4 ms·

I'd argue the consent is you clicking on the video to watch it. Sponsor spots are the norm, especially for large well-known channels. The fee is charged to use

I'd argue the consent is you clicking on the video to watch it. Sponsor spots are the norm, especially for large well-known channels. The fee is charged to users if I understand it correctly? So essentially YouTube premium? That can work, but not everyone can afford to spend money on a subscription and if you block access to the platform it's arguably you will be able to grow to the size and diversity YouTube has. Floatplane is an alternative where you can directly subscribe to creators but that's not cheap if you watch a wide variety.

rpastuszak 3y ago
> Sponsor spots are the norm It is the norm, but whether the norm is good is a different question. If you speak with the creators, big or small (say a single person vs. a huge publisher), the would very much prefer not to rely on ads or sponsorships. They're forced to do so. Speaking from personal experience working with publishers and creators here. Ironically, the biggest obstacle for me pushing the alternatives were the publishers' sales teams: people with decent salaries, with mortgages to pay, whose life depended on ads or sponsorships. Even the adtech companies I worked with were happy to pay for my work, esp. during the cookiegeddon times (2019). > I'd argue the consent is you clicking on the video to watch it. Fair argument but in practice, given the amount of UX work done so I do watch the sponsored content, it takes a toll on you. The only solution would be to stop using YT at all.
- Entinel 3y ago
  What UX work goes into making sure you watch sponsored content? Every content creator I know uses chapters to mark where sponsored content is, Youtube has a flag at the beginning of the video to note that this video contains sponsored content. I'd argue they do a lot of UX work to make sure you know this video has a sponsor in it.
  - rpastuszak 3y ago
    A toggle allowing me not to see the videos with sponsored content would be nice and a comparable amount of work, probably less.
    - Entinel 3y ago
      Saying we should have an off switch is different than saying there is tons of UX work going into making you watch these videos. Especially since there is no incentive on Youtube's part to do this because they don't get a content of sponsored revenue. You are moving goal post.
      - rpastuszak 3y ago
        I think you’re right, I conflated two issues I was talking about earlier: the attention cost of avoiding this model in general and the attention cost of ignoring sponsored content on YT. Thanks for pointing that out.
Entinel 3y ago
Not only that, Youtube specifically notes that a video has sponsored content when you click the video.
- rpastuszak 3y ago
  That doesn’t work when you listen to videos instead of watching them, which is fairly common nowadays, not just with podcasts.

rpastuszak 3y ago

> Sponsor spots are the norm It is the norm, but whether the norm is good is a different question. If you speak with the creators, big or small (say a single person vs. a huge publisher), the would very much prefer not to rely on ads or sponsorships. They're forced to do so. Speaking from personal experience working with publishers and creators here. Ironically, the biggest obstacle for me pushing the alternatives were the publishers' sales teams: people with decent salaries, with mortgages to pay, whose life depended on ads or sponsorships. Even the adtech companies I worked with were happy to pay for my work, esp. during the cookiegeddon times (2019). > I'd argue the consent is you clicking on the video to watch it. Fair argument but in practice, given the amount of UX work done so I do watch the sponsored content, it takes a toll on you. The only solution would be to stop using YT at all.

Entinel 3y ago
What UX work goes into making sure you watch sponsored content? Every content creator I know uses chapters to mark where sponsored content is, Youtube has a flag at the beginning of the video to note that this video contains sponsored content. I'd argue they do a lot of UX work to make sure you know this video has a sponsor in it.
- rpastuszak 3y ago
  A toggle allowing me not to see the videos with sponsored content would be nice and a comparable amount of work, probably less.
  - Entinel 3y ago
    Saying we should have an off switch is different than saying there is tons of UX work going into making you watch these videos. Especially since there is no incentive on Youtube's part to do this because they don't get a content of sponsored revenue. You are moving goal post.
    - rpastuszak 3y ago
      I think you’re right, I conflated two issues I was talking about earlier: the attention cost of avoiding this model in general and the attention cost of ignoring sponsored content on YT. Thanks for pointing that out.

Entinel 3y ago

Not only that, Youtube specifically notes that a video has sponsored content when you click the video.

rpastuszak 3y ago
That doesn’t work when you listen to videos instead of watching them, which is fairly common nowadays, not just with podcasts.