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

971–980 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#971

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #366
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…

Or, you could just honor the terms you clearly understand the content is being offered under, and just not use the service. Not as fun to write about as coercion is, though.

[deleted]

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#972

Post by baxuz »

stickfigure wrote: post #277
mcdeltat wrote: post #234

I recently stopped watching youtube altogether and surprisingly haven't been missing it. And I used to watch a LOT (like hours per day) of youtube, mostly quality educational/scientific content. But ultimately you'd be surprised how much you don't need in your life. And side effect is no more ads. If someone sends me an occasional youtube video to watch, I'll take a look, but otherwise no engagement with the platform…

Or just pay for it? I have my whole family on my plan. Nobody gets ads. It is a bargain. You're right, I could probably finish my motorcycle build projects without videos. But why??

Google just bumped the subscription cost for my 2-person household to 18,99€

I don't want to pay for 6 members. I don't want YouTube Originals. I sure as hell don't want YouTube Music. And I'd really like it if I didn't have to manually set my videos to the premium bitrate every damn time.

I'd be fine with paying 10€ for no ads + premium. But for almost 20€/month, I'm thinking of just going back to adblockers.

For 20€/month I expect them to not allow any sponsored content in my feed, including those served by the authors.

Luckily I kinda have that option with sponsorblock.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#973

Post by anticensor »

Oarch wrote: post #502
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.

Agreed, this is one of the times I'm fully behind a Google business model. I'd happily pay for products rather than have them datamine me senseless.

Remember, cash can only be spent once, information and data can be spent infinitely many times over.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#974

Post by ManlyBread »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #791
ManlyBread wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The value I get for paying YouTube doesn't match the price. Ad blocking is already free and was free for two decades, why would I want to start paying for it now? It's not like I am breaking ToS (despite their pop-ups stating otherwise) and even if I did it is my computer and it is entirely up to me what kind of content it is and isn't going to display. Personally I don't care if creators get paid or not, I have enou…

> Personally I don't care if creators get paid or not, I have enough financial problems as it is and I have no capacity to add the problems of complete strangers on the internet to the pile. Then stop watching youtube. You're just free-riding on the backs of whatever mechanisms exist to motivate the people who make videos to keep doing so. Plenty of other things to do in life other than watch videos you think are wor…

Or I could continue to watch YouTube and ignore this insane rule that seems to exist solely in your head.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#975

Post by anticensor »

dleslie wrote: post #291
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.

They should follow in the steps of news media and simply block users who use ad blocking. But they seem hesitant to, probably because that would risk losing the engagement of those users.

Or make all videos DRM protected and pre-ad-injected, with fast forward disabled at and around ads.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#976

Post by samtheDamned »

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

I disagree but not for the reasons I was seeing in the existing replies here. I believe that advertising is manipulative, and I don't want advertising companies to use the fact that most of my data is in their hands to pull the right strings and push the right buttons to try to get me to buy a product I wouldn't have otherwise.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#977

Post by cyanydeez »

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…

also keep in mind: I'd wager there's so much multitasking going on that half the time people won't even be watching the advertisement.

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#978

Post by strken »

galangalalgol wrote: post #777
strken wrote: post #769

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not irrelevance, it's lack of trust. I could see an ad for the exact thing I need and I still wouldn't click it. Either it's a scam, or it's technically not a scam because offering 90% off in the first month of a 12 month contract is legal, or it's the worst product on the market and the only way it can get users is blowing VC cash on ads, or there's something else that will surely disappoint me.

I think the theme you and other posters are stating in various ways, is that being expised to persuasion always has negative value. The motivation for some actors can be good, but it will never be universal. When seeking out information to make a purchase, one of the primary taks is to identify and filter out persuasion in the process, in the form of sponsored listings, or reddit shills. I have seen calls to ban paid…

It's not persuasion that's the issue. Opinion articles in newspapers are persuasion and I actively seek them out sometimes.

One of the blogs I used to read was The Last Psychiatrist. The author had a saying: "if you're seeing it, it's for you". In other words, if someone goes to the effort of putting something in front of you, they did it for a reason. Usually that reason is not "my company is growing via word of mouth and organic PR efforts because our product is so good, but I just want to grow faster."

Re: YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

#980

Post by musicale »

v5v3 wrote: post #605
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…

You don't get it. You are not the target Most advertising is seeking the less intelligent consumer. Or the young and still naive consumer. They outnumber you 1 million to 1. It's why female musicians make more money putting their name to a makeup brand then their music. It's why Elon will make some promise that is unrealistic. It's why Apple put low paid everyday tech support staff in their stores and called them Gen…

> It's why Apple put low paid everyday tech support staff in their stores and called them Geniuses.

I always thought the geniuses were the second-level (or higher) Apple support that you escalate to when your problem isn't readily solved by the first level?

Post reply on HN