5 ms·

> So by installing adblockers and shill-skipping scripts I simply vote for my interests. By not watching the video you would be voting for your interests. By

> So by installing adblockers and shill-skipping scripts I simply vote for my interests. By not watching the video you would be voting for your interests. By watching the video with adblock and etc. you are just "stealing" content and trying to excuse yourself for it by wishing it was something it isn't. The videos aren't put out for free, they are put out with a contract with Youtube to advertise on it. Youtube pays to host and you split the ad revenue when the creator is paid. Your hypothetical successful "hobbiest for the sake of fun" would either not enter the partner program and let Youtube keep all of the ad revenue they will run anyway, or enter the partner program and disable monetization and abuse Youtube for content hosting without delivering anything back to them. Obviously, neither of these happens in practice and if the latter started becoming common the ability to do it would be taken away or other penalties like making the creator pay to host imposed. "There's no such thing as a free lunch."

mikae1 3y ago
> By watching the video with adblock and etc. you are just "stealing" content Would you also argue that a TV viewer that goes to the bathroom or the refrigerator in the commercial breaks steals content? Everyone avoids ads if they know how to.
- Riverheart 3y ago
  This example is comparing apples to oranges. We’re already paying for cable, we just watch ads because because there’s only one or two cable companies in town and they both show ads. If we could pay more to show no ads we would but it’s not an option. Netflix was letting us live the dream before every content producer decided to build their own streaming competitor, crippling their catalogue. If you’re donating to GP skip their ads.
  - CapsAdmin 3y ago
    You could argue that you're stealing their extra revenue though. The "problem" (I'm in favor of skipping ads) is that a business has setup a way to make money based on some theoretical consumer model, and they would prefer if the consumer behaves like their model. However when consumers are easily able to control the product they will avoid anything that is unpleasant and only consume the thing that they actually want.
    - Riverheart 3y ago
      As long as you’re paying more than they’re making in ads per person I think it’s fine but there’s nothing saying you can’t consume ads as well. Ideally the producer sets the donation price and provides a way to disable ads if you’re donating. Extra revenue can come from higher pledges and merch but isn’t guaranteed.
- ec109685 3y ago
  YouTube premium lets you avoid most ads without having to frequently go to the bathroom or install extra software.
  - rand0mx1 3y ago
    sponsorship and unnecessarily long duration videos will remain same as earlier.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    Is "installing extra software" a real cost?
  - lobocinza 3y ago
    True but Youtube UX sucks. I tried it but I prefer my yt-dlp + vlc + syncthing system which just happens to be free.
- AkBKukU 3y ago
  That is different from the intentional act of installing an adblock or the Youtube specific sponsor blocker. You must decide to do that, not happen to walk out of the room while it is on. My problem is with the above post is the lack of moral accountability of the *blockers by acting like they are doing it for some superior reason when it is self serving.
  - branon 3y ago
    I can also decide to walk out of the room, check my phone, ignore the ads, etc The problem with this part of your argument is that it ignores free will, and conflates morals with ethics. Blocking ads is a moral imperative for me, because I decide which programming I watch. The self-serving reasoning and the superior logical reasoning are one and the same. Ethically, it might also be wrong to do. But not for the reasons you describe here.
    - AkBKukU 3y ago
      I'm less interested in the semantic differences between "morals" and "ethics", I like old computers, not philosophy. If you are taking something out of a system while intentionally preventing contributing back to it, you know you are having a negative impact. I would prefer someone either make their stand by boycotting something they disagree with entirely or admit that it has value and pay with time for ads or directly. But acting like you disagree with the material while still engaging with it and depriving the creator is immature and selfish.
      - celdon25 3y ago
        Then find another platform that doesn't artificially incentivize longer videos filled with crap. And I'm not even talking about the advertising, which is easy to skip. I'm talking about the fact that videos don't get to the point, lowering the signal-to-noise ratio. It is a cultural abomination. I stopped trusting Youtube as soon as they added the 10 minute rule for monetization. That was quite awhile ago. You didn't see this coming and now you're blaming the viewers that are tired of having their time wasted and faith in humanity eroded from this crap. Don't make it our problem, we've dealt with it enough already.
Fnoord 3y ago
First of all, no, this word stealing does not mean what you think it does. Because in World Wide Web, the client decides what they do and do not see; not the server. I get it, you hate the World Wide Web because it doesn't give you the authority of power to demand such, but... alas, this is the reality you must deal with. And besides, even those who adblock and sponsorblock are still valuable for YouTube. Why? Profiling. > Your hypothetical successful "hobbiest for the sake of fun" would either not enter the partner program and let Youtube keep all of the ad revenue they will run anyway, or enter the partner program and disable monetization and abuse Youtube for content hosting without delivering anything back to them. Well, that is only because YouTube stopped paying out the small fish. You know, the ones which got YouTube popular to begin with? No longer needed, cause network effect 101 applies and the psychopath executive who got paid hundreds of dollars per hour coming up with schemes to increase shareholder value figured that out at some point, probably via 'market research'. Now, I watch (more often: listen while doing other stuff) some 'creators' (the word alone is cringe, like 'influencer' (marketeer) and 'crypto' ('cryptocurrency' or 'ponzi scheme')). Their content is a lot of fluff, they don't have much substance, and the content can easily be better summarized. If anything, they're leaching valuable time. But I do get it! Its 'entertainment'. That's what 'creators' are: 'entertainers'. And also, liars and manipulators. Take clickbait titles, for example. And I am totally fine with entertainment moving to paywalls. These probably contain more substance and less fluff. As much as I hated to pay for say Windows (more to do with... Windows, and Microsoft) or say CDs and vinyl, it is a more honest model than the advertising industry or the subscription shenanigans. And paying for something, makes it feel more special, so it better have some valuable content. Like and subscribe my post if you enjoyed it. Imagine people writing such on forums under every post. You'd easily see what an annoying mess it would become. That's the gist of YouTube these days, probably TikTok as well (with these dumb challenges which are outright dangerous, and the 'creators' are getting away with such behavior). Another example of advertising gone insane: Google TV. When my kids turn on the TV, they see the apps and yes it might be locked the content. But Google advertises on the home screen, including with content not viable for my children. Its the same when I open the app for the Dutch public broadcasting content (the stuff I pay for via tax, akin to BBC). I immediately get suggestions for content. Why? I know what I want to watch: NOTHING. I'm trying to get to my kids profile to watch one of the series they always watch at this time of the day, after dinner. Advertising is the cancer of the internet. It even started that way (it was Sun or DEC spamming Usenet). And it can be done in a non-obtrusive way. Look at the advertising on this website, how it works. It never bothered me. Because it isn't all shit and evil, just a lot of it is.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Dylan16807 3y ago
> By not watching the video you would be voting for your interests. By watching the video with adblock and etc. you are just "stealing" content and trying to excuse yourself for it by wishing it was something it isn't. I'm going to ignore the moralizing for the moment. Either it works as a vote, or it doesn't. Your initial post about needing to shift monetization strategies clearly describes it working as a vote. Right?
mathfailure 3y ago
Some of professional videos contain some valuable bits that I am after. And I simply don't let anyone else decide for me what I should and shouldn't watch. > you are just "stealing" content and trying to excuse yourself for it by wishing it was something it isn't. > The videos aren't put out for free I don't even try to excuse myself if you call it 'stealing', instead I'll just agree, since from your point of view - me watching your videos with adblockers enabled basically makes me a thief of your potential profits (which isn't a direct loss, but a somewhat comparable thing). Thing is (which many people that upvoted my previous post would probably disagree with) - I am not nice at all: I don't care about your profits. I don't owe you anything. You want money for your videos? You are free to sell them! Don't upload them into public! Oh, but you did? Well, I might watch them for free now with all my adblockers (if, I wish so), because that's now for me to decide. I might rewind your videos if I get bored or annoyed by some parts. And I don't care what you think about it. I just wanted to explain my position that your choices affect you and my choices affect me: you can't command me and I can't command you. You chose to become a professional youtuber - go you! I chose to be a pirate - yarrr! I might watch your content for free! p.s.: another thought that entertains me: as you might have not noticed - you didn't pay me for reading my comment. Does this make you a hypocrite? [That's a joke, re-read my comments for free as many times as you like, I'm a hobbyist poster!]
- signatoremo 3y ago
  > I chose to be a pirate - yarrr! I might watch your content for free! At least you are honest that you are stealing the content. And you don’t care what the creators think about it. Respected! > You want money for your videos? You are free to sell them! Don't upload them into public! Can anything that are public be taken away? Can I take your backpack if you leave it next to you in public? How do I know what your intention is if you don’t hold it? > another thought that entertains me: as you might have not noticed - you didn't pay me for reading my comment. I doubt you can comment on HN with an ad. Unless you do product placement, perhaps being a shill. Are you? (I’m only joking of course)
  - mathfailure 3y ago
    If you'd steal a copy of my backpack - I wouldn't mind at all.
lobocinza 3y ago
If you put something online you have to accept it will eventually be public and free. At the end of the day moralism changes nothing.
cultureswitch 3y ago
Then again, either I'm in control of what I see and hear on my screen or I live in a totalitarian society. There's no middle ground here.
account42 3y ago
YouTube puts out the video files without ads without requirement payments before providing them. If you have a problem with that, don't host on youtube. Don't complain when people do things you don't like on their own computer. > By not watching the video you would be voting for your interests. I don't browse YouTube and only watch anything from there when it is either linked in a community I participate in or spammed in search results. I am not going to exclude myself from discussion or submit myself to psychological manipulation to take part in it. If you don't want people watching your shit for free then be hones about it and put a price tag on it. And for the second case I usually don't want a video in the first place but only one small bit of information which is where TFA comes in. > By watching the video with adblock and etc. you are just "stealing" content and trying to excuse yourself for it by wishing it was something it isn't. Seethe harder. By engaging in advertising-based business models you are making the world a worse place. > Your hypothetical successful "hobbiest for the sake of fun" would either not enter the partner program and let Youtube keep all of the ad revenue they will run anyway, or enter the partner program and disable monetization and abuse Youtube for content hosting without delivering anything back to them. Ideally they wouln't hose on YouTube at all but if they must (which they might for visibility) then choosing the second option is the morally right thing to do. And in case you still don't get it, read this quote: > People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you. > You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity. > Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head. > You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs. – Banksy

mikae1 3y ago

> By watching the video with adblock and etc. you are just "stealing" content Would you also argue that a TV viewer that goes to the bathroom or the refrigerator in the commercial breaks steals content? Everyone avoids ads if they know how to.

Riverheart 3y ago
This example is comparing apples to oranges. We’re already paying for cable, we just watch ads because because there’s only one or two cable companies in town and they both show ads. If we could pay more to show no ads we would but it’s not an option. Netflix was letting us live the dream before every content producer decided to build their own streaming competitor, crippling their catalogue. If you’re donating to GP skip their ads.
- CapsAdmin 3y ago
  You could argue that you're stealing their extra revenue though. The "problem" (I'm in favor of skipping ads) is that a business has setup a way to make money based on some theoretical consumer model, and they would prefer if the consumer behaves like their model. However when consumers are easily able to control the product they will avoid anything that is unpleasant and only consume the thing that they actually want.
  - Riverheart 3y ago
    As long as you’re paying more than they’re making in ads per person I think it’s fine but there’s nothing saying you can’t consume ads as well. Ideally the producer sets the donation price and provides a way to disable ads if you’re donating. Extra revenue can come from higher pledges and merch but isn’t guaranteed.
ec109685 3y ago
YouTube premium lets you avoid most ads without having to frequently go to the bathroom or install extra software.
- rand0mx1 3y ago
  sponsorship and unnecessarily long duration videos will remain same as earlier.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  Is "installing extra software" a real cost?
- lobocinza 3y ago
  True but Youtube UX sucks. I tried it but I prefer my yt-dlp + vlc + syncthing system which just happens to be free.
AkBKukU 3y ago
That is different from the intentional act of installing an adblock or the Youtube specific sponsor blocker. You must decide to do that, not happen to walk out of the room while it is on. My problem is with the above post is the lack of moral accountability of the *blockers by acting like they are doing it for some superior reason when it is self serving.
- branon 3y ago
  I can also decide to walk out of the room, check my phone, ignore the ads, etc The problem with this part of your argument is that it ignores free will, and conflates morals with ethics. Blocking ads is a moral imperative for me, because I decide which programming I watch. The self-serving reasoning and the superior logical reasoning are one and the same. Ethically, it might also be wrong to do. But not for the reasons you describe here.
  - AkBKukU 3y ago
    I'm less interested in the semantic differences between "morals" and "ethics", I like old computers, not philosophy. If you are taking something out of a system while intentionally preventing contributing back to it, you know you are having a negative impact. I would prefer someone either make their stand by boycotting something they disagree with entirely or admit that it has value and pay with time for ads or directly. But acting like you disagree with the material while still engaging with it and depriving the creator is immature and selfish.
    - celdon25 3y ago
      Then find another platform that doesn't artificially incentivize longer videos filled with crap. And I'm not even talking about the advertising, which is easy to skip. I'm talking about the fact that videos don't get to the point, lowering the signal-to-noise ratio. It is a cultural abomination. I stopped trusting Youtube as soon as they added the 10 minute rule for monetization. That was quite awhile ago. You didn't see this coming and now you're blaming the viewers that are tired of having their time wasted and faith in humanity eroded from this crap. Don't make it our problem, we've dealt with it enough already.

Fnoord 3y ago

First of all, no, this word stealing does not mean what you think it does. Because in World Wide Web, the client decides what they do and do not see; not the server. I get it, you hate the World Wide Web because it doesn't give you the authority of power to demand such, but... alas, this is the reality you must deal with. And besides, even those who adblock and sponsorblock are still valuable for YouTube. Why? Profiling. > Your hypothetical successful "hobbiest for the sake of fun" would either not enter the partner program and let Youtube keep all of the ad revenue they will run anyway, or enter the partner program and disable monetization and abuse Youtube for content hosting without delivering anything back to them. Well, that is only because YouTube stopped paying out the small fish. You know, the ones which got YouTube popular to begin with? No longer needed, cause network effect 101 applies and the psychopath executive who got paid hundreds of dollars per hour coming up with schemes to increase shareholder value figured that out at some point, probably via 'market research'. Now, I watch (more often: listen while doing other stuff) some 'creators' (the word alone is cringe, like 'influencer' (marketeer) and 'crypto' ('cryptocurrency' or 'ponzi scheme')). Their content is a lot of fluff, they don't have much substance, and the content can easily be better summarized. If anything, they're leaching valuable time. But I do get it! Its 'entertainment'. That's what 'creators' are: 'entertainers'. And also, liars and manipulators. Take clickbait titles, for example. And I am totally fine with entertainment moving to paywalls. These probably contain more substance and less fluff. As much as I hated to pay for say Windows (more to do with... Windows, and Microsoft) or say CDs and vinyl, it is a more honest model than the advertising industry or the subscription shenanigans. And paying for something, makes it feel more special, so it better have some valuable content. Like and subscribe my post if you enjoyed it. Imagine people writing such on forums under every post. You'd easily see what an annoying mess it would become. That's the gist of YouTube these days, probably TikTok as well (with these dumb challenges which are outright dangerous, and the 'creators' are getting away with such behavior). Another example of advertising gone insane: Google TV. When my kids turn on the TV, they see the apps and yes it might be locked the content. But Google advertises on the home screen, including with content not viable for my children. Its the same when I open the app for the Dutch public broadcasting content (the stuff I pay for via tax, akin to BBC). I immediately get suggestions for content. Why? I know what I want to watch: NOTHING. I'm trying to get to my kids profile to watch one of the series they always watch at this time of the day, after dinner. Advertising is the cancer of the internet. It even started that way (it was Sun or DEC spamming Usenet). And it can be done in a non-obtrusive way. Look at the advertising on this website, how it works. It never bothered me. Because it isn't all shit and evil, just a lot of it is.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Dylan16807 3y ago

> By not watching the video you would be voting for your interests. By watching the video with adblock and etc. you are just "stealing" content and trying to excuse yourself for it by wishing it was something it isn't. I'm going to ignore the moralizing for the moment. Either it works as a vote, or it doesn't. Your initial post about needing to shift monetization strategies clearly describes it working as a vote. Right?

mathfailure 3y ago

Some of professional videos contain some valuable bits that I am after. And I simply don't let anyone else decide for me what I should and shouldn't watch. > you are just "stealing" content and trying to excuse yourself for it by wishing it was something it isn't. > The videos aren't put out for free I don't even try to excuse myself if you call it 'stealing', instead I'll just agree, since from your point of view - me watching your videos with adblockers enabled basically makes me a thief of your potential profits (which isn't a direct loss, but a somewhat comparable thing). Thing is (which many people that upvoted my previous post would probably disagree with) - I am not nice at all: I don't care about your profits. I don't owe you anything. You want money for your videos? You are free to sell them! Don't upload them into public! Oh, but you did? Well, I might watch them for free now with all my adblockers (if, I wish so), because that's now for me to decide. I might rewind your videos if I get bored or annoyed by some parts. And I don't care what you think about it. I just wanted to explain my position that your choices affect you and my choices affect me: you can't command me and I can't command you. You chose to become a professional youtuber - go you! I chose to be a pirate - yarrr! I might watch your content for free! p.s.: another thought that entertains me: as you might have not noticed - you didn't pay me for reading my comment. Does this make you a hypocrite? [That's a joke, re-read my comments for free as many times as you like, I'm a hobbyist poster!]

signatoremo 3y ago
> I chose to be a pirate - yarrr! I might watch your content for free! At least you are honest that you are stealing the content. And you don’t care what the creators think about it. Respected! > You want money for your videos? You are free to sell them! Don't upload them into public! Can anything that are public be taken away? Can I take your backpack if you leave it next to you in public? How do I know what your intention is if you don’t hold it? > another thought that entertains me: as you might have not noticed - you didn't pay me for reading my comment. I doubt you can comment on HN with an ad. Unless you do product placement, perhaps being a shill. Are you? (I’m only joking of course)
- mathfailure 3y ago
  If you'd steal a copy of my backpack - I wouldn't mind at all.

lobocinza 3y ago

If you put something online you have to accept it will eventually be public and free. At the end of the day moralism changes nothing.

cultureswitch 3y ago

Then again, either I'm in control of what I see and hear on my screen or I live in a totalitarian society. There's no middle ground here.

account42 3y ago

YouTube puts out the video files without ads without requirement payments before providing them. If you have a problem with that, don't host on youtube. Don't complain when people do things you don't like on their own computer. > By not watching the video you would be voting for your interests. I don't browse YouTube and only watch anything from there when it is either linked in a community I participate in or spammed in search results. I am not going to exclude myself from discussion or submit myself to psychological manipulation to take part in it. If you don't want people watching your shit for free then be hones about it and put a price tag on it. And for the second case I usually don't want a video in the first place but only one small bit of information which is where TFA comes in. > By watching the video with adblock and etc. you are just "stealing" content and trying to excuse yourself for it by wishing it was something it isn't. Seethe harder. By engaging in advertising-based business models you are making the world a worse place. > Your hypothetical successful "hobbiest for the sake of fun" would either not enter the partner program and let Youtube keep all of the ad revenue they will run anyway, or enter the partner program and disable monetization and abuse Youtube for content hosting without delivering anything back to them. Ideally they wouln't hose on YouTube at all but if they must (which they might for visibility) then choosing the second option is the morally right thing to do. And in case you still don't get it, read this quote: > People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you. > You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity. > Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head. > You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs. – Banksy