wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re disagreeable because you’re having your attention robbed unsolicited for the purpose of someone else trying to get your money. The whole concept is an insult. At best they drive materialism.

You're trading your attention for entertainment you don't otherwise have to pay for.

You do in the end because you're buying the products that are funding the ads.