Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

androidpolice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#941

Post by CatWChainsaw »

photochemsyn wrote: post #606
_gabe_ wrote: post #313

This is just so funny to me. Google has to have the absolute worst PR for any company I've ever seen to make this happen. Somehow, they've duped the general public (at least on HN) into believing they insert the ads into videos. All they need to do is run a marketing campaign about how as a content creator you get to decide when ads play, whether they're unskippable, and how many ads to place in your video. Blast tha…

> "Leave angry comments on the videos you watch and tell the creators your pissed at them for how many ads they place." This will get your account shadowbanned, i.e. you'll be able to see your comments and votes but nobody else will be.

What if you post something innocuous at first and then edit it later after the mod queue has bumped it down and no one is likely to review it?

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#944

Post by felipellrocha »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #226

This doesn't really affect me since I subscribe to premium, but something that a lot of ad-based services don't seem to grasp is why people block ads. It's because they've become increasingly obnoxious. Nobody blocked ads when they were a simple column of links in the gutter or maybe an animated GIF banner with 3 frames. No, adblockers became popular because ads kept getting more loud (both visually and audibly), in…

I think that everyone knows that, but no one knows how to solve that problem.

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#946

Post by BlackjackCF »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #226

This doesn't really affect me since I subscribe to premium, but something that a lot of ad-based services don't seem to grasp is why people block ads. It's because they've become increasingly obnoxious. Nobody blocked ads when they were a simple column of links in the gutter or maybe an animated GIF banner with 3 frames. No, adblockers became popular because ads kept getting more loud (both visually and audibly), in…

I don’t mind the visual part, but the fact that ads are often 2x louder than the content I’m watching is super jarring.

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#947

Post by Tozen »

What YouTube's/Google's greed and hubris will likely result in, are more programmers aggressively testing ad blockers that can defeat their new approach or users more aggressively looking for alternatives to YouTube.

And I'm totally amazed that execs at YouTube/Google haven't figured out that maybe a cheaper tier premium service for just no ads, might be a viable enough solution, versus thinking they are going to bully and intimate their customers. At least give it a try, and give users more options. Make a new basic tier for maybe $15 dollars a year, where there are no ads. There are just too many programmers in the world, to think "aggressive intimidation" is really going to work.

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#949

Post by TX81Z »

mcpackieh wrote: post #309

I block ads because they're psychological warfare that corporations wage against me. I don't care how unobtrusive the ads are. I don't care if the ads don't track me. I grew up changing the channel on TV when ads came on, and ripping adverts out of magazines before sitting down to read them. I vote for billboard bans whenever I can. I have zero tolerance for ads of any sort. Advertisers have no morals, they're comple…

Well, you just think that because you haven’t tried the latest sugar water flavor.

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#950

Post by mvdwoord »

mynameisash wrote: post #643

There's a 402 PAYMENT REQUIRED[0], but apparently it's been reserved for future use forever. I'm surprised there isn't a scheme by which websites can charge micropayments for content. In principle, I'm not opposed to loading up an account with $20 and paying $0.10 for an Economist article or $0.02 for a YouTube video or whatever. I honestly don't know if this exists now or has ever existed, but I would love to direct…

For newspapers/magazines, this existed in the Netherlands for some time. It was called blendle[0] and worked exactly as you described. It was a fantastic way to get legit access to a handful of articles from various sources without the need to take any subscriptions. The best thing was money back, no questions asked policy, for every article you bought.

The model failed however (cannot recall the details but there are plenty of writeups [1]) and they switched to a new model which is all you can eat for 10 euro a month. However the selection is trimmed down massively.

I kinda miss it, although typically now I just 12ft or web archive anything I really like to read.

[0] https://blendle.com/getpremium

[1] https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/06/micropayments-for-news-pio...

Post reply on HN