10 ms·

I wanted to show a video on YouTube to a friend. He passed me his cellphone. I searched and found the video and then something very strange happened: a complete

• rd_police 5y ago
• mrweasel 5y ago
  One of the services I happily pay for is Youtube Premium, though I could do without also having to pay for Youtube Music at the same time. I have same experience as you, when I somehow not logged in to Youtube. It’s a surreal mess and it’s the same 5 - 10 ads, if it’s that many, on repeat. It’s unusable. Technically I don’t use and ad block, I just run DuckDuckGo’s privacy plugin. You can show me ads, but not track me, weirdly enough it’s 98% the same result. It facinating that ad tech cannot see the difference between ads and tracking.
  • rchaud 5y ago
    I feel that there is a generational gap between Youtube users that correlates with whether they will pay for premium or not. People in their late 20s and 30s who remember Youtube as a catch-all location for lo-fi homemmade videos with few ads may not feel that YT premium is worth it, particularly if they already use adblockers, and don't use it much on mobile (where adblocking isn't possible without modded APKs). This generation also remembers torrents and Limewire, before Spotify made everything super-convenient. Those who are more familiar with 'modern Youtube' with multiple pre-roll ads, clickbait and and influencers everywhere may be more receptive to paying just to get rid of the constant ads.
    • fartcannon 5y ago
      Huh? Firefox on mobile supports ublock origin. Or do you mean the app? Don't use the app.
      • jmrm 5y ago
        There is also the possibility of using YouTube Vanced and other similar apps (in Android at least) to do the same trick in a more comfortable way.
      • Enginerrrd 5y ago
        I don't think it works on iOS. Works perfectly on Android though!
        • deleted 5y ago
          [deleted]
        • propogandist 5y ago
          Brave is the only iOS browser that supports ad-blocking on YT
      • Dylan16807 5y ago
        The app works a lot better, though.
    • Vrondi 5y ago
      No. Stupidity knows no age limit, and a fool and his money are soon parted.
    • gpas 5y ago
      > on mobile (where adblocking isn't possible without modded APKs) What's a modded APK? Firefox and other browsers like Vivaldi have awesome adblocking nowadays. There are alternative frontends like invidious. Newpipe is an oss app, perfect on Android. Vanced is very popular too but I never tried it. But with nextdns I don't need any of those. Only newpipe because, besides the ads, having to keep the display on to listen to music while running is just stupid.
  • Raineer 5y ago
    Yeah I pay the same. Sure I hate Google and yada yada... But if the call for money is "we will show you no ads, and your money will go to creators", and it is a realistic amount, yes I will pay it. I run ad-blockers everywhere (and I know there are ways to block YT ads), but will still pay if you give me this reasonable option.
  • dylan-m 5y ago
    YouTube's ads are a colossal mistake waiting to happen. Back in the day, Google was successful because they realized advertising on the web was a problem: ads were trying too hard to grab attention, resorting to hostile tactics that basically forced people to run ad blockers. Google said "okay, what if ads were simple blocks of text that - while not as loud and screamy - got more impressions because they aren't terrible?". And over time everyone agreed with them and they made billions of dollars. Somehow, (probably because there is no competition - yet), Google has not applied this reasoning to YouTube ads. YouTube ads are often louder than regular videos (which they could fix on their end if they cared), they are sometimes insanely long (I recently got an "ad" which was a 40 minute "free music" thing), and depending on the video they can pop pop up at terrible moments. They still haven't figured out that YouTube is loaded with exercise videos - a content category which has exploded since 2020 and where YouTube enjoys a tremendous lead on the competition. Rudely interrupting one of those is bad and brews resentment. Instead of doing that, they could plaster the entire video with unobtrusive ads and people would both look at the ads and be happy with the service.
    • baud147258 5y ago
      well, I remember watching an ad for youtube premium (or whatever is called the subscription to remove ads) which was presenting the 'no more ad breaks in the middle of videos' as a selling point. So at least some people at YT are aware of that issue
    • yreg 5y ago
      A few years ago I was eating in an indian restaurant and I noticed a muted TV on the wall playing MKBHD's review of some drone. I was very confused why would they decide to show that. As I was eating the video ended and I realised the full review was an ad that played inside a 10 hour atmospheric video the restaurant intended to play. I found it pretty smart, because I can imagine myself succumbing to watching a full video that was inserted as an ad if it's interesting enough.
      • freebuju 5y ago
        No. You are just a MKBHD fan. There's nothing more to it. Someone else who doesn't know who Marques is will see a talking head interrupting the relaxation video. For the restaurant owner, it means they cannot rely on YouTube to play requested video content as commanded. This proves the point even further, technology instead of being smarter in the case of YouTube here, has grown to become an annoying anti-consumer product that constantly moves in the opposite direction of the user.
  • mortenjorck 5y ago
    > One of the services I happily pay for is Youtube Premium, though I could do without also having to pay for Youtube Music at the same time. The forced bundling with YouTube Music is the only thing that keeps me from subscribing and keeping a trigger finger on the mute button (I use YouTube primarily on AppleTV). It's not even the price so much as it's the redundancy of subscribing to both Spotify and a lackluster Spotify competitor at the same time. The moment Google offers YouTube Premium Lite (an unbundled version they've been trialing in European markets) in the US, I'll subscribe and never look back.
• sergiotapia 5y ago
  I switched from iphone to android just because I could install youtube vanced (and really any apk I want). I'm done with walled gardens.
  • fraktl 5y ago
• pwython 5y ago
  Just curious, if you owned YouTube with an overhead of tens of millions of dollars per year, how would you monetize it without ads/commercials, just to even keep up with operational costs?
  • bigbillheck 5y ago
    Not my problem.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • Atlas667 5y ago
    Alas! Your question reveals how capitalist production is both for the consumers but at the same time must contradict the interests of the consumers. I'm waiting for the day when we can solve these ills of private property with technology.
    • somethingAlex 5y ago
      People seem to invoke the word capitalism whenever things aren't a utopia for everyone involved. Still, even without capitalism, you'll have to contend with the issue of how to cover operational expenses. Say some, more centralized, agent decides YouTube is worthwhile - how would it get paid for? A state sponsorship made possible by a tax of some sort? Perhaps it would transition to be completely pay-to-play? The employees and servers are expending real energy keeping YouTube operational. Meaning, whether it's through ads, a more centralized body stepping in, or some other less pervasive, opt-in business model - the thing needs to cover its own costs. I don't think a lack of private property would solve much there.
      • y4mi 5y ago
        > Still, even without capitalism, you'll have to contend with the issue of how to cover operational expenses You're still thinking in the framework of capitalism. Let me be clear that I think that doing anything but capitalism is bound to fail while we're living in a resource restricted reality. Nonetheless, if we want to think about it for arguments sake: there are no costs associated without capitalism, only necessary work and resources. It's really hard to think without the restrictions of capitalism for me, because that's the only way I've ever experienced and it's so effective at prioritizing resources and productivity. Anything else has historically always fallen short. Though it's still a pretty fucked up and heartless system
• zagrebian 5y ago
  Sorry but a short ad in front of a video is not abuse.
  • kome 5y ago
    it is abuse, all non requested & for-profit message is abuse.
    • 2dollars27cents 5y ago
      It is not abuse. You are using the platform, the platform is monetized through ads. You requested it when you agreed to view any content on their platform.
      • wildrhythms 5y ago
        A better world is possible.
      • grishka 5y ago
        Implied contracts are not a thing.
• throwaway743 5y ago
  Use the Vanced app. It's ad free youtube Edit: https://vancedapp.com/ https://vancedapp.com/
  • marcodiego 5y ago
    I use NewPipe.
    • danuker 5y ago
      Even better - cheers to software freedom!
    • GekkePrutser 5y ago
      I don't use YouTube at all :P well once in a blue moon but I try to avoid it. Though it's just that I don't like the video format in general. If there was an ethical decentralised platform I probably wouldn't use it either. However the way video has been centralised online is a big problem IMO. Imagine if every blog you read you could only get through Google.
• sushid 5y ago
  I find this pretty confusing. How is showing ads abuse?
  • mplewis 5y ago
    I once sent a link to a news article to a friend at work. He became angry at me because the link I had sent him was to a malware-infested shit site. It wasn't, but the ads in the site I had intended to send had taken over his browser and made it indistinguishable from a malware link. That's how showing ads on your site is abuse of the user.
    • chki 5y ago
      You've just shifted the goalposts significantly and did not really reply in good faith. Showing ads is very different from linking to malware. Especially on YouTube the amount of malware is probably very low since everything is sandboxed.
      • cartesius13 5y ago
        I think the point is that putting so many ads on a page to the point of it becoming indistinguishable from a malware infested shit site is a form of abuse to the user. I personally agree with this take, if that's what he meant
      • Nextgrid 5y ago
        Showing ads without properly vetting them nor taking responsibility for any malicious ads is not in good faith either.
  • yosamino 5y ago
    Advertizement uses your brain power to process stimuli for the purpose of trying to sell you things that you do not need. You did not ask for your brain to be stimulated like this - what you did ask for is the content that comes after ad. That's the thing you consented to. Ads abuse your desire to watch something that you want to watch, by cramming in something that you did not want, leeching your precious time and brain-processing energy, in order to sell you something that you did not want to have in the first place.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• chefandy 5y ago
  I miss them. I uninstalled mine after taking on more design responsibilities. Experiencing end-user inconveniences in-context is beneficial to design work. Profiling data and emulator testing won't viscerally inspire the "hold on— this is a bridge too far" interventions Conde Nast should have cultivated. For example, if you were making a transit app, a savvy iPhone 13 ProMax user with a top-tier data plan will see very different problems (or at least see different priorities) on their commute than your Uncle Sidney with his belt-holstered, used, Samsung Galaxy J2 running on Ting Mobile. They're both important, but in the tech world, you have to dig a lot deeper to get the Uncle Sidney perspective.