12 ms·

I don't make any excuses-- if the content is handed to me for free, I take it. They also hand me ads for free but I don't care for those, thanks. It's really a

I don't make any excuses-- if the content is handed to me for free, I take it. They also hand me ads for free but I don't care for those, thanks. It's really a strange concept that we're somehow cheating someone for not looking at an ad. And yet somehow it wouldn't be cheating if we poured over every ad but never bought anything in them.

pb7 3y ago
But you are cheating someone. The creators of the videos you're watching don't get anything when you block the ads. That means you've cheated them of money, on top of cheating the company of money. It's not handed to you for free, there's an implicit condition that you watch the content and the ads that are served with it. Too many people don't do that and that's why YouTube is now testing blocking ad-blockers. You reap what you sow.
- krapp 3y ago
  >It's not handed to you for free, there's an implicit condition that you watch the content and the ads that are served with it. No, there isn't. The web was designed from the beginning to allow the end user to have control over what content is and is not displayed. It isn't television, radio or magazines, the platform owner doesn't have complete control over the layout and display of the content they serve. There is no condition, implicit or otherwise, that the end user will pretend they're consuming an old media product just because web platforms can't move beyond old media models of revenue. None of which require viewing, reading or listening to the ads, either. Ads have always been a gentleman's agreement. >Too many people don't do that and that's why YouTube is now testing blocking ad-blockers. You reap what you sow. No, Youtube is going to reap what it sowed, because no one is going to turn off their ad blockers. If their platform was worth paying for, everyone would have moved to the paid tier by now. Google bought a free video service and tried and failed to monetize it to the point of nearly ruining it for content creators with their puritanical rules, arbitrary demonitization, opaque to nonexistent support and restrictive algorithm, but no matter how much they squeeze the turnip, it won't bleed enough for them. That's not our problem. We'll gladly support content creators directly through Patreon or other means, but Google can get fucked.
  - pb7 3y ago
    Which brings us right back to the article: don't be surprised when your ad-blocker stops working. Serving high bitrate video is not cheap and YouTube is notoriously breaking even at best. Any alternative is going to be even less efficient and more expensive due to the lack of economies of scale that Google has. If that's what you want so long as it doesn't have Google's name in the corner, so be it, that's understandable. >If their platform was worth paying for, everyone would have moved to the paid tier by now. I disagree. I think people are inherently cheap and will exhaust other options of getting the same content for free first. We shall see I guess.
    - krapp 3y ago
      > don't be surprised when your ad-blocker stops working Yes, it's an arms race, always has been. But it's more expensive for them to break the ad blockers than it will be for the ad blockers to inevitably update, so if it's a war of attrition, they will still inevitably lose. The problem isn't that people aren't watching the ads, the problem is Google's business model doesn't work, not for Google, not for the consumer and certainly not for content creators, and the only solution they can come up with is trying to force people to watch ads - which never works. >Any alternative is going to be even less efficient and more expensive due to the lack of economies of scale that Google has. I mean, plenty of alternatives already exist, and content creators are starting to lead viewers to those alternatives, because of Youtube's arbitrary censorship and demonetization. Every social media platform hosts video now. There are decentralized platforms like Peertube. We're way past the point where "streaming video" is a hard problem that only Google-scale infrastructure can solve. They're going to have to innovate or die like any other company, and disabuse themselves of the illusion that the web is a gravy train where the rules of supply and demand don't apply. This isn't innovation, this is desperation.
      - pb7 3y ago
        Which alternatives host and stream up to 4K@60 HDR videos for free/ads only?
- pulvinar 3y ago
  If I were to allow all ads but make it a rule to never actually watch them or heaven forbid, buy anything in them, would that be ok? I'm sure it would be ok with the content provider, because then they get their money and that's all that counts. If I can't watch it without ads, I simply won't watch it. And I certainly won't pay for it if it still includes ads.
  - pb7 3y ago
    >If I were to allow all ads but make it a rule to never actually watch them or heaven forbid, buy anything in them, would that be ok? Yes, you would be holding up your end of the agreement. >If I can't watch it without ads, I simply won't watch it. And I certainly won't pay for it if it still includes ads. Buy YouTube Premium and you won't get any ads and the content creators you watch will get more money than if an ad had played instead. Win-win.
    - pulvinar 3y ago
      I don't remember ever seeing an agreement. I'm not a subscriber. But it's interesting that you'd have no problem with me never buying anything in the ads. What's the purpose of them again?
      - naikrovek 3y ago
        the purpose of an advertisement is to give advertisement companies something to sell to product makers, and to give product makers something to have media companies put in front of viewers in exchange for money. it's a whole economy unto itself. money changing hands, jobs, all of it. almost no one buys something because they saw an ad for it.
      - judge2020 3y ago
        Your use of the service is governed by the terms[0], which say "You are not allowed to:... alter, modify or otherwise use any part of the Service or any Content...". Even if you've never signed up for a Google account, it's implicit that YouTube doesn't actually serve anything for free, every video view and page load is a transaction for "youtube serves me content and I pay for it by having screen real estate taken up by ads". They do not have to serve the content if they think you aren't upholding your end of the bargain, which is this ad blocker block. 0: https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#c3e2907ca8 https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#c3e2907ca8
- kingrazor 3y ago
  This is the same argument people make about piracy. About potential revenue. The fact of the matter is, if I couldn't watch the video without either watching ads or paying for premium, I wouldn't watch it at all. So, the creator gets no money either way. Same thing when I pirate software or a movie or a game. I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so the amount of money the creator gets is the same, zero.
  - pb7 3y ago
    So don't watch it then. Serving video is not cheap and you're increasing costs for everyone else. I don't get to jump the fence at a music festival just because I wouldn't have gone if I had to pay.
    - naikrovek 3y ago
      yep. there's a word for a creature that consumes without contributing anything back, making things harder for everyone else: "parasite."
    - kingrazor 3y ago
      Alphabet has plenty of money. So long as I'm capable of watching Youtube for free with adblock on, I will continue to do so and feel no guilt.
      - pb7 3y ago
        [flagged]
        brewdad 3y ago
        I don’t see the problem here. YouTubers can make content or not. Either way they are not entitled to my money.
        pb7 3y ago
        You're not entitled to their content either but you force yourself to it anyway.
- jimbob45 3y ago
  The videos are usually sponsored with the ads pushed by the streamer themselves. They’re getting paid just fine. YouTube freely steals my data so they’re doing just fine. I’m just being gaslit into thinking I’m a thief.
  - pb7 3y ago
    How does YouTube steal your data? What do they do with it?
    - dendriti 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - Mindwipe 3y ago
        It's called a rhetorical question.
    - mike741 3y ago
      They track and sell it to undisclosed 3rd parties
      - pb7 3y ago
        Citation needed. No they don't.
        mike741 3y ago
        Of course they do. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/google-says-it-doesnt-sell-your-data-heres-how-company-shares-monetizes-and https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/google-says-it-doesnt-... https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en-US https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en-US > Parties with whom information may be disclosed: Service providers, trusted businesses or persons that process information on Google’s behalf
  - acdha 3y ago
- xigoi 3y ago
  The creators wouldn't get anything either if I didn't block the ads, because I don't click on ads.
  - Mindwipe 3y ago
    That's not how any of this works.
  - l0ngyap 3y ago
    [flagged]
- dendriti 3y ago
  Anti-piracy folks love to use bullshit loaded terms (such as "piracy" itself) to justify some megacorporation taking over shit on my computer. Adblocking is now "cheating"?`
  - acdha 3y ago
    Speaking of loaded terms, what are they “taking over” by showing an ad along with the content? If you truly believed they posed the risk that incorrect terminology implies, why on earth would you continue using the site and giving them more opportunities to do so?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

pb7 3y ago

But you are cheating someone. The creators of the videos you're watching don't get anything when you block the ads. That means you've cheated them of money, on top of cheating the company of money. It's not handed to you for free, there's an implicit condition that you watch the content and the ads that are served with it. Too many people don't do that and that's why YouTube is now testing blocking ad-blockers. You reap what you sow.

krapp 3y ago
>It's not handed to you for free, there's an implicit condition that you watch the content and the ads that are served with it. No, there isn't. The web was designed from the beginning to allow the end user to have control over what content is and is not displayed. It isn't television, radio or magazines, the platform owner doesn't have complete control over the layout and display of the content they serve. There is no condition, implicit or otherwise, that the end user will pretend they're consuming an old media product just because web platforms can't move beyond old media models of revenue. None of which require viewing, reading or listening to the ads, either. Ads have always been a gentleman's agreement. >Too many people don't do that and that's why YouTube is now testing blocking ad-blockers. You reap what you sow. No, Youtube is going to reap what it sowed, because no one is going to turn off their ad blockers. If their platform was worth paying for, everyone would have moved to the paid tier by now. Google bought a free video service and tried and failed to monetize it to the point of nearly ruining it for content creators with their puritanical rules, arbitrary demonitization, opaque to nonexistent support and restrictive algorithm, but no matter how much they squeeze the turnip, it won't bleed enough for them. That's not our problem. We'll gladly support content creators directly through Patreon or other means, but Google can get fucked.
- pb7 3y ago
  Which brings us right back to the article: don't be surprised when your ad-blocker stops working. Serving high bitrate video is not cheap and YouTube is notoriously breaking even at best. Any alternative is going to be even less efficient and more expensive due to the lack of economies of scale that Google has. If that's what you want so long as it doesn't have Google's name in the corner, so be it, that's understandable. >If their platform was worth paying for, everyone would have moved to the paid tier by now. I disagree. I think people are inherently cheap and will exhaust other options of getting the same content for free first. We shall see I guess.
  - krapp 3y ago
    > don't be surprised when your ad-blocker stops working Yes, it's an arms race, always has been. But it's more expensive for them to break the ad blockers than it will be for the ad blockers to inevitably update, so if it's a war of attrition, they will still inevitably lose. The problem isn't that people aren't watching the ads, the problem is Google's business model doesn't work, not for Google, not for the consumer and certainly not for content creators, and the only solution they can come up with is trying to force people to watch ads - which never works. >Any alternative is going to be even less efficient and more expensive due to the lack of economies of scale that Google has. I mean, plenty of alternatives already exist, and content creators are starting to lead viewers to those alternatives, because of Youtube's arbitrary censorship and demonetization. Every social media platform hosts video now. There are decentralized platforms like Peertube. We're way past the point where "streaming video" is a hard problem that only Google-scale infrastructure can solve. They're going to have to innovate or die like any other company, and disabuse themselves of the illusion that the web is a gravy train where the rules of supply and demand don't apply. This isn't innovation, this is desperation.
    - pb7 3y ago
      Which alternatives host and stream up to 4K@60 HDR videos for free/ads only?
pulvinar 3y ago
If I were to allow all ads but make it a rule to never actually watch them or heaven forbid, buy anything in them, would that be ok? I'm sure it would be ok with the content provider, because then they get their money and that's all that counts. If I can't watch it without ads, I simply won't watch it. And I certainly won't pay for it if it still includes ads.
- pb7 3y ago
  >If I were to allow all ads but make it a rule to never actually watch them or heaven forbid, buy anything in them, would that be ok? Yes, you would be holding up your end of the agreement. >If I can't watch it without ads, I simply won't watch it. And I certainly won't pay for it if it still includes ads. Buy YouTube Premium and you won't get any ads and the content creators you watch will get more money than if an ad had played instead. Win-win.
  - pulvinar 3y ago
    I don't remember ever seeing an agreement. I'm not a subscriber. But it's interesting that you'd have no problem with me never buying anything in the ads. What's the purpose of them again?
    - naikrovek 3y ago
      the purpose of an advertisement is to give advertisement companies something to sell to product makers, and to give product makers something to have media companies put in front of viewers in exchange for money. it's a whole economy unto itself. money changing hands, jobs, all of it. almost no one buys something because they saw an ad for it.
    - judge2020 3y ago
      Your use of the service is governed by the terms[0], which say "You are not allowed to:... alter, modify or otherwise use any part of the Service or any Content...". Even if you've never signed up for a Google account, it's implicit that YouTube doesn't actually serve anything for free, every video view and page load is a transaction for "youtube serves me content and I pay for it by having screen real estate taken up by ads". They do not have to serve the content if they think you aren't upholding your end of the bargain, which is this ad blocker block. 0: https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#c3e2907ca8 https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#c3e2907ca8
kingrazor 3y ago
This is the same argument people make about piracy. About potential revenue. The fact of the matter is, if I couldn't watch the video without either watching ads or paying for premium, I wouldn't watch it at all. So, the creator gets no money either way. Same thing when I pirate software or a movie or a game. I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so the amount of money the creator gets is the same, zero.
- pb7 3y ago
  So don't watch it then. Serving video is not cheap and you're increasing costs for everyone else. I don't get to jump the fence at a music festival just because I wouldn't have gone if I had to pay.
  - naikrovek 3y ago
    yep. there's a word for a creature that consumes without contributing anything back, making things harder for everyone else: "parasite."
  - kingrazor 3y ago
    Alphabet has plenty of money. So long as I'm capable of watching Youtube for free with adblock on, I will continue to do so and feel no guilt.
    - pb7 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - brewdad 3y ago
        I don’t see the problem here. YouTubers can make content or not. Either way they are not entitled to my money.
        pb7 3y ago
        You're not entitled to their content either but you force yourself to it anyway.
jimbob45 3y ago
The videos are usually sponsored with the ads pushed by the streamer themselves. They’re getting paid just fine. YouTube freely steals my data so they’re doing just fine. I’m just being gaslit into thinking I’m a thief.
- pb7 3y ago
  How does YouTube steal your data? What do they do with it?
  - dendriti 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - Mindwipe 3y ago
      It's called a rhetorical question.
  - mike741 3y ago
    They track and sell it to undisclosed 3rd parties
    - pb7 3y ago
      Citation needed. No they don't.
      - mike741 3y ago
        Of course they do. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/google-says-it-doesnt-sell-your-data-heres-how-company-shares-monetizes-and https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/google-says-it-doesnt-... https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en-US https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en-US > Parties with whom information may be disclosed: Service providers, trusted businesses or persons that process information on Google’s behalf
- acdha 3y ago
xigoi 3y ago
The creators wouldn't get anything either if I didn't block the ads, because I don't click on ads.
- Mindwipe 3y ago
  That's not how any of this works.
- l0ngyap 3y ago
  [flagged]
dendriti 3y ago
Anti-piracy folks love to use bullshit loaded terms (such as "piracy" itself) to justify some megacorporation taking over shit on my computer. Adblocking is now "cheating"?`
- acdha 3y ago
  Speaking of loaded terms, what are they “taking over” by showing an ad along with the content? If you truly believed they posed the risk that incorrect terminology implies, why on earth would you continue using the site and giving them more opportunities to do so?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]