9 ms·

I categorically reject ads. I want them completely abolished. I will do everything that's in my power to get them out of my machines. If I had just a little bit

I categorically reject ads. I want them completely abolished. I will do everything that's in my power to get them out of my machines. If I had just a little bit more courage I would go out at night with cans of spray paint and deface billboards.

sofixa 4y ago
How do you propose sites/YouTube channels monetise themselves (for sustenance or profit)?
- disintegore 4y ago
  I don't really care about their bottom line. They're the middle-men. Virtual landlords. They're there to squeeze the lemon. Not to say that the service they provide isn't useful. It's obviously more economical to operate media platforms at scale, and obviously most content creators don't have the technical ability to do it themselves. When you look at say, podcasts for instance, you have this giant shared wealth of free content and you can pick a number of creators to support depending on your budget. You usually get extra episodes or perks as an incentive for doing so. Imagine if, instead of paying YouTube X dollars or watching Y ads and letting them choose out how to spread that money around, you pay the people you actually watch and the platform vendors, who ought to be the least important and most replaceable factor in this transaction, gets the cut they actually deserve. Before they were ruined by copyright trolls, streaming services like Netflix demonstrated that charging everyone a reasonable amount of money for access to the entire park was a viable business model.
  - Bakary 4y ago
    YouTube sounds replaceable or unimportant in an ethical sense but in a practical sense it's certainly not that simple from the POV of someone trying to build an audience for their videography or even the audience itself.
    - disintegore 4y ago
      Total chicken and egg scenario. That's often the case with monopolies. However, to my knowledge Youtube doesn't force its content creators into exclusivity deals (like, say, Amazon with Kindle Direct) so there may be some leeway there seeing as posting your content on another platform isn't a major risk.
      - Bakary 4y ago
        I don't have a definite view on this, but my intuition tells me that there is more to it than just the monopoly effect. If YouTube had developed with additional competitors, it might not necessarily have lead to a better market/space for videographers since having a single platform has its own advantages for the development of the medium/culture/etc. YouTube is getting more heavy-handed as time goes on, but one reason for this is that they were operating at a loss for so long, and in doing so provided extra utility that we might take for granted. GP comment mentioned Netflix, but that is in fact a good example of what I mean. They started to struggle because competitors moved into the space. Unlike YouTube, they did not have an unassailable position. Unlike Spotify, they did not have a market that allowed sharing catalogues across platforms. In a sense, what we interpreted as Netflix showing a viable business model was rather Netflix showing early mover advantage on borrowed time. Having an ecosystem with multiple mediocre services such as what streaming is becoming now would not necessarily have been in the advantage of videographers if it had happened to video-sharing platforms. It would almost certainly have lead to a smaller and less engaged overall audience.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  I'm not responsible for Youtube's business plans. Don't they pay executives a lot of money to make their business plans for them?
  - sofixa 4y ago
    And they have, as a consumer you can choose ads or Premium. Some want neither, so out of curiosity I'm asking, how do they see things if not those two options?
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      I have no idea how they see things, I'm not telepathic. I'm in the "want neither" camp; I put up with whatever I can't filter. The kind of stuff I look for on YT often doesn't seem to be monetized.
- trasz 4y ago
  Same as now: Patreon. YouTube monetisation model is pretty useless except for Google itself.
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    Lol, YouTube has minted many millionaires.
    - trasz 4y ago
      Millionaires don’t matter except for marketing; median matters.
- Spivak 4y ago
  I think the only real response is that isn't my problem to figure out. I'm sure you could come up with 10 highly unethical or outright illegal monetization methods off the top of your head, and the argument against them isn't "well here's an alternative" but instead "these are bad and shouldn't be done full stop." And this is how people view ads, it's a values based judgement rather than a utilitarian one.
  - zamadatix 4y ago
    A values based judgement goes both ways though - you shouldn't be using such a service in the first place if you knowingly can't conceive of an ethical way for it to operate. And that's a fair stance but few seem to actually care about values based judgement enough to actually stop using the services. That said this case isn't much of a moral mystery. YouTube offers a reasonable paid plan, most people just prefer ads.
    - Spivak 4y ago
      Oh trust me I can conceive many ethical ways businesses could operate without ads. I think what you mean is that you shouldn’t use a service you know is unethical. But there are problems with that as a general rule. First being that there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism so that makes things difficult. Second, “voting with your wallet” is pointless, you’re much better off voting with your votes and ad blockers if you want to see real change. If anything by your logic buying YouTube Premium is worse ethically since you’re directly supporting a company that makes money on unethical ads. Giving them more money won’t make ads go away. And to that, third, demanding self-flagellation to prove that one is sincere in their beliefs is puritanical nonsense. You are absolutely allowed to both buy Nike shoes and fight for legislation that forbids them from treating their factory workers poorly.
      - zamadatix 4y ago
        I'm not going to comment on capitalism as a whole or the like as that seems neither here nor there for this thread but I can see how someone with those views would have problems with pretty much any service anywhere in the current environment. I'm not quite sure I follow how opting for the business model one doesn't find unethical is supporting unethical business models. It may not be attacking the business model they find unethical but that's a different claim. Unless of course we allow any connection with a service to taint the entire lot in which case I can again see how someone with those views would have problems with pretty much any service anywhere. As for the conversation on shoes when you have a basic need sure, don't let people's ability to source needs get in the way of people bettering their working conditions. After all they don't really have a choice in forgoing either. That's not really relevant to people's desires to consume entertainment services though. Particularly when people are given their own agency on deciding what is the right way to fund it already or even to be able to not consume the want should there be nowhere to do so. In the end it may come down to whether you think it should be alright for people to operate on different morals than you so long as their choice is mostly limited to impacting them or if there is only one true set of morals everyone must be forced to follow by law.
matkoniecz 4y ago
> If I had just a little bit more courage I would go out at night with cans of spray paint and deface billboards. It may be less emotionally rewarding, but in many areas - many places advertisements violate various rules and on notification local authorities (or other entity) is likely to take action. For example in Poland ads (except political ones, politicians exempted themself again) cannot be ever placed on bridges, lamp posts, traffic signs, guard rails etc. Every single one placed there is illegal and road maintainers remove them once notified. - local authorities may be allowed to pass laws banning or limiting their presence (Kraków, Poland recently outlawed large part of billboards within city) Also, removing some of ads may be perfectly legal or with penalties so low that eliminating them is not legally risky.
raxxorraxor 4y ago
There would not be a problem if we had better smartphone OS in the first place. Apple and Google both locked down the environments as hard as they could. This is the result of that and it will never be a fight that you can win if you don't have complete control about your device.
_hcuq 4y ago
I’m with you. I just moved to a new laptop. I haven’t installed ad blockers yet. But interestingly, I seem to have got out of the habit of using the obnoxious ad supported sites. Probably because they became too low quality. I hadn’t even realized my ad blockers weren’t installed until this thread.
aliqot 4y ago
Just go out and paint, good grief. If you want to minimize liability, get some wheatpaste and a bunch of posters. Graffiti is vandalism, and punishable for higher penalties than 'billposting' which is a $50 ticket. Same effect.
cortesoft 4y ago
I agree a lot of advertising is awful, but there is still some purpose in demonstrating your wares for potential customers. Suppose someone develops a product that you would love and would make your life better; how do you think you should find out about it?
- eatsyourtacos 4y ago
  >how do you think you should find out about it? Word of mouth, basically. Or searching for something that I need. What I hate most about advertising is it just shoves everything in people's faces and makes people think they need this and that. I find myself somewhat immune to ads (as much as one can be I guess), maybe I just programmed myself to ignore them growing up in early internet days. But it's so obvious the large effect that ads can have on most people. I find out about new and cool stuff generally from peoples comments on sites like here, reddit etc. If you have a good product, word of mouth is generally pretty damn good. Or coming across something from searches for a specific need. I just can't think about anything that I needed and found out from a standard advertisement in like.. any recent memory. Maybe I'm the outlier here.. obviously ads must work well enough but I hate them with a passion.
  - cortesoft 4y ago
    Word of mouth requires someone to learn about a product initially. Also, searching for something you ‘need’ presupposes that you know there is a product that addresses a need. You would never find improvements to things that you didn’t realize could be improved.
    - eatsyourtacos 4y ago
      I'm not sure how you found this website then.. I don't recall seeing superbowl ads for Hackernews.
- haswell 4y ago
  I believe marketplaces could/would form, acting as aggregators for sellers to list and promote their goods, and for consumers to go shopping. In the 2020s, the web is nearing a level of criticality to a functioning society as the neighborhoods, towns, cities we access it from. Those physical properties are heavily regulated and with good reason.
mdavis6890 4y ago
"I will do everything that's in my power" Will you pay money for the content you consume?
- xhrpost 4y ago
  Sadly, even paying for content will often keep ads around. NYTimes and WSJ come to mind.
  - bastardoperator 4y ago
    Youtube premium is ad free.
    - hoorible 4y ago
      For now.
    - squeaky-clean 4y ago
      I know this isn't technically youtube's fault, but pretty much every video I watch has a 30 second sponsor segment (Hello Fresh anyone?). There's Nebula for some creators and Patreon for others, but not everyone has an ad free way to watch them. Also Patreon can really begin to add up. And yeah there's that extension that can skip sponsored segments but that's blocking ads, not paying to avoid them.
      - j1elo 4y ago
        This is Youtube's fault, as they could (should) require video creators to identify the start and end timestamps of sponsor segments, and then their player should just skip those automatically for logged-in, paying subscribers.
        barbazoo 4y ago
        Only if video creators get a cut, otherwise it won't work.
ruined 4y ago
defacing billboards is more fun and easier than you expect
- disintegore 4y ago
  There's a "prepare, Jesus is coming" ad next to my workplace. It honestly looks like a grift. That sort of thing is NOT normal at all where I live. I'm honestly tempted. Would be even more stupid to try after writing this post though.
webdood90 4y ago
- disintegore 4y ago
  They're not going away, point. If they get you acclimated to paying subscription fees they will then try to get you acclimated to paying subscription fees AND seeing ads. Have you watched a UFC pay-per-view event recently? We should regulate or straight up outlaw it just like any other unchecked negative externality. I don't care if it makes you money. I don't care if poisoning the waterways makes you money either.
dantyti 4y ago
There are people hacking billboards and posting their own subvertisements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvertising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvertising). A while ago, I came across this 20 min mini-doc about the movement in London: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zunPa9rGndg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zunPa9rGndg I think you might enjoy it
MuffinFlavored 4y ago
> I want them completely abolished. hmm... you do know this is the reason companies like Google + Meta make lots of money, right? I know you don't like ads but... a lot of people obviously are ok with them (otherwise businesses wouldn't find it worth it to advertise on those platforms, in hopes of capturing customers/increasing sales)
- mplewis 4y ago
  That’s their problem, not mine. Ads are a security risk to my devices.
  - MuffinFlavored 4y ago
    I just don't think you're living in reality emotionally/mentally. I'm not saying you need to let advertisers tracking everything you do but to pretend that mobile phone advertising/web based advertising should cease to exist for everybody is a little extreme.
- matkoniecz 4y ago
  > hmm... you do know this is the reason companies like Google + Meta make lots of money, right? I am not sure why it would be reason for ads.
hackernewds 4y ago
Prepare for a world of ad-free paid subscriptions to everything Google Maps and Youtube. Everything free becomes Netflix, if every advertiser signs up.
naillo 4y ago
There's like 5% of people who actually use adblock too. Seems rude to go out of their way to just anger people like you.
alickz 4y ago
I purposely look away when YouTube starts playing ads. It's silly I know, but I get a tiny amount of satisfaction from not letting them advertise to me.
- nfriedly 4y ago
  With the combination of Firefox, Ublock Origin, and Sponsor Block on desktop, and Vanced on Android, I never see youtube ads. I find it very satisfying. (Sadly, google shut down Vanced, but you can still find it if you go looking and ReVanced is coming along nicely.)
- anonporridge 4y ago
  Until they require video to be allowed for eye tracking so they can stop playing and force you to look at the ad while it's playing. As in Black Mirror's 15 Million Merits.
- YetAnotherNick 4y ago
  I don't get the hate on Youtube TBH, when they provide youtube premium.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
    Personally I'm torn between wanting to pay for a useful service and not wanting to reward YouTube for intentionally degrading their free service.
    - exitheone 4y ago
      I don't understand this stance. They intentionally degrade the service to make it profitable. Video serving is incredibly expensive and YouTube is no charity. They have a premium tier at a very competitive price so what's the issue?
      - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
        That's an interesting question. I had been under the impression that they were profitable even before they started doing that, but it would change my calculus if that were true.
Philip-J-Fry 4y ago
That is quite unrealistic though. You either need to pay up or put up with the consequences of wanting a free service, such as dealing with the never ending battle of blocking ads. I wish companies would offer the opportunity to pay what you want to remove ads. People with adblock are probably more likely to pay for it, because anyone not running ads is probably not bothered by them anyway. And people running adblock are unmonetisable. So a little bit of money is better than no money.
- wpietri 4y ago
  It's not particularly unrealistic. Advertising is popular on the web for historical reasons. Content delivery advanced much faster than payment, so for ~20 years ads were the easiest way for many sites to pay the bills. Nobody was sure what else to do. But that's no longer the case. Soft paywalls have been around for circa a decade, so selling subscriptions while letting your content self-market is viable. Content creators also have plenty of direct revenue options. Patreon is doing something like $2 billion/year in revenue for creators. Twitch became a huge platform without ads, just allowing direct cash transfers from fans to creators. And that's not even counting the ~$50 billion/year now spent on streaming and VOD in the US. On the other side of it, per-ad revenue has been falling for decades. I helped start a content site and keep in touch with people in that area. The reason so many ad-supported sites look like absolute shit is that to make any money, you keep needing to up the amount of ads you run, making them more and more annoying to overcome learned ad blindness. So advertising is slowly strangling itself, leading to lots of people using ad-blockers, and counter-ad-blocker technology becoming widespread. What sane person would start an ad-funded content business today? A world-wide web with little or no advertising is not only plausible, it looks like that's where we're headed.
- albrewer 4y ago
  The main problem is I don't have the ability to only pay for the content I consume.
- disintegore 4y ago
  Who says I want a free service? A lot of the time there is no paid tier.
wpietri 4y ago
For sure. I don't like the experience. I don't like the ethos of "let's manipulate people so we can fill our pockets." I hate how they distort markets. And I absolutely despise that we waste hundreds of billions of dollars per year in the US alone on them. Advertising is an arms race, one that we could end, turning all that brainpower to something that actually helps people.

sofixa 4y ago

How do you propose sites/YouTube channels monetise themselves (for sustenance or profit)?

disintegore 4y ago
I don't really care about their bottom line. They're the middle-men. Virtual landlords. They're there to squeeze the lemon. Not to say that the service they provide isn't useful. It's obviously more economical to operate media platforms at scale, and obviously most content creators don't have the technical ability to do it themselves. When you look at say, podcasts for instance, you have this giant shared wealth of free content and you can pick a number of creators to support depending on your budget. You usually get extra episodes or perks as an incentive for doing so. Imagine if, instead of paying YouTube X dollars or watching Y ads and letting them choose out how to spread that money around, you pay the people you actually watch and the platform vendors, who ought to be the least important and most replaceable factor in this transaction, gets the cut they actually deserve. Before they were ruined by copyright trolls, streaming services like Netflix demonstrated that charging everyone a reasonable amount of money for access to the entire park was a viable business model.
- Bakary 4y ago
  YouTube sounds replaceable or unimportant in an ethical sense but in a practical sense it's certainly not that simple from the POV of someone trying to build an audience for their videography or even the audience itself.
  - disintegore 4y ago
    Total chicken and egg scenario. That's often the case with monopolies. However, to my knowledge Youtube doesn't force its content creators into exclusivity deals (like, say, Amazon with Kindle Direct) so there may be some leeway there seeing as posting your content on another platform isn't a major risk.
    - Bakary 4y ago
      I don't have a definite view on this, but my intuition tells me that there is more to it than just the monopoly effect. If YouTube had developed with additional competitors, it might not necessarily have lead to a better market/space for videographers since having a single platform has its own advantages for the development of the medium/culture/etc. YouTube is getting more heavy-handed as time goes on, but one reason for this is that they were operating at a loss for so long, and in doing so provided extra utility that we might take for granted. GP comment mentioned Netflix, but that is in fact a good example of what I mean. They started to struggle because competitors moved into the space. Unlike YouTube, they did not have an unassailable position. Unlike Spotify, they did not have a market that allowed sharing catalogues across platforms. In a sense, what we interpreted as Netflix showing a viable business model was rather Netflix showing early mover advantage on borrowed time. Having an ecosystem with multiple mediocre services such as what streaming is becoming now would not necessarily have been in the advantage of videographers if it had happened to video-sharing platforms. It would almost certainly have lead to a smaller and less engaged overall audience.
denton-scratch 4y ago
I'm not responsible for Youtube's business plans. Don't they pay executives a lot of money to make their business plans for them?
- sofixa 4y ago
  And they have, as a consumer you can choose ads or Premium. Some want neither, so out of curiosity I'm asking, how do they see things if not those two options?
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    I have no idea how they see things, I'm not telepathic. I'm in the "want neither" camp; I put up with whatever I can't filter. The kind of stuff I look for on YT often doesn't seem to be monetized.
trasz 4y ago
Same as now: Patreon. YouTube monetisation model is pretty useless except for Google itself.
- endisneigh 4y ago
  Lol, YouTube has minted many millionaires.
  - trasz 4y ago
    Millionaires don’t matter except for marketing; median matters.
Spivak 4y ago
I think the only real response is that isn't my problem to figure out. I'm sure you could come up with 10 highly unethical or outright illegal monetization methods off the top of your head, and the argument against them isn't "well here's an alternative" but instead "these are bad and shouldn't be done full stop." And this is how people view ads, it's a values based judgement rather than a utilitarian one.
- zamadatix 4y ago
  A values based judgement goes both ways though - you shouldn't be using such a service in the first place if you knowingly can't conceive of an ethical way for it to operate. And that's a fair stance but few seem to actually care about values based judgement enough to actually stop using the services. That said this case isn't much of a moral mystery. YouTube offers a reasonable paid plan, most people just prefer ads.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    Oh trust me I can conceive many ethical ways businesses could operate without ads. I think what you mean is that you shouldn’t use a service you know is unethical. But there are problems with that as a general rule. First being that there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism so that makes things difficult. Second, “voting with your wallet” is pointless, you’re much better off voting with your votes and ad blockers if you want to see real change. If anything by your logic buying YouTube Premium is worse ethically since you’re directly supporting a company that makes money on unethical ads. Giving them more money won’t make ads go away. And to that, third, demanding self-flagellation to prove that one is sincere in their beliefs is puritanical nonsense. You are absolutely allowed to both buy Nike shoes and fight for legislation that forbids them from treating their factory workers poorly.
    - zamadatix 4y ago
      I'm not going to comment on capitalism as a whole or the like as that seems neither here nor there for this thread but I can see how someone with those views would have problems with pretty much any service anywhere in the current environment. I'm not quite sure I follow how opting for the business model one doesn't find unethical is supporting unethical business models. It may not be attacking the business model they find unethical but that's a different claim. Unless of course we allow any connection with a service to taint the entire lot in which case I can again see how someone with those views would have problems with pretty much any service anywhere. As for the conversation on shoes when you have a basic need sure, don't let people's ability to source needs get in the way of people bettering their working conditions. After all they don't really have a choice in forgoing either. That's not really relevant to people's desires to consume entertainment services though. Particularly when people are given their own agency on deciding what is the right way to fund it already or even to be able to not consume the want should there be nowhere to do so. In the end it may come down to whether you think it should be alright for people to operate on different morals than you so long as their choice is mostly limited to impacting them or if there is only one true set of morals everyone must be forced to follow by law.

matkoniecz 4y ago

> If I had just a little bit more courage I would go out at night with cans of spray paint and deface billboards. It may be less emotionally rewarding, but in many areas - many places advertisements violate various rules and on notification local authorities (or other entity) is likely to take action. For example in Poland ads (except political ones, politicians exempted themself again) cannot be ever placed on bridges, lamp posts, traffic signs, guard rails etc. Every single one placed there is illegal and road maintainers remove them once notified. - local authorities may be allowed to pass laws banning or limiting their presence (Kraków, Poland recently outlawed large part of billboards within city) Also, removing some of ads may be perfectly legal or with penalties so low that eliminating them is not legally risky.

raxxorraxor 4y ago

There would not be a problem if we had better smartphone OS in the first place. Apple and Google both locked down the environments as hard as they could. This is the result of that and it will never be a fight that you can win if you don't have complete control about your device.

_hcuq 4y ago

I’m with you. I just moved to a new laptop. I haven’t installed ad blockers yet. But interestingly, I seem to have got out of the habit of using the obnoxious ad supported sites. Probably because they became too low quality. I hadn’t even realized my ad blockers weren’t installed until this thread.

aliqot 4y ago

Just go out and paint, good grief. If you want to minimize liability, get some wheatpaste and a bunch of posters. Graffiti is vandalism, and punishable for higher penalties than 'billposting' which is a $50 ticket. Same effect.

cortesoft 4y ago

I agree a lot of advertising is awful, but there is still some purpose in demonstrating your wares for potential customers. Suppose someone develops a product that you would love and would make your life better; how do you think you should find out about it?

eatsyourtacos 4y ago
>how do you think you should find out about it? Word of mouth, basically. Or searching for something that I need. What I hate most about advertising is it just shoves everything in people's faces and makes people think they need this and that. I find myself somewhat immune to ads (as much as one can be I guess), maybe I just programmed myself to ignore them growing up in early internet days. But it's so obvious the large effect that ads can have on most people. I find out about new and cool stuff generally from peoples comments on sites like here, reddit etc. If you have a good product, word of mouth is generally pretty damn good. Or coming across something from searches for a specific need. I just can't think about anything that I needed and found out from a standard advertisement in like.. any recent memory. Maybe I'm the outlier here.. obviously ads must work well enough but I hate them with a passion.
- cortesoft 4y ago
  Word of mouth requires someone to learn about a product initially. Also, searching for something you ‘need’ presupposes that you know there is a product that addresses a need. You would never find improvements to things that you didn’t realize could be improved.
  - eatsyourtacos 4y ago
    I'm not sure how you found this website then.. I don't recall seeing superbowl ads for Hackernews.
haswell 4y ago
I believe marketplaces could/would form, acting as aggregators for sellers to list and promote their goods, and for consumers to go shopping. In the 2020s, the web is nearing a level of criticality to a functioning society as the neighborhoods, towns, cities we access it from. Those physical properties are heavily regulated and with good reason.

mdavis6890 4y ago

"I will do everything that's in my power" Will you pay money for the content you consume?

xhrpost 4y ago
Sadly, even paying for content will often keep ads around. NYTimes and WSJ come to mind.
- bastardoperator 4y ago
  Youtube premium is ad free.
  - hoorible 4y ago
    For now.
  - squeaky-clean 4y ago
    I know this isn't technically youtube's fault, but pretty much every video I watch has a 30 second sponsor segment (Hello Fresh anyone?). There's Nebula for some creators and Patreon for others, but not everyone has an ad free way to watch them. Also Patreon can really begin to add up. And yeah there's that extension that can skip sponsored segments but that's blocking ads, not paying to avoid them.
    - j1elo 4y ago
      This is Youtube's fault, as they could (should) require video creators to identify the start and end timestamps of sponsor segments, and then their player should just skip those automatically for logged-in, paying subscribers.
      - barbazoo 4y ago
        Only if video creators get a cut, otherwise it won't work.

ruined 4y ago

defacing billboards is more fun and easier than you expect

disintegore 4y ago
There's a "prepare, Jesus is coming" ad next to my workplace. It honestly looks like a grift. That sort of thing is NOT normal at all where I live. I'm honestly tempted. Would be even more stupid to try after writing this post though.

webdood90 4y ago

disintegore 4y ago
They're not going away, point. If they get you acclimated to paying subscription fees they will then try to get you acclimated to paying subscription fees AND seeing ads. Have you watched a UFC pay-per-view event recently? We should regulate or straight up outlaw it just like any other unchecked negative externality. I don't care if it makes you money. I don't care if poisoning the waterways makes you money either.

dantyti 4y ago

There are people hacking billboards and posting their own subvertisements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvertising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvertising). A while ago, I came across this 20 min mini-doc about the movement in London: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zunPa9rGndg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zunPa9rGndg I think you might enjoy it

MuffinFlavored 4y ago

> I want them completely abolished. hmm... you do know this is the reason companies like Google + Meta make lots of money, right? I know you don't like ads but... a lot of people obviously are ok with them (otherwise businesses wouldn't find it worth it to advertise on those platforms, in hopes of capturing customers/increasing sales)

mplewis 4y ago
That’s their problem, not mine. Ads are a security risk to my devices.
- MuffinFlavored 4y ago
  I just don't think you're living in reality emotionally/mentally. I'm not saying you need to let advertisers tracking everything you do but to pretend that mobile phone advertising/web based advertising should cease to exist for everybody is a little extreme.
matkoniecz 4y ago
> hmm... you do know this is the reason companies like Google + Meta make lots of money, right? I am not sure why it would be reason for ads.

hackernewds 4y ago

Prepare for a world of ad-free paid subscriptions to everything Google Maps and Youtube. Everything free becomes Netflix, if every advertiser signs up.

naillo 4y ago

There's like 5% of people who actually use adblock too. Seems rude to go out of their way to just anger people like you.

alickz 4y ago

I purposely look away when YouTube starts playing ads. It's silly I know, but I get a tiny amount of satisfaction from not letting them advertise to me.

nfriedly 4y ago
With the combination of Firefox, Ublock Origin, and Sponsor Block on desktop, and Vanced on Android, I never see youtube ads. I find it very satisfying. (Sadly, google shut down Vanced, but you can still find it if you go looking and ReVanced is coming along nicely.)
anonporridge 4y ago
Until they require video to be allowed for eye tracking so they can stop playing and force you to look at the ad while it's playing. As in Black Mirror's 15 Million Merits.
YetAnotherNick 4y ago
I don't get the hate on Youtube TBH, when they provide youtube premium.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  Personally I'm torn between wanting to pay for a useful service and not wanting to reward YouTube for intentionally degrading their free service.
  - exitheone 4y ago
    I don't understand this stance. They intentionally degrade the service to make it profitable. Video serving is incredibly expensive and YouTube is no charity. They have a premium tier at a very competitive price so what's the issue?
    - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
      That's an interesting question. I had been under the impression that they were profitable even before they started doing that, but it would change my calculus if that were true.

Philip-J-Fry 4y ago

That is quite unrealistic though. You either need to pay up or put up with the consequences of wanting a free service, such as dealing with the never ending battle of blocking ads. I wish companies would offer the opportunity to pay what you want to remove ads. People with adblock are probably more likely to pay for it, because anyone not running ads is probably not bothered by them anyway. And people running adblock are unmonetisable. So a little bit of money is better than no money.

wpietri 4y ago
It's not particularly unrealistic. Advertising is popular on the web for historical reasons. Content delivery advanced much faster than payment, so for ~20 years ads were the easiest way for many sites to pay the bills. Nobody was sure what else to do. But that's no longer the case. Soft paywalls have been around for circa a decade, so selling subscriptions while letting your content self-market is viable. Content creators also have plenty of direct revenue options. Patreon is doing something like $2 billion/year in revenue for creators. Twitch became a huge platform without ads, just allowing direct cash transfers from fans to creators. And that's not even counting the ~$50 billion/year now spent on streaming and VOD in the US. On the other side of it, per-ad revenue has been falling for decades. I helped start a content site and keep in touch with people in that area. The reason so many ad-supported sites look like absolute shit is that to make any money, you keep needing to up the amount of ads you run, making them more and more annoying to overcome learned ad blindness. So advertising is slowly strangling itself, leading to lots of people using ad-blockers, and counter-ad-blocker technology becoming widespread. What sane person would start an ad-funded content business today? A world-wide web with little or no advertising is not only plausible, it looks like that's where we're headed.
albrewer 4y ago
The main problem is I don't have the ability to only pay for the content I consume.
disintegore 4y ago
Who says I want a free service? A lot of the time there is no paid tier.

wpietri 4y ago

For sure. I don't like the experience. I don't like the ethos of "let's manipulate people so we can fill our pockets." I hate how they distort markets. And I absolutely despise that we waste hundreds of billions of dollars per year in the US alone on them. Advertising is an arms race, one that we could end, turning all that brainpower to something that actually helps people.