5 ms·

It always suprises me how unwilling the tech community is to support creators on YouTube. You're not hurting YouTube by blocking ads, you're hurting the people

by slenk 5y ago

It always suprises me how unwilling the tech community is to support creators on YouTube. You're not hurting YouTube by blocking ads, you're hurting the people who get ads from their videos. Just pay for Youtube Premium - its no different than Spotify or Apple music price-wise and people shell out for that without thinking every month.

ghosty141 5y ago
You are forgetting about things like patreon or buying merch which will generate much more revenue for the creator than premium does. LinusTechTips made a video specifically about the issue of Vanced from the perspective of a user as well as a creator.
- slenk 5y ago
  But for REALLY small creators that don't think they deserve a patreon or want to sell merch. I ran a very niche live-stream for a while, and the most steady stream of income for my live streams was from Youtube Premium users.
metadat 5y ago
No thank you. If the only reason people make videos is so I'll watch the ads, they can go straight to hell where they belong.
Arch485 5y ago
Most people just get sponsored these days. YouTube ad revenue hasn't been viable for a long time...
- cturhan 5y ago
  How? A creator earns $1k-10k per million views (US - depending on video length)
CuriouslyC 5y ago
Maybe you didn't know this, but Google is stingy as fuck in terms of the portion of ad revenue they share with content creators. Most content creators just see youtube as a way to get exposure, then they turn around and monetize other ways like sponsors, patreon, product sales, etc.
- judge2020 5y ago
  Do you have an actual source? Some numbers? Because 1k views=$1 is pretty good for a clips channel[0], and YT Premium views have always payed more than ad-supported views[1,2]. It's generally not sustainable to only rely on Adsense but it's a piece of the pie that most creators couldn't make up for overnight if it disappeared. 0: https://youtu.be/aaoVlFVqYuk?t=20 https://youtu.be/aaoVlFVqYuk?t=20 1: https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/totalbiscuit-youtube-red-payout/ https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/totalbiscuit-youtube-red-p... 2: https://twitter.com/LinusTech/status/1486935690315112455?s=20&t=8igW4mFAWroGoHDRNqHyYA https://twitter.com/LinusTech/status/1486935690315112455?s=2...
  - cturhan 5y ago
    I’ve also read an article that google pays 68% of ad revenue to creators if I’m not mistaken.
Flankk 5y ago
Every time this discussion comes up on HN I get downvoted for being completely against adblock. It's crazy how far people will go to justify taking food off other people's plate. Usually the argument about tracking comes up. As if it's used for anything other than attempt to sell you products and services. Completely screw over small businesses and screw the content creators. On a venture capitalist forum. The hypocrisy is unreal.
- CuriouslyC 5y ago
  It's because modern advertising's purpose isn't to tell people about a product they already wanted but didn't know existed (which would be fine), it's to cause people to feel a sense of fear/loss/inadequacy that they previously didn't and then present the product as a solution, or associate a product with something people love in a manipulative way, because those types of ads are worlds more effective at driving sales. That's cancer capitalism and a lot of people with principles rightly refuse to be a part of it.
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    > modern advertising's purpose isn't to tell people about a product they already wanted but didn't know existed Yes. > it's to cause people to feel a sense of fear/loss/inadequacy that they previously didn't and then present the product as a solution Maybe a bit. But, these days I think the real reason is the corrupctive influence ad money buys. Major media platforms censor at the whim of their advertisers. Content providers also do so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAkQlZgnbUQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAkQlZgnbUQ
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      Completely agree. I've seen websites delete whole pages and heavily censor remaining ones because somebody complained to Google that their sensibilities were offended. Advertisers should not have this power.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > It's crazy how far people will go to justify taking food off other people's plate. We don't have to justify it. We simply don't want to see ads. That's the end of it. The second they insist on showing us ads despite our preferences, their software becomes malware and will be blocked. And nobody is "taking" anything off anyone's plate. They're the ones sending us free stuff bundled with ads. We're just deleting the noise. Just like ripping ads out of magazines and throwing them away.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
No. If your business model is ads, I won't support you. I'll find a way to block your ads and I'll tell everyone who will listen how to do the same. I don't appreciate being brainwashed just so creators can get paid.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  Why not just stop watching the videos? Then you’re not exposed to ads.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    Because I don't have to. The videos are free.
- sofixa 5y ago
  > If your business model is ads But... The point is exactly that the business model is either ads or you pay directly. Your response is that because there's the ad option ( which let's face it, the vast majority of people prefer), you wouldn't pay to remove ads? That doesn't really make any sense. You can't rail against ad-based business models and not accept the only possible alternative.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > Your response is that because there's the ad option ( which let's face it, the vast majority of people prefer), you wouldn't pay to remove ads? Yes, I'm not gonna pay to remove ads. Paying doesn't actually remove all ads, just YouTube's, it won't do a thing to the paid promotion segments in videos. Paying also makes my attention even more valuable to advertisers, I want it to have zero if not negative value. It also doesn't stop adtech's endless tracking and surveillance capitalism, it encourages it. > You can't rail against ad-based business models and not accept the only possible alternative. That's far from the only alternative. You can charge money for your work up front. You can make a patreon, I've seen plenty of YouTube creators doing this with considerable success.
- 5y ago
mardifoufs 5y ago
Youtube premium does not block sponsors so even if you buy the subscription you sometimes end up with 2-5mins of ads in video. The only way to get rid of them on mobile is with Vanced
chenshuiluke 5y ago
I would pay for YouTube premium but it's not available in my country.
lfkdev 5y ago
I absolutely would, but Youtube Premium isn't nearly on the level Vanced is. Its just better in anything and makes the whole experience much better. I used it once and could never go back to the normal youtube app honestly.
sizesandsevens 5y ago
Youtube Premium is not available in my country. I should not have to endure two unskipable ads at the beginning and middle of a two minute video because of that.
- slenk 5y ago
  In my opinion, you have a valid use case.

by slenk 5y ago

ghosty141 5y ago

You are forgetting about things like patreon or buying merch which will generate much more revenue for the creator than premium does. LinusTechTips made a video specifically about the issue of Vanced from the perspective of a user as well as a creator.

slenk 5y ago
But for REALLY small creators that don't think they deserve a patreon or want to sell merch. I ran a very niche live-stream for a while, and the most steady stream of income for my live streams was from Youtube Premium users.

metadat 5y ago

No thank you. If the only reason people make videos is so I'll watch the ads, they can go straight to hell where they belong.

Arch485 5y ago

Most people just get sponsored these days. YouTube ad revenue hasn't been viable for a long time...

cturhan 5y ago
How? A creator earns $1k-10k per million views (US - depending on video length)

CuriouslyC 5y ago

Maybe you didn't know this, but Google is stingy as fuck in terms of the portion of ad revenue they share with content creators. Most content creators just see youtube as a way to get exposure, then they turn around and monetize other ways like sponsors, patreon, product sales, etc.

judge2020 5y ago
Do you have an actual source? Some numbers? Because 1k views=$1 is pretty good for a clips channel[0], and YT Premium views have always payed more than ad-supported views[1,2]. It's generally not sustainable to only rely on Adsense but it's a piece of the pie that most creators couldn't make up for overnight if it disappeared. 0: https://youtu.be/aaoVlFVqYuk?t=20 https://youtu.be/aaoVlFVqYuk?t=20 1: https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/totalbiscuit-youtube-red-payout/ https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/totalbiscuit-youtube-red-p... 2: https://twitter.com/LinusTech/status/1486935690315112455?s=20&t=8igW4mFAWroGoHDRNqHyYA https://twitter.com/LinusTech/status/1486935690315112455?s=2...
- cturhan 5y ago
  I’ve also read an article that google pays 68% of ad revenue to creators if I’m not mistaken.

Flankk 5y ago

Every time this discussion comes up on HN I get downvoted for being completely against adblock. It's crazy how far people will go to justify taking food off other people's plate. Usually the argument about tracking comes up. As if it's used for anything other than attempt to sell you products and services. Completely screw over small businesses and screw the content creators. On a venture capitalist forum. The hypocrisy is unreal.

CuriouslyC 5y ago
It's because modern advertising's purpose isn't to tell people about a product they already wanted but didn't know existed (which would be fine), it's to cause people to feel a sense of fear/loss/inadequacy that they previously didn't and then present the product as a solution, or associate a product with something people love in a manipulative way, because those types of ads are worlds more effective at driving sales. That's cancer capitalism and a lot of people with principles rightly refuse to be a part of it.
- reedjosh 5y ago
  > modern advertising's purpose isn't to tell people about a product they already wanted but didn't know existed Yes. > it's to cause people to feel a sense of fear/loss/inadequacy that they previously didn't and then present the product as a solution Maybe a bit. But, these days I think the real reason is the corrupctive influence ad money buys. Major media platforms censor at the whim of their advertisers. Content providers also do so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAkQlZgnbUQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAkQlZgnbUQ
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    Completely agree. I've seen websites delete whole pages and heavily censor remaining ones because somebody complained to Google that their sensibilities were offended. Advertisers should not have this power.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> It's crazy how far people will go to justify taking food off other people's plate. We don't have to justify it. We simply don't want to see ads. That's the end of it. The second they insist on showing us ads despite our preferences, their software becomes malware and will be blocked. And nobody is "taking" anything off anyone's plate. They're the ones sending us free stuff bundled with ads. We're just deleting the noise. Just like ripping ads out of magazines and throwing them away.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

No. If your business model is ads, I won't support you. I'll find a way to block your ads and I'll tell everyone who will listen how to do the same. I don't appreciate being brainwashed just so creators can get paid.

endisneigh 5y ago
Why not just stop watching the videos? Then you’re not exposed to ads.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Because I don't have to. The videos are free.
sofixa 5y ago
> If your business model is ads But... The point is exactly that the business model is either ads or you pay directly. Your response is that because there's the ad option ( which let's face it, the vast majority of people prefer), you wouldn't pay to remove ads? That doesn't really make any sense. You can't rail against ad-based business models and not accept the only possible alternative.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > Your response is that because there's the ad option ( which let's face it, the vast majority of people prefer), you wouldn't pay to remove ads? Yes, I'm not gonna pay to remove ads. Paying doesn't actually remove all ads, just YouTube's, it won't do a thing to the paid promotion segments in videos. Paying also makes my attention even more valuable to advertisers, I want it to have zero if not negative value. It also doesn't stop adtech's endless tracking and surveillance capitalism, it encourages it. > You can't rail against ad-based business models and not accept the only possible alternative. That's far from the only alternative. You can charge money for your work up front. You can make a patreon, I've seen plenty of YouTube creators doing this with considerable success.
5y ago

mardifoufs 5y ago

Youtube premium does not block sponsors so even if you buy the subscription you sometimes end up with 2-5mins of ads in video. The only way to get rid of them on mobile is with Vanced

chenshuiluke 5y ago

I would pay for YouTube premium but it's not available in my country.

lfkdev 5y ago

I absolutely would, but Youtube Premium isn't nearly on the level Vanced is. Its just better in anything and makes the whole experience much better. I used it once and could never go back to the normal youtube app honestly.

sizesandsevens 5y ago

Youtube Premium is not available in my country. I should not have to endure two unskipable ads at the beginning and middle of a two minute video because of that.

slenk 5y ago
In my opinion, you have a valid use case.