3 ms·
This argument is a strawman, come on, is YouTube really wondering about any content consumption habit after being the most popular video portal for more than a
by npteljes 5y ago
This argument is a strawman, come on, is YouTube really wondering about any content consumption habit after being the most popular video portal for more than a decade? It's all just doing business, and all of that is just part of doing business. If enough people block youtube's ad domains, they'll just start embedding them in the video stream. And then just obfuscate the player so that you can't make it skip. Then maybe integrate the whole stack vertically so that you can't do anything with it, because it's encrypted from the server to your display panel. There's no "wondering" here at all.
- ajsnigrutin 5y agoads are already embedded in the stream, usually by youtubers themselves ("this video is sponsored by shadow nord raid vpn,..."), and extensions block this too. But once the ad to content ratio gets bad (and we're getting there), people just move elsewhere.
- npteljes 5y agoI don't think so. We're already burying Netflix in this comment section, and cable still exist. Look at any sporting events, just how much more ads can it have? They have sponsored content plastered everywhere, and then, the exclusive broadcasting rights are sold to the highest bidder, so if you care about sports, you have to watch it on that exact one platform. And yet, it's very popular. So no I don't think people would move. People, in general, want things, and weigh in how much it also affects them negatively. They'll defer, deny, ignore, whatever it takes to participate in that "want". And the providers of that "want" know exactly this and ram as much profitable negativity in there as they can, and cover it up as much as they can. And people on the receiving end will tolerate. That's how ads will stay, with a combination of legality and applied psychology.