5 ms·

This may be controversial but YouTube ads are surely ones that meet all the reasonable criteria. They're not a surprise, you know it's an ad supported business

by IanCal 3y ago

This may be controversial but YouTube ads are surely ones that meet all the reasonable criteria. They're not a surprise, you know it's an ad supported business. They're served from YouTube so it's not random companies tracking you while you use a different service. And you can get rid of them by paying for the service. What's the proposed alternative where you contribute for the service? Just paywall the whole thing?

orangepanda 3y ago
> And you can get rid of them by paying for the service. Get rid of _some_ of them
- 2devnull 3y ago
  Get rid of _some_ of them for now It only has to be relatively less ad laden than the free version. Whenever ads get cranked up on the “free” normal person YouTube, they’ll get cranked up on sucker pay-pig YouTube in direct proportion. If anything, they have less concern about the small fraction who (amazingly) pay them for what they’re doing.
gray_-_wolf 3y ago
Probably an unpopular opinion, but I just do not want to have a "business" relationship with google. I would not mind paying for youtube, if it was a separate company. But google does not need my money, and any money the get are used to actively making the world worse (WEI, SEO spam, Search getting worse, ...). On a separate note, there are reports of people getting their whole google account locked for payment issues, expired cards and such. There is no way to reach a human there, and I really do not want to risk loosing my account I use on my phone as well (android :/) just because some bot decides it does not like me. Would be fine if I could just have a separate youtube account, but no, that would make tracking harder... Aaaand there still will be ads inside the videos (sponsored segments), and product placement.
- ssl232 3y ago
  I wouldn't mind paying for YouTube if its subscription cost was anywhere close to reasonable.
  - bad_user 3y ago
    I'm paying $8.30 / month for the Family option. That's like 2 or 3 coffees. In other countries this is more expensive, but it's adjusted for local buying power. Both you and the parent simply come up with reasons to avoid paying, getting the service for free. No matter how you look at it, what you're doing is immoral, because if everyone did it, YouTube would be permanently paywalled and placed under DRM. You're a privileged individual that prefers to be subsidized by those that pay or that watch ads.
    - JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 3y ago
      > That's like 2 or 3 coffees Expensive coffee at Starbucks which I would never buy. With $10 I can buy coffee for 3 months. It’s way too expensive for me. I also consider every form of advertising to be brainwashing. Last but not least, I watch 1 YouTube video per month, so you would have to adapt your scenario for me to be interested in a subscription.
      - guraf 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - i8comments 3y ago
      A coffee costs 30 cents.
    - franczesko 3y ago
      There's nothing immoral about blocking ads. Avoiding paying taxes might be, yet Google does it anyway.
      - 3y ago
anothernewdude 3y ago
Blocking functionality, playing audio that is not kid friendly and wasting my time are all not reasonable.
franczesko 3y ago
The alternative might be Google paying their fair share of taxes. I might consider supporting their product then. Ad blocking is not as severe as tax avoidance though. I have no sympathy for the service. If it's not profitable, Google can cover it from their other revenue streams with ease.
- dewey 3y ago
  That sounds like one of these reasons that people come up with to justify their unwillingness to pay. Are you also boycotting every other large company that uses the tax system in a legal way that you don't agree with? I'm all for big companies paying their fair share, but I'm not blaming the company, I'm blaming the people in charge who don't close these loopholes. Same issue as with Ireland in the EU, undercutting all the other EU countries with tax rates. One option if you want to fight back in the exact same way: Sign up for YouTube Premium through a cheaper country and pay $2/month instead of 15.
  - meindnoch 3y ago
    They game our tax system, we game their ad system. It works both ways.
  - franczesko 3y ago
    Ad blocking is not illegal. If I can do it, as Google does with taxes, I see no reason why I shouldn't.
  - logifail 3y ago
    > Are you also boycotting every other large company that uses the tax system in a legal way that you don't agree with? Umm, where possible why wouldn't one choose to avoid giving your money to companies that behave in ways you object to?
    - dewey 3y ago
      Voting with your wallet is always the best, my point was that most (all?) big companies will use the tax system in a way to give them the best outcome that's possible through legal means.
pravus 3y ago
I currently pay $5/month to the Kevin Richardson channel as a member and have been a member since inception for over 4 years now. When I went to the members section of YouTube to view my members-only videos I received the blocking message and was denied access to the video player. This is in addition to other wildlife charities for which I send monthly donations directly. I use uBlock Origin on YouTube specifically to work around many UI issues related to their recommendations and player. I will not turn it off. One example is that they will not honor my closed-caption settings on all videos so I have a filter rule to remove the call to the captions URL to eliminate them. That's one of countless issues. They are now denying me access to a service for which I do actually pay for. I consider that to be illegal. My proposal is simple: * Give me an option to pay for what I use. I do not want music, 99.9% of live streams, news, or tons of the other content they try to force on me for money-making purposes. * Make the price reasonable. The videos I watch are primarily educational lectures. This really shouldn't cost much more than the price of disk storage and network egress (both of which are cheap at scale). * Give me a recommendations and preference system that actually work. I spend more time curating my list of videos than watching anything meaningful to my interests. At one point I was watching 2 luthiery channels and "guitar necks" came up as a category. What the ever living fuck? Related yes, but not quite the topic I really want to focus on. I would remind people that this is a multi-billion dollar company with PhDs that has changed the face of AI and hyper-scale computing as we know it. * In general, operate like a long-running business... offer good value to your paying customers. Now that the customers are not advertisers, Google will need to rethink their sales strategies. They have not yet convinced me.
hendersoon 3y ago
I am not responsible for sustaining Google's monetization. There is no such social contract. If their business model isn't sustainable, they should find a new one. That's their problem, not mine.
- IanCal 3y ago
  You're not, and they're not responsible for delivering you video if you don't want to pay them or watch ads. I'm not sure what's contradictory here.
  - tomjakubowski 3y ago
    I think GP is just responding to your comment's premise that they have to propose any alternative, or that they have to "contribute" to YouTube in some way.
causality0 3y ago
I spent years having to click "No, I do not consent to creating a Google+ profile" every time I used YouTube so I refuse to give them money on principle.
kmbfjr 3y ago
Paying for the service replicates the cable TV industry. In order to get what I want and support, I end up supporting what I don’t want and don’t want to support. I am under ZERO obligation to watch advertising, that is the risk the industry takes. The ad industry has long ago tipped the scales in the trade of attention for content and now they resort to shaming the viewers into compliance. Everyone supporting the adblock countermeasures are hypocrites; as if they never went to the bathroom during a TV show commercial break.
Ylpertnodi 3y ago
>They're not a surprise. Ha! Try getting 10 minutes into this example and not bring surprised by a fucking pasta ad. https:// https://
13415 3y ago
Ads are very surprising to people who have been using ad blockers for decades. The web experience is totally different. On a side note, I stopped watching TV in the 90s and turned to "internet only" because ads were too annoying. It's weird that companies advertising with Google think people like me could potentially buy something based on ads.
etedor 3y ago
They are a surprise. They’re variable length and appear at random moments. Their volume can greatly differ from the content you are watching. No thanks. The proposed alternative is Google can continue to bankroll it. They are not hurting for money.
- IanCal 3y ago
  Your proposed alternative is that it's simply run at a loss? I don't think that's a particularly reasonable business proposal.
  - etedor 3y ago
    What makes you think Google is running at a loss?
    - missedthecue 3y ago
      He's talking about YouTube. If no one watches ads or pays for premium, how will YouTube make money?

by IanCal 3y ago

orangepanda 3y ago

> And you can get rid of them by paying for the service. Get rid of _some_ of them

2devnull 3y ago
Get rid of _some_ of them for now It only has to be relatively less ad laden than the free version. Whenever ads get cranked up on the “free” normal person YouTube, they’ll get cranked up on sucker pay-pig YouTube in direct proportion. If anything, they have less concern about the small fraction who (amazingly) pay them for what they’re doing.

gray_-_wolf 3y ago

Probably an unpopular opinion, but I just do not want to have a "business" relationship with google. I would not mind paying for youtube, if it was a separate company. But google does not need my money, and any money the get are used to actively making the world worse (WEI, SEO spam, Search getting worse, ...). On a separate note, there are reports of people getting their whole google account locked for payment issues, expired cards and such. There is no way to reach a human there, and I really do not want to risk loosing my account I use on my phone as well (android :/) just because some bot decides it does not like me. Would be fine if I could just have a separate youtube account, but no, that would make tracking harder... Aaaand there still will be ads inside the videos (sponsored segments), and product placement.

ssl232 3y ago
I wouldn't mind paying for YouTube if its subscription cost was anywhere close to reasonable.
- bad_user 3y ago
  I'm paying $8.30 / month for the Family option. That's like 2 or 3 coffees. In other countries this is more expensive, but it's adjusted for local buying power. Both you and the parent simply come up with reasons to avoid paying, getting the service for free. No matter how you look at it, what you're doing is immoral, because if everyone did it, YouTube would be permanently paywalled and placed under DRM. You're a privileged individual that prefers to be subsidized by those that pay or that watch ads.
  - JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 3y ago
    > That's like 2 or 3 coffees Expensive coffee at Starbucks which I would never buy. With $10 I can buy coffee for 3 months. It’s way too expensive for me. I also consider every form of advertising to be brainwashing. Last but not least, I watch 1 YouTube video per month, so you would have to adapt your scenario for me to be interested in a subscription.
    - guraf 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - i8comments 3y ago
    A coffee costs 30 cents.
  - franczesko 3y ago
    There's nothing immoral about blocking ads. Avoiding paying taxes might be, yet Google does it anyway.
    - 3y ago

anothernewdude 3y ago

Blocking functionality, playing audio that is not kid friendly and wasting my time are all not reasonable.

franczesko 3y ago

The alternative might be Google paying their fair share of taxes. I might consider supporting their product then. Ad blocking is not as severe as tax avoidance though. I have no sympathy for the service. If it's not profitable, Google can cover it from their other revenue streams with ease.

dewey 3y ago
That sounds like one of these reasons that people come up with to justify their unwillingness to pay. Are you also boycotting every other large company that uses the tax system in a legal way that you don't agree with? I'm all for big companies paying their fair share, but I'm not blaming the company, I'm blaming the people in charge who don't close these loopholes. Same issue as with Ireland in the EU, undercutting all the other EU countries with tax rates. One option if you want to fight back in the exact same way: Sign up for YouTube Premium through a cheaper country and pay $2/month instead of 15.
- meindnoch 3y ago
  They game our tax system, we game their ad system. It works both ways.
- franczesko 3y ago
  Ad blocking is not illegal. If I can do it, as Google does with taxes, I see no reason why I shouldn't.
- logifail 3y ago
  > Are you also boycotting every other large company that uses the tax system in a legal way that you don't agree with? Umm, where possible why wouldn't one choose to avoid giving your money to companies that behave in ways you object to?
  - dewey 3y ago
    Voting with your wallet is always the best, my point was that most (all?) big companies will use the tax system in a way to give them the best outcome that's possible through legal means.

pravus 3y ago

I currently pay $5/month to the Kevin Richardson channel as a member and have been a member since inception for over 4 years now. When I went to the members section of YouTube to view my members-only videos I received the blocking message and was denied access to the video player. This is in addition to other wildlife charities for which I send monthly donations directly. I use uBlock Origin on YouTube specifically to work around many UI issues related to their recommendations and player. I will not turn it off. One example is that they will not honor my closed-caption settings on all videos so I have a filter rule to remove the call to the captions URL to eliminate them. That's one of countless issues. They are now denying me access to a service for which I do actually pay for. I consider that to be illegal. My proposal is simple: * Give me an option to pay for what I use. I do not want music, 99.9% of live streams, news, or tons of the other content they try to force on me for money-making purposes. * Make the price reasonable. The videos I watch are primarily educational lectures. This really shouldn't cost much more than the price of disk storage and network egress (both of which are cheap at scale). * Give me a recommendations and preference system that actually work. I spend more time curating my list of videos than watching anything meaningful to my interests. At one point I was watching 2 luthiery channels and "guitar necks" came up as a category. What the ever living fuck? Related yes, but not quite the topic I really want to focus on. I would remind people that this is a multi-billion dollar company with PhDs that has changed the face of AI and hyper-scale computing as we know it. * In general, operate like a long-running business... offer good value to your paying customers. Now that the customers are not advertisers, Google will need to rethink their sales strategies. They have not yet convinced me.

hendersoon 3y ago

I am not responsible for sustaining Google's monetization. There is no such social contract. If their business model isn't sustainable, they should find a new one. That's their problem, not mine.

IanCal 3y ago
You're not, and they're not responsible for delivering you video if you don't want to pay them or watch ads. I'm not sure what's contradictory here.
- tomjakubowski 3y ago
  I think GP is just responding to your comment's premise that they have to propose any alternative, or that they have to "contribute" to YouTube in some way.

causality0 3y ago

I spent years having to click "No, I do not consent to creating a Google+ profile" every time I used YouTube so I refuse to give them money on principle.

kmbfjr 3y ago

Paying for the service replicates the cable TV industry. In order to get what I want and support, I end up supporting what I don’t want and don’t want to support. I am under ZERO obligation to watch advertising, that is the risk the industry takes. The ad industry has long ago tipped the scales in the trade of attention for content and now they resort to shaming the viewers into compliance. Everyone supporting the adblock countermeasures are hypocrites; as if they never went to the bathroom during a TV show commercial break.

Ylpertnodi 3y ago

>They're not a surprise. Ha! Try getting 10 minutes into this example and not bring surprised by a fucking pasta ad. https:// https://

13415 3y ago

Ads are very surprising to people who have been using ad blockers for decades. The web experience is totally different. On a side note, I stopped watching TV in the 90s and turned to "internet only" because ads were too annoying. It's weird that companies advertising with Google think people like me could potentially buy something based on ads.

etedor 3y ago

They are a surprise. They’re variable length and appear at random moments. Their volume can greatly differ from the content you are watching. No thanks. The proposed alternative is Google can continue to bankroll it. They are not hurting for money.

IanCal 3y ago
Your proposed alternative is that it's simply run at a loss? I don't think that's a particularly reasonable business proposal.
- etedor 3y ago
  What makes you think Google is running at a loss?
  - missedthecue 3y ago
    He's talking about YouTube. If no one watches ads or pays for premium, how will YouTube make money?