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

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#891

Post by dbbk »

asadotzler wrote: post #432
tlogan wrote: post #239

Why do we justify blocking ads, even when we know the content we’re consuming isn’t free to create and even if the content is free, it still costs money to store and distribute? We often rationalize using ad blockers because ads can be intrusive or annoying. But let’s asking ourselves: Why do we feel entitled to get this for free? This isn’t a moral judgment. I genuinely want to understand the reasoning.

Advertising is predatory by design. It is my moral duty not only to resist advertising, but to do everything I can to make it as ineffective as possible.

You can avoid the advertising by paying for the service then

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#892

Post by dbbk »

magicalhippo wrote: post #2

I get they want to work against ad blockers, but as a Premium member I really wish there was an easy way to watch a video without it polluting my history or recommendations. I don't want to watch ads just due to that.

If you create a new profile and switch to it it keeps your Premium benefits with its own watch history. I do this for communal watching on the living room TV.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#894

Post by aprilthird2021 »

dbbk wrote: post #889
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…

Your position is that you should be able to use YouTube completely for free then? How is that financially sustainable?

Cue a long list of people who will say "I would pay for Premium except X Y and Z".

The fact is free YouTube is only possible with ads, and potentially only with the extremely detested ads we're talking about here. The other major UGC video platform (Twitch) is not profitable.

Broadcast TV and even cable or fixed content library streaming is A LOT cheaper to run than something like YouTube. I don't mean purely machine-wise, I also mean in terms of salaries, and those do matter to keep the service up and running, not to mention growing

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#895

Post by Sophira »

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.

Disagreeable to whom, exactly?

Personally, I would rather the adverts were irrelevant if it meant I didn't have my every move tracked on the web.

The main problems I have with ads are, in order from most problematic to least:

* the lengths that ad networks go to to track me, * the very real possibility of getting malware, * the lengths advertisers go to to ensure their ads are seen. (We have popup blockers in pretty much every browser nowadays for a reason.)

Take away those, and you could convince me to disable my ad blocker. Until then? Not a chance in hell.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#896

Post by aprilthird2021 »

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.

So what? It's still paying to see less ads. If ads bother you, pay

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#897

Post by Sophira »

derangedHorse wrote: post #725
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The primary thing that makes advertisements disagreeable is their irrelevance. That's not true. We don't hate billboards because of their irrelevancy. We hate billboards because they're giant ugly attention grabbers that make the world look worse for everybody in exchange for making someone money. If the billboards were all about driving-related products, they'd still suck. The YouTube ads are hated because that's…

> If we liked them, we'd seek them out, and we'd call them something else, like "movie trailers" or "Super Bowl ads." I like these things but I do not seek them out.

Many people do, though. I've heard people say proudly that they "only watch the Super Bowl for the ads".

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#898

Post by aprilthird2021 »

sensanaty wrote: post #696
tlogan wrote: post #239

Why do we justify blocking ads, even when we know the content we’re consuming isn’t free to create and even if the content is free, it still costs money to store and distribute? We often rationalize using ad blockers because ads can be intrusive or annoying. But let’s asking ourselves: Why do we feel entitled to get this for free? This isn’t a moral judgment. I genuinely want to understand the reasoning.

I don't pretend I have some moral high ground, I just don't want to see ads, and if I can do that and still not pay, I will do that. I don't care if it's unobtrusive, I don't care if it's relevant or not, I don't care if it's for a service I love and would otherwise be happy to talk/hear about, advertisements are a cancer that should be eradicated and I will not pretend to care about the opinions of people whose live…

I mean, props for being honest, but you are exactly the reason companies like YouTube have to work so hard to trounce and blockers. And you're likely the reason legislation will eventually move in YouTube's favor. Your "no moral high ground" claim is a bold way to say you just want content, which costs people money to make, for free

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#899

Post by aprilthird2021 »

psychoslave wrote: post #303
tlogan wrote: post #239

Why do we justify blocking ads, even when we know the content we’re consuming isn’t free to create and even if the content is free, it still costs money to store and distribute? We often rationalize using ad blockers because ads can be intrusive or annoying. But let’s asking ourselves: Why do we feel entitled to get this for free? This isn’t a moral judgment. I genuinely want to understand the reasoning.

It takes a lot of time, money, care, education and love to grow human individual. Who would dare to even start considering paying high fees for the honor of receiving some of their time and attention? Why are video provider not paying people to obtain this privilege? No one dare to think they can get that for free, right?

They are paying you, they are paying you with free content. It's actually a trade. Free content in exchange for your attention on ads

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#900

Post by leereeves »

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…

> Then, should we pay to get rid of ads or not? Two opposite opinions:

> 1) paying YouTube support creators

> 2) paying YouTube rewards the "shitification" of the platform

I have a third opinion. I expect that if enough people pay Google, they will remove the free service altogether, add ads to the paid service, and perhaps introduce a new, more expensive ad free tier. Paying them not only rewards the enshitification, it encourages the next step.

Post reply on HN