6 ms·

This is great, everybody hates Youtube's ads. They are incredibly loud and annoying.

ianlevesque 6y ago
They are. But they offer an alternative https://www.youtube.com/premium https://www.youtube.com/premium - what more do you want?
- imglorp 6y ago
  uBlock origin takes care of ads. Oh and avoid Chrome.
- emsy 6y ago
  This, but without being tracked.
  - aeternum 6y ago
    An example of a use-case that cryptocurrencies could actually solve (anonymous micro-payments) yet none do.
    - Enginerrrd 6y ago
      I know! I'd love this system so much, but because of all the players involved, I think it'd be nearly impossible unless it were orchestrated by the government by creating a mandatory pay-to-play, ad-free, tracking-free, web option at the protocol level. ...which they'll never do.
      - warkdarrior 6y ago
        The problem is that even after being paid, the content producers and distributors have an incentive to "double dip" by adding tracking, inline/embedded ads, sponsored content placement, etc.
    - mulmen 6y ago
      I am not a cryptocurrency expert by any means. I’m barely literate in fact. Please entertain my uninformed question. It is my understanding (misconception?) that cryptocurrencies don’t scale well. How would a cryptocurrency handle billions of micro transactions? How would such a system scale to the amount of content consumed? Would there be many individual coins that are exchanged for a common one(s)? NYTCoin for BTC? Is there some method for handling transactions without the overhead?
      - aeternum 6y ago
        It's a good question. On-chain transactions don't scale well but there are many solutions which only require on-chain transactions to fund some initial channels and then subsequently if a participant misbehaves. One additional benefit is the micro-transactions are not stored on the main blockchain, further improving privacy. Bitcoin's lightning network is an example of this, and is currently up and running. Fees are incredibly low, currently averaging .0098 cents: https://1ml.com/statistics https://1ml.com/statistics
- juanuys 6y ago
  I have premium, but some content creators still do some product placements for sponsors.
  - grawprog 6y ago
    I personally don't mind the product placements and sponsor stuff creators put in videos. I prefer those to the built in youtube ads any day. Especially when video creators get creative with their placements.
    - dvtrn 6y ago
      When the creator finds a way of writing the ad into the rest of the content I'm already there to watch in the first place it's kind of great and I applaud the creativity, like you said. Wisecrack does this really well from time to time, I forget the movie review but they snuck an ad read in there that was so relevant and fitting that when Jared (the host) copped to it at the end of the episode I had to go back and rewatch to even realize "holy cow that WAS an ad". It's less enjoyable when the content comes to a total halt mid-segment to plug this week's sponsor even though I completely understand these people are just trying to eek out some coin for the content they spent time making for me to watch.
      - grawprog 6y ago
        >It's less enjoyable when the content comes to a total halt mid-segment to plug this week's sponsor even though I completely understand these people are just trying to eek out some coin for the content they spent time making for me to watch. This for sure. Though I still prefer that to the abrupt, suddenly I'm now watching an ad that's 3 times as loud as what I was watching before, it's somehow suspiciously 'relevant' to what google thinks it knows about me, and can appear without warning once, twice, maybe even 3 times in a 10-15 minute video depending on, well I'm honestly not sure what after trying to figure it out for a while now, and may or may not be skippable, depending on again, I'm not too sure what.
        6y ago
- MintelIE 6y ago
  I don't watch ads and I don't pay for Internet video. I get what I want.
- Enginerrrd 6y ago
  It's too much for the value for me. $12/mo. The problem is everyone on the web is like this. I'd be paying $300+/month if I subscribed to every service like that when I want to occasionally watch a video, or read 1-2 articles a month from a bunch of different sources. It doesn't work, I'm getting ripped off compared to the amount advertisers are spending to show me ads. Why do I have to be the one who gets screwed? I'd MUCH rather just have a system where I can just choose to either get ads, or to debit the amount the advertisers spent to show me an add to get an ad-free experience on a per-article or per-video basis where the provider (or host) isn't trying to bend me over compared to the deal they offer advertisers. The problem is that would "disincentivize engagement" and no one would ever offer such a thing. Well, ok then, screw you, I'll use adblock and you get no benefit.
  - electricviolet 6y ago
    Same here. I can't subscribe to dozens of newspapers, but I'd happily pay even 50¢/article, if the payment process were seamless.
    - spockz 6y ago
      Blendle was doing this in the Netherlands and they expanded to the us. For some reason they have since moved to an unlimited monthly fee. They do carry a lot of articles from newspapers and magazines.
    - macintux 6y ago
      I’ve been hoping for, years, probably at least a decade, that Apple would solve this. I’d gladly let them manage micropayments for good content.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > The problem is that would "disincentivize engagement" and no one would ever offer such a thing. It's actually a slightly different problem. Advertisers want the people who are willing to pay for stuff. If the advertiser pays $0.03 to show you the ad and you could get out of watching it by paying the same amount, the only people watching the ad would be the most aggressive of cheapskates who never buy anything. Nobody wants to advertise to them, so there would be no point in even trying to sell advertising. But that's not even the problem. The problem is in order to collect $0.03 you would need a functioning micropayments system that both doesn't charge prohibitively high transaction costs and doesn't invade everybody's privacy by de facto giving the bank your browsing history.
- superasn 6y ago
  Plus you get youtube music with it (in India at least) and I find their radio algo for similar music very good. So no ads and yt music - it's definitely worth the extra $1.7 mo.
- thebeefytaco 6y ago
  I don't understand why more people don't pay for YT premium considering how much content is on there. You also help support channels and content creators (apparently even if they're demonetized if you have premium).
  - catalogia 6y ago
    > I don't understand why more people don't pay for YT premium considering how much content is on there. None of the channels I care for gate their content like that. If I want to support a content creator, I can do that by letting patreon or a merchandise tshirt company take a cut, rather than giving that cut to google.
    - bllguo 6y ago
      without google you'd likely never have even been aware of the creator in question. why is that a valueless service to you?
      - catalogia 6y ago
        Since Google has incredible amounts of money already and are therefore not imperiled by my refusal to given them even more money, the relevant question is why I should give them more money. There is no rational reason for me to do so.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  There's a big privacy issue with that as it involves giving out validated billing details to Google which is much worse than the pseudonymous identifiers they otherwise use for tracking.

They are. But they offer an alternative https://www.youtube.com/premium https://www.youtube.com/premium - what more do you want?

imglorp 6y ago
uBlock origin takes care of ads. Oh and avoid Chrome.
emsy 6y ago
This, but without being tracked.
- aeternum 6y ago
  An example of a use-case that cryptocurrencies could actually solve (anonymous micro-payments) yet none do.
  - Enginerrrd 6y ago
    I know! I'd love this system so much, but because of all the players involved, I think it'd be nearly impossible unless it were orchestrated by the government by creating a mandatory pay-to-play, ad-free, tracking-free, web option at the protocol level. ...which they'll never do.
    - warkdarrior 6y ago
      The problem is that even after being paid, the content producers and distributors have an incentive to "double dip" by adding tracking, inline/embedded ads, sponsored content placement, etc.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    I am not a cryptocurrency expert by any means. I’m barely literate in fact. Please entertain my uninformed question. It is my understanding (misconception?) that cryptocurrencies don’t scale well. How would a cryptocurrency handle billions of micro transactions? How would such a system scale to the amount of content consumed? Would there be many individual coins that are exchanged for a common one(s)? NYTCoin for BTC? Is there some method for handling transactions without the overhead?
    - aeternum 6y ago
      It's a good question. On-chain transactions don't scale well but there are many solutions which only require on-chain transactions to fund some initial channels and then subsequently if a participant misbehaves. One additional benefit is the micro-transactions are not stored on the main blockchain, further improving privacy. Bitcoin's lightning network is an example of this, and is currently up and running. Fees are incredibly low, currently averaging .0098 cents: https://1ml.com/statistics https://1ml.com/statistics
juanuys 6y ago
I have premium, but some content creators still do some product placements for sponsors.
- grawprog 6y ago
  I personally don't mind the product placements and sponsor stuff creators put in videos. I prefer those to the built in youtube ads any day. Especially when video creators get creative with their placements.
  - dvtrn 6y ago
    When the creator finds a way of writing the ad into the rest of the content I'm already there to watch in the first place it's kind of great and I applaud the creativity, like you said. Wisecrack does this really well from time to time, I forget the movie review but they snuck an ad read in there that was so relevant and fitting that when Jared (the host) copped to it at the end of the episode I had to go back and rewatch to even realize "holy cow that WAS an ad". It's less enjoyable when the content comes to a total halt mid-segment to plug this week's sponsor even though I completely understand these people are just trying to eek out some coin for the content they spent time making for me to watch.
    - grawprog 6y ago
      >It's less enjoyable when the content comes to a total halt mid-segment to plug this week's sponsor even though I completely understand these people are just trying to eek out some coin for the content they spent time making for me to watch. This for sure. Though I still prefer that to the abrupt, suddenly I'm now watching an ad that's 3 times as loud as what I was watching before, it's somehow suspiciously 'relevant' to what google thinks it knows about me, and can appear without warning once, twice, maybe even 3 times in a 10-15 minute video depending on, well I'm honestly not sure what after trying to figure it out for a while now, and may or may not be skippable, depending on again, I'm not too sure what.
      - 6y ago
MintelIE 6y ago
I don't watch ads and I don't pay for Internet video. I get what I want.
Enginerrrd 6y ago
It's too much for the value for me. $12/mo. The problem is everyone on the web is like this. I'd be paying $300+/month if I subscribed to every service like that when I want to occasionally watch a video, or read 1-2 articles a month from a bunch of different sources. It doesn't work, I'm getting ripped off compared to the amount advertisers are spending to show me ads. Why do I have to be the one who gets screwed? I'd MUCH rather just have a system where I can just choose to either get ads, or to debit the amount the advertisers spent to show me an add to get an ad-free experience on a per-article or per-video basis where the provider (or host) isn't trying to bend me over compared to the deal they offer advertisers. The problem is that would "disincentivize engagement" and no one would ever offer such a thing. Well, ok then, screw you, I'll use adblock and you get no benefit.
- electricviolet 6y ago
  Same here. I can't subscribe to dozens of newspapers, but I'd happily pay even 50¢/article, if the payment process were seamless.
  - spockz 6y ago
    Blendle was doing this in the Netherlands and they expanded to the us. For some reason they have since moved to an unlimited monthly fee. They do carry a lot of articles from newspapers and magazines.
  - macintux 6y ago
    I’ve been hoping for, years, probably at least a decade, that Apple would solve this. I’d gladly let them manage micropayments for good content.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > The problem is that would "disincentivize engagement" and no one would ever offer such a thing. It's actually a slightly different problem. Advertisers want the people who are willing to pay for stuff. If the advertiser pays $0.03 to show you the ad and you could get out of watching it by paying the same amount, the only people watching the ad would be the most aggressive of cheapskates who never buy anything. Nobody wants to advertise to them, so there would be no point in even trying to sell advertising. But that's not even the problem. The problem is in order to collect $0.03 you would need a functioning micropayments system that both doesn't charge prohibitively high transaction costs and doesn't invade everybody's privacy by de facto giving the bank your browsing history.
superasn 6y ago
Plus you get youtube music with it (in India at least) and I find their radio algo for similar music very good. So no ads and yt music - it's definitely worth the extra $1.7 mo.
thebeefytaco 6y ago
I don't understand why more people don't pay for YT premium considering how much content is on there. You also help support channels and content creators (apparently even if they're demonetized if you have premium).
- catalogia 6y ago
  > I don't understand why more people don't pay for YT premium considering how much content is on there. None of the channels I care for gate their content like that. If I want to support a content creator, I can do that by letting patreon or a merchandise tshirt company take a cut, rather than giving that cut to google.
  - bllguo 6y ago
    without google you'd likely never have even been aware of the creator in question. why is that a valueless service to you?
    - catalogia 6y ago
      Since Google has incredible amounts of money already and are therefore not imperiled by my refusal to given them even more money, the relevant question is why I should give them more money. There is no rational reason for me to do so.
Nextgrid 6y ago
There's a big privacy issue with that as it involves giving out validated billing details to Google which is much worse than the pseudonymous identifiers they otherwise use for tracking.