6 ms·

Every HN thread about YouTube and ads, we see the same ads/tracking/Google apologist fallacies: 1. Equivocating adblock with stealing 2. Using adblock deprive

Every HN thread about YouTube and ads, we see the same ads/tracking/Google apologist fallacies: 1. Equivocating adblock with stealing 2. Using adblock deprives content creators of funds 3. Users of adblock are entitled whiners who just want free stuff 4. Without ads, YouTube cannot exist It is getting tiring.

Goronmon 3y ago
What's tiring is trying to figure out why people just don't use sites/services that show them ads. It's extremely simple and from my experience pretty effective at avoiding the ads those sites/services display.
- haspok 3y ago
  Or just use an ad blocker. Also extremely simple.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    How simple is it for a normal person to use an ad blocker on their TV, where they want to watch YouTube? And don't "just pihole" me, mister!
    - toastercat 3y ago
      At least for Roku, I recently found and had good luck with https://github.com/iBicha/playlet https://github.com/iBicha/playlet
      - carlosjobim 3y ago
        Very cool!
    - herbst 3y ago
      Smarttube is one of several apps that work just like YouTube but without ads. Also skips sponsor Blocks
- toastercat 3y ago
  Who says people who use adblock don't do that? I certainly avoid those sites, that's also why I self-host Invidious and often use youtube-dl. But no, people have a problem with those things too, because at its core, they disagree with allowing users being able to choose what their browsers download.
  - Goronmon 3y ago
    Who says people who use adblock don't do that? I certainly avoid those sites, that's also why I self-host Invidious and often use youtube-dl. If you are using a different front end for a service, you aren't avoiding using that service... Why can't you just choose to use a different video sharing platform if you don't like what Youtube offers? Why bother using Invidious and youtube-dl?
    - toastercat 3y ago
      Yeah, I kind of anticipated that argument hence the second half of my comment. I would use a different streaming platform (and I do for some creators like Louis Rossman). But at this point, and you may already know this, YouTube has a monopoly on the video sharing/streaming market and mindshare. You simply can't avoid YouTube in 2023, else you forfeit watching 98% of all video content produced on the internet. The maintainers of frontends like Nitter/NewPipe/Invidious/Scribe.rip know this. And I'd bet most of them wish their applications had no reason to exist. If YouTube or Twitter were simply good, privacy-respecting and performant products, there would be no reason to use these (or adblock).
- nix0n 3y ago
  > don't use sites/services that show them ads Cable TV shows ads. Spotify Premium shows ads. Paramount Plus shows ads. Roads have ads (billboards), but so do the subways. Even paperback books often have an ad in the back for the next book in the series. If you think it is possible to avoid ads, it is because you are so surrounded by ads that you are tuning them out.
  - Goronmon 3y ago
    Cable TV shows ads. Spotify Premium shows ads. Paramount Plus shows ads. I don't use those services. Problem solved. See how simple that is? Roads have ads (billboards), but so do the subways. Sure, that is a problem. But I don't consider a roadside billboard to be a "website or service" as I mentioned in my original post. So, I don't see how that comparison applies. If you think it is possible to avoid ads... I didn't say it was possible to avoid all ads, I asked why are you using a service if you don't like the service itself? Just don't use it. You haven't stated why you feel that's so difficult to do.
    - nix0n 3y ago
      > why people just don't use sites/services that show them ads The point I'm trying to make is that everything shows ads. Most content is only available on services that show ads. How do you consume media?
    - Draiken 3y ago
      Because they're a monopoly. Finding creators without using YouTube is very hard, at least for me. It's hard even inside YT. But most creators are exclusively on YT because that's the only choice that matters. There is Nebula now that does have some nice content, but they're orders of magnitude smaller (plus their UX is very rough) so it's hard to even call them a competitor. That's why monopolies - capitalism's inevitable end goal - destroy everything they touch. In order to argue "you can choose to not do X" requires the choice part to be true. Sure, we can argue people can completely forego X. But that's basically a nuclear option that even if they wanted to do, will be hard. People will still send you YouTube links. One example of this is WhatsApp. I hate it and don't want to support Meta, but 100% of my peers use it so I have to use it. Having said all that, when YouTube starts to price hike subscriptions and/or showing ads even for paying users (inevitable because of profits), I'll force myself to stop using it.
redserk 3y ago
In fairness, there’s also the misguided assumption that services cost nothing to host and ad revenue cannot possibly offset the costs.
- Goronmon 3y ago
  In fairness, there’s also the misguided assumption that services cost nothing to host and ad revenue cannot possibly offset the costs. No see, you can't bring that up because they already called that reason "tiring". Thus it is invalid now and you need to come up with a different one.
  - toastercat 3y ago
    Disregarding your sarcasm, I did not call it tiring, and I've also never seen anyone make that misguided assumption.
    - the_sleaze9 3y ago
      4. Without ads, YouTube cannot exist In my view, you did call it tiring and were thereby stating that you had seen someone make that assumption.
      - toastercat 3y ago
        Saying "without ads, YouTube cannot exist" is not the same thing as saying "services cost nothing to host" at least in my view.
- cat_theorist 3y ago
  https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/3/21121207/youtube-google-alphabet-earnings-revenue-first-time-reveal-q4-2019 https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/3/21121207/youtube-google-al... YouTube us very profitable. It’s just that they want even more and they believe forcing users to turn off their adblockers will get them there. Smells monopolistic to me.
izacus 3y ago
Just as tiring as everyone pretending that YouTube doesn't offer a directly paid solution to the ads problem.
- scbzzzzz 3y ago
  true, but they bundle with youtube music and other services that i don't use. I don't see value paying for everything. there is no option to buy just youtube - ads(atleast where I live). it is a manipulative tactic. you are gaslighted for not seeing ads on internet (public space) and when you want to buy the service, they bundle it with other services.
  - bongobingo1 3y ago
    Premium is $24/m here! Maybe I am dumb, but it does seem that if they offered a dirt cheap "just no ads" plan for like 2-5$/m they could probably get a higher conversion rate, maybe the actual 10x they'd "need" to match the current price. I think a lot of people watch youtube as a "second screen" thing like people historically left the TV on for some kind of connection, or when going to sleep, etc. That kind of content is probably not worth 24/m to most, but 2$?
    - jasonlotito 3y ago
      Where is 'here'? It's $22 here in the US, but that is for the family plan (6 people, so just under $4 per person). > but 2$? Yeah, I highly doubt that covers the cost of serving up videos ad-free while also being able to provide anything of substance to the creators (which earn more per user from premium viewers than from ads).
      - bongobingo1 3y ago
        Au, 15usd/m. > but 2$? >> Yeah, I highly doubt that covers the cost of serving up videos ad-free while also being able to provide anything of substance to the creators (which earn more per user from premium viewers than from ads). Well if 2$/m with a 12x conversion rate doesn't cover, then neither does $24/m at a 1x conversion rate, so the current wouldn't be sustainable either?
scoofy 3y ago
Terms of Service can be rejected by not using the service. Everyone in here wants to have their cake and eat it to. The proper channels are political, but half the folks here want to have laissez faire government and also the free to violate contracts they don’t like. I get it, but it’s not actually a sensible way to run a society. It’s not something I’m going to fall on my sword over, because I’m actually very sympathetic to privacy concerns, it just rings a bit hollow when we’re talk about the convenience of YouTube verses more open alternatives with less content.

Goronmon 3y ago

What's tiring is trying to figure out why people just don't use sites/services that show them ads. It's extremely simple and from my experience pretty effective at avoiding the ads those sites/services display.

haspok 3y ago
Or just use an ad blocker. Also extremely simple.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  How simple is it for a normal person to use an ad blocker on their TV, where they want to watch YouTube? And don't "just pihole" me, mister!
  - toastercat 3y ago
    At least for Roku, I recently found and had good luck with https://github.com/iBicha/playlet https://github.com/iBicha/playlet
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      Very cool!
  - herbst 3y ago
    Smarttube is one of several apps that work just like YouTube but without ads. Also skips sponsor Blocks
toastercat 3y ago
Who says people who use adblock don't do that? I certainly avoid those sites, that's also why I self-host Invidious and often use youtube-dl. But no, people have a problem with those things too, because at its core, they disagree with allowing users being able to choose what their browsers download.
- Goronmon 3y ago
  Who says people who use adblock don't do that? I certainly avoid those sites, that's also why I self-host Invidious and often use youtube-dl. If you are using a different front end for a service, you aren't avoiding using that service... Why can't you just choose to use a different video sharing platform if you don't like what Youtube offers? Why bother using Invidious and youtube-dl?
  - toastercat 3y ago
    Yeah, I kind of anticipated that argument hence the second half of my comment. I would use a different streaming platform (and I do for some creators like Louis Rossman). But at this point, and you may already know this, YouTube has a monopoly on the video sharing/streaming market and mindshare. You simply can't avoid YouTube in 2023, else you forfeit watching 98% of all video content produced on the internet. The maintainers of frontends like Nitter/NewPipe/Invidious/Scribe.rip know this. And I'd bet most of them wish their applications had no reason to exist. If YouTube or Twitter were simply good, privacy-respecting and performant products, there would be no reason to use these (or adblock).
nix0n 3y ago
> don't use sites/services that show them ads Cable TV shows ads. Spotify Premium shows ads. Paramount Plus shows ads. Roads have ads (billboards), but so do the subways. Even paperback books often have an ad in the back for the next book in the series. If you think it is possible to avoid ads, it is because you are so surrounded by ads that you are tuning them out.
- Goronmon 3y ago
  Cable TV shows ads. Spotify Premium shows ads. Paramount Plus shows ads. I don't use those services. Problem solved. See how simple that is? Roads have ads (billboards), but so do the subways. Sure, that is a problem. But I don't consider a roadside billboard to be a "website or service" as I mentioned in my original post. So, I don't see how that comparison applies. If you think it is possible to avoid ads... I didn't say it was possible to avoid all ads, I asked why are you using a service if you don't like the service itself? Just don't use it. You haven't stated why you feel that's so difficult to do.
  - nix0n 3y ago
    > why people just don't use sites/services that show them ads The point I'm trying to make is that everything shows ads. Most content is only available on services that show ads. How do you consume media?
  - Draiken 3y ago
    Because they're a monopoly. Finding creators without using YouTube is very hard, at least for me. It's hard even inside YT. But most creators are exclusively on YT because that's the only choice that matters. There is Nebula now that does have some nice content, but they're orders of magnitude smaller (plus their UX is very rough) so it's hard to even call them a competitor. That's why monopolies - capitalism's inevitable end goal - destroy everything they touch. In order to argue "you can choose to not do X" requires the choice part to be true. Sure, we can argue people can completely forego X. But that's basically a nuclear option that even if they wanted to do, will be hard. People will still send you YouTube links. One example of this is WhatsApp. I hate it and don't want to support Meta, but 100% of my peers use it so I have to use it. Having said all that, when YouTube starts to price hike subscriptions and/or showing ads even for paying users (inevitable because of profits), I'll force myself to stop using it.

redserk 3y ago

In fairness, there’s also the misguided assumption that services cost nothing to host and ad revenue cannot possibly offset the costs.

Goronmon 3y ago
In fairness, there’s also the misguided assumption that services cost nothing to host and ad revenue cannot possibly offset the costs. No see, you can't bring that up because they already called that reason "tiring". Thus it is invalid now and you need to come up with a different one.
- toastercat 3y ago
  Disregarding your sarcasm, I did not call it tiring, and I've also never seen anyone make that misguided assumption.
  - the_sleaze9 3y ago
    4. Without ads, YouTube cannot exist In my view, you did call it tiring and were thereby stating that you had seen someone make that assumption.
    - toastercat 3y ago
      Saying "without ads, YouTube cannot exist" is not the same thing as saying "services cost nothing to host" at least in my view.
cat_theorist 3y ago
https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/3/21121207/youtube-google-alphabet-earnings-revenue-first-time-reveal-q4-2019 https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/3/21121207/youtube-google-al... YouTube us very profitable. It’s just that they want even more and they believe forcing users to turn off their adblockers will get them there. Smells monopolistic to me.

izacus 3y ago

Just as tiring as everyone pretending that YouTube doesn't offer a directly paid solution to the ads problem.

scbzzzzz 3y ago
true, but they bundle with youtube music and other services that i don't use. I don't see value paying for everything. there is no option to buy just youtube - ads(atleast where I live). it is a manipulative tactic. you are gaslighted for not seeing ads on internet (public space) and when you want to buy the service, they bundle it with other services.
- bongobingo1 3y ago
  Premium is $24/m here! Maybe I am dumb, but it does seem that if they offered a dirt cheap "just no ads" plan for like 2-5$/m they could probably get a higher conversion rate, maybe the actual 10x they'd "need" to match the current price. I think a lot of people watch youtube as a "second screen" thing like people historically left the TV on for some kind of connection, or when going to sleep, etc. That kind of content is probably not worth 24/m to most, but 2$?
  - jasonlotito 3y ago
    Where is 'here'? It's $22 here in the US, but that is for the family plan (6 people, so just under $4 per person). > but 2$? Yeah, I highly doubt that covers the cost of serving up videos ad-free while also being able to provide anything of substance to the creators (which earn more per user from premium viewers than from ads).
    - bongobingo1 3y ago
      Au, 15usd/m. > but 2$? >> Yeah, I highly doubt that covers the cost of serving up videos ad-free while also being able to provide anything of substance to the creators (which earn more per user from premium viewers than from ads). Well if 2$/m with a 12x conversion rate doesn't cover, then neither does $24/m at a 1x conversion rate, so the current wouldn't be sustainable either?

scoofy 3y ago

Terms of Service can be rejected by not using the service. Everyone in here wants to have their cake and eat it to. The proper channels are political, but half the folks here want to have laissez faire government and also the free to violate contracts they don’t like. I get it, but it’s not actually a sensible way to run a society. It’s not something I’m going to fall on my sword over, because I’m actually very sympathetic to privacy concerns, it just rings a bit hollow when we’re talk about the convenience of YouTube verses more open alternatives with less content.