7 ms·

This is of course bringing up the discussion on the "morality" of Adblocking. I'd like to point out something that I don't think is getting enough attention. T

This is of course bringing up the discussion on the "morality" of Adblocking. I'd like to point out something that I don't think is getting enough attention. There was a point in the past where video platforms were competing, and by no means was it clear that YouTube would end up dominating this area to the point of being close to a monopoly. When YouTube won that race, they won it with a given set of parameters, including the kind and amount of ads they show. Society at large has, at that point in the past, basically decided that YouTube's offering is the best, and given this market domineering position. YouTube is increasingly moving away from the parameters of this implicit agreement, in minor ways at first, more now. Had they "competed" in the video platform race with current policies, maybe everyone'd be using Vimeo now. And here's the crux. YouTube can only do this because their old policies allowed them to establish this domineering position, and by doing so are breaking the implicit "deal" that actually allowed them to get into this position. To me, there's currently no alternative to going onto YouTube. And no, I won't pay for YouTube Premium — because that wasn't part of the deal either. The platform won the race as a free platform. So, until Google can figure out how to serve a reasonable amount of safe ads — adblocker it is.

darklycan51 3y ago
The real reason why anyone could never compete with Youtube was (lack of) monetization
- eqvinox 3y ago
  That's actually an interesting question in itself. Google also has a domineering (though not monopoly) position in ads. If someone were to try to compete with an ad-funded service… how much of a problem would that be? Also: part of the problem is the quality of the ads. Could you actually get "better quality" ads for a competitor video platform? Do such ads even exist in sufficient number at this point? (I vaguely remember a significant portion of larger companies reducing their internet ad budgets because they simply weren't seeing good returns…)
- raincole 3y ago
  There is a very interesting example, but unknown to western readers. It's called Bilibili. It's the largest video platform in China[0]. However, it keeps losing money since forever, including in last year, and is expected to keep losing more in 2023. [0]: Youtube is blocked in China and you need a VPN to access it there.
boredpeter 3y ago
This reminds me of the concept of predatory pricing which is when a business lowers their prices to below cost in order to drive out all its competitors and create a monopoly. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/predatory-or-below-cost-pricing https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... I do wonder if it could be argued (maybe even in the current monopoly case against google) whether youtube engaged in predatory or below-cost pricing in order to drive out all of its competitors, establish a monopoly, and now use that monopoly in order to "raise prices" i.e. increase the amount of ads on its service in order to maximize its profit margins. Although this does seem to be the business plan of basically every startup out there. Get VC funding, run at a loss and burn through money but gain a monopoly market share, and once you've done that you can raise your prices and have a profit margin that far exceeds what should be normal.
- selcuka 3y ago
  > Get VC funding, run at a loss and burn through money but gain a monopoly market share, and once you've done that you can raise your prices Slightly off topic, but the business plan of most startups seems to be "get VC funding, and exit". What you wrote may be the business plan of VCs. I don't understand the valuation of many startups these days (even in the hypothetical case where they capture 100% of their potential market one day).
  - gmerc 3y ago
    VCs don’t invest because your business has a bright future as a valuable, sustainable operation . Not anymore. The crypto dynamics have shifted the expectations so far to cheap, quick moment they most VCs, especially the a16z kind are more about “Can I juice this business and it’s metrics enough to sell it to someone to hold the bag”. Ironically I think the large numbers involved are basically part of that PR game - they act as proof that the business is worth it and attract attention and bagholder interest. The crypto economy worked like that too - the NFT wash trading, the signal metrics used to sell the idea that there is value where there is none. Probably something something wework too.
givemeethekeys 3y ago
Classic bait and switch. Google's own search page is a good example of how ads have overrun the search results.
- Rastonbury 3y ago
  Ad blocker detected please disable to use Search
  - Indoctus 3y ago
    Don't give them ideas lol
zarzavat 3y ago
My perspective: Google is not an agent directed by morality when they interact with me, therefore I don’t allocate any morality when interacting with them. It’s a power relationship not a moral relationship. I do feel bad for the creators, but I would rather donate to their Patreons than buy YT premium.
- eqvinox 3y ago
  > I do feel bad for the creators, but I would rather donate to their Patreons than buy YT premium. I ended up subscribing to both Nebula and Dropout.tv, especially after noticing that a good portion of my favourite YT channels are in fact on Nebula. Sadly, this is primarly larger ones, and I do feel bad about smaller creators being kinda stuck on YT… especially when it's the odd one-time well-made video that really doesn't warrant e.g. Patreon. But yeah, the real moral quandry is with the creators. They're more or less under the same monopoly pressure; in most cases you just can't ignore the YT audience :(
  - axelthegerman 3y ago
    Totally agree this is the real problem. Where do creators go if not YouTube!? Ideally they could self host videos which could be expensive AND not bring any revenue, neither do they are they discoverable - this is where the internet is broken these days. And maybe this is where micro transactions would have a proper use case, i.e. if you had a browser extension where you add $5 and then you can dish out 1ct or 10ct for some content...
    - j16sdiz 3y ago
      Nebula was created by a few creator, trying to solve this problem. I have no idea how well it worked out - I am still contented with the ad-filled YouTube
      - HeeroML 3y ago
        No it actually wasn’t. Nebula isn’t sustainable. It’s co financed by curiositystream.
philistine 3y ago
> And no, I won't pay for YouTube Premium — because that wasn't part of the deal either. There's also the ridiculous fact it is literally impossible to pay to remove the ads without also getting the horrible Youtube Music service.
- lxgr 3y ago
  What makes me really sad is that Google doesn't just not offer a "Music-less Youtube Premium" (due to a lack of attention or whatever) – no: They used to offer that product in some markets and have actively discontinued it.
  - HeeroML 3y ago
    Just that it does. You only get ads in music videos then.
  - redwall_hp 3y ago
    The EU should look long and hard at that: the market-dominating video platform, owned by the market-dominating search and advertising company, forcing bundled pricing for YouTube in order to leverage the YT monopoly for an edge in the music streaming market. Sounds anticompetitive as hell, and a government that actually cares about functioning markets should eviscerate them for it.
- figmert 3y ago
  Why does this matter? Can't you just not use it?
  - willdr 3y ago
    Because they're sold together, so if you wanted forgo YouTube Music, you'd assume it'd be cheaper.
    - figmert 3y ago
      I'd be very surprised if it would be considering YouTube already has music where they already pays the copyright holder for. My guess is YouTube music is focused UI on an already offered service and separating it out will likely not make it cheaper, or if it does, it won't be a big difference.
jterrys 3y ago
Even prior to this change, as far back as a decade ago when Youtube (according to Google) was burning money, they still knew there was some perversely wealthy incentive to keep the platform around. Google has shut down far more useful products for far less. That leads me to believe that the value in Youtube goes far beyond ads. Right now it's merely trying to optimize and squeeze as much blood from stone as possible, up until they can measure the tipping point of maximum pain before users spend time on other platforms.
mrtksn 3y ago
Isn't that the whole premise of the SV tech? Give a dollar(unprofitable and unsustainable service) for a pennies by burning the money of the investors to capture a market then switch to high profit margin business practices and milk out the captured market thereafter. Sure, it can be framed as spend money when developing a product then make profit of it when released but the winners are determined by keeping alive the developed product longer than everyone else ane when everyone else is gone, then monetise. People who spent billions of dollars to run YouTube at loss for years were not philanthropists, they rightfully expect to make that money back and make much more on top of it.
- mkesper 3y ago
  Everything you said is right except for the "rightfully".
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    Why?
    - ndriscoll 3y ago
      Because providing a product/service below cost to drive competitors out of the market followed by using your new monopoly to raise prices is exactly the definition of illegal predatory pricing.
brnt 3y ago
What is the morality of thinking anyone is allowed to fully control my machine? I guess I'm showing my age, but browsers were _user_ agents, once.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Yeah. The audacity of these corporations. It's offensive that they even think they can dictate what our computers do or don't do.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  No one is forcing you to use youtube. I think the situation is more like the opposite, adblockers are trying to gain control of youtube servers in order to obtain the product without paying.
  - brnt 3y ago
    YouTube isn't forced to serve me anything. If they don't want to, sure, they can go ahead. What _is_ served, I will parse however I see fit.
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      I mean that's exactly what they're doing here... Refusing to serve the video until the ad is watched.
      - brnt 3y ago
        If I can parse whatever they serve such that I can skip it, they are evidently not refusing to serve.
  - dartharva 3y ago
    Adblockers run within the browser's space, they don't intrude into any servers by any means whatsoever. Your statement is completely wrong and misguided.
HeeroML 3y ago
Just that energy and such got more costly. Why should YouTube pay extra cause you feel you had an agreement with them on how much ads there are?
- wiseowise 3y ago
  > Why should YouTube pay extra cause you feel you had an agreement with them on how much ads there are? Because I say so with my AdBlock. This is the reason why small guy should have power.
amadvance 3y ago
I'm also a heavy user of ad blockers, but there is something to be said in defense of YouTube. Creators have the final decision on the ads shown. I have a YouTube channel, and I always disable monetization on all my videos, so no ads are ever shown on my channel. If you see an ad, it's because the creator decided to include one. YouTube is simply the platform that enables this choice.
- radley 3y ago
  That's not correct. A few years ago YouTube changed their TOS, so they're now allowed to show ads on any content, regardless of settings.
  - amadvance 3y ago
    You're mixing up two different things. It's true that YouTube now places ads to small channels that have not reached the monetization requirements. But after the channel satisfy such requirements, like 1000 subscribers, the creator gets control of the monetization and they can choose. For any major channel you watch, it's the creator decision that you see ads or not.
- bongobingo1 3y ago
  Is it an on-off switch, or a slider for how many and when?
  - iforgotpassword 3y ago
    Your can individually toggle pre- mid- and Post-Roll ads. Your can even set suggested spots within the video for the mid-roll ads, but that doesn't really control how many will actually be played. This applies to videos with no copyrighted content. If you use any excerpts or music that someone else claims, anything might happen to your video regarding ads.
- windowsrookie 3y ago
  That's not necessarily true. If you are not in the Youtube partner program, Youtube can still monetize your videos and keep the ad money for themselves.
seydor 3y ago
And the platforms that were free and distributed, i.e. torrents became illegal. Youtube started with a ton of illegal stuff (and still contains tons of illegal stuff, but mostly in languages/regions that "don't matter"). Internet speeds are maturing, and maybe it is time to try again a self-hosted or distributed model. The hard part is to put ads in it, because ad-supported is traditionally the best medium for videos. However most video creators are already having sponsorship deals
- adhesive_wombat 3y ago
  > still contains tons of illegal stuff I came across whole episodes of British TV on there this very week that were uploaded 12 years ago. I know they have a strict "no humans involved, ever" system going, but the programme name was in the title and the video was one of those ones inset into a fake background and the audio was original. I find it amazing that no one (or rather nothing) with a ban button has noticed that for so long. If they actually cared even a microgram and they couldn't even get an intern to do a days' work searching for TV show titles, there'd be enough failed Reddit moderators out there who they could recruit who would gleefully do the job for free. Not that I would want them to - it's bad enough when only bring reactive to often-spurious complaints - but it's such a completely perfect lack of interest that it must be very deliberate.
  - dageshi 3y ago
    Is it illegal though? Who owns it? General principle of the internet seems to be people can host what they like till someone who has legal ownership of it tells them to take it down at that point they're expected to take it down and keep it off their service unless added by the owner. That's what google is sticking to because frankly any other method would be a nightmare. The old tv episodes might have muddy/unclear ownership and so things continue to coast along until someone exercises their right of ownership.
    - seydor 3y ago
      yes it s entirely illegal hosting it , as it is copyrighted content, it even says so in the credits. there are tons of tv series from around the world being hosted, and it's not fair use even under the relaxed US laws. The fact that someone has not issued a takedown request doesn't make it legal either.
xxs 3y ago
>This is of course bringing up the discussion on the "morality" of Adblocking No, it does not. There is no discussion to be had.
nvm0n2 3y ago
> To me, there's currently no alternative to going onto YouTube Vimeo, Rumble, DailyMotion, Facebook Video and self-hosting all still exist you know. There are plenty of alternatives.
- keep_reading 3y ago
  Vimeo changed their model and are focused on paid business users now
rakkhi 3y ago
A few Argentinian peso via VPN for Youtube premium seems fine.
jedrek 3y ago
Do realize that viewers are not YouTube's only "customer". They spend a lot of time and energy courting video creators as well, and their monetization program is one of the few that allows even mid-sized creators to record videos for a living.
- crote 3y ago
  YouTube's partner program pays relatively little, though. Pretty much all mid-sized creators I follow also have sponsors and/or a Patreon - that's their main source of income.
  - jedrek 3y ago
    It's still one of the best on the internet. That said, if you have the viewers to get monetized on YouTube, you probably have the viewers to make even more money off sponsorships/patreons/etc.
sensanaty 3y ago
Morally, I consider ads to be outright evil, especially the modern day cancer we call advertisement where they track every singular molecule of your existence. As soon as these scumbags stop hiring psychologists and other similar professionals to make the most addicting and psychologically impactful advertisements possible, then maybe I'll consider them less than pure evil. I still have uBlock turned off on a few sites, though that list is becoming vanishingly smaller. 4Chan, funnily enough, has the best ads, where it's just old school banner ads on the top of the page and the very bottom of the page. No click hijacking, no embedded ads made to mimic organic content, no fucking audio and flashing lights ads. The only type of targeting those ads have is that the general audience that goes on 4Chan is into anime and Japan, both of which I don't care about. If the internet still had these kind of ads, I think adblockers would be much less of a "problem", but since 99% of them are invasive garbage, whoever is pushing them and whoever argues it's "immoral" to block them can go fuck themselves.
- lebed2045 3y ago
  a counter take from me, as someone who uses adblocks everywhere possible but used to work for facebook ads department: ads aren't inherently bad, irregardless of much data do they track. What really bad is how this ads is targeted and how much ads is delivered. I would LOVE to see relevant to my interested and situation ads. I like fpv drones and often see interested ads on instagram and led to a purchase. The problem after that I can't just edit the vector of my interests for ads targeting and keep bombarded with something not relevant to my situation anymore, and boy so much of it I see. I really don't know why big ads network didn't move forward with user controlled ads mechanics - because we all humans buy something anyway, it's okay of being aware of the options on the market. It's not okay to mentally torture users with irrelevant, annoying and overwhelming amount of ads.
temporallobe 3y ago
What still gets me is that even with YT Premium, there are still ads if the content creators decide to embed them as part of the content. Yes, they are skippable, but there are still ads…that I paying, to NOT see. This is also a moral issue. What does the exact definition of “no ads” actually mean to YT and is their definition misleading or purposefully vague? Unless they qualify their definition with something like “you may still see in-video sponsored content”, ad-free should 100% ad-free, and it is irritating that that (perhaps) through some nuanced definition of “ads” that they allow this. IMO this needs to be investigated by the FCC. If you look at the advertising literature for Premium, it simply says “Enjoy ad-free videos…” with no asterisk or fine print that has any exclusions. Perhaps there is something deeply buried in one of the “terms and conditions” documents that allows for this, but I haven’t taken the time to look. My point is, YT and the content creators benefit from these ads on a supposed no-ad plan. Imagine if other streaming services like Netflix started doing this.
- rchaud 3y ago
  Like a TV show with ads, but where the TV actors put in their own ads right into the shows dialogue, in addition to the network's commercial breaks. This happens because Youtube doesn't pay content makers a flat rate, unless they're a whale.
  - temporallobe 3y ago
    Yeah there are various ways to sneak advertising into content, but that why this is so insidious. Is product placement an “ad”? Is a quick mention of a sponsor an “ad”? Is a “passive” ad such as background graphic or wearing a sponsor’s t-shirt an “ad?”. Where do we draw that line? I think we’ve simply been conditioned to accept that ads are a normal and acceptable part of life, even if you pay not to have them. Remember when cable TV first became available to the public? It was supposed to be, and was at first, ad-free because you paid for it unlike broadcast TV. Now, cable TV is more ads than content in many cases, and those who have it pay dearly because in most markets, the cable companies have an effective monopoly. We have become the dystopian future we predicted and abhorred, but don’t even know it.
- 3y ago
freeAgent 3y ago
You have essentially laid out the tech company playbook. In so many cases, hyper-growth is subsidized by investors (or another part of a giant business). The product is offered to the public at FAR below cost in order to gain a monopoly-like market share. After they have successfully killed all viable competitors, they ratchet up prices (and/or ad-delivery), decrease spend on customer service, etc. and rake in profits. This is why the “growth mindset” is so ingrained in SV tech culture.
SergeAx 3y ago
I don't see any question on morality of blocking ads. Under no circumstances any living soul may be forced to view any kind of displeasing content. Web is an open protocol, anything accessible on the web with http code 200 is free to download. After downloading, I can alter that content in any way. Simple like that. If Youtube wants to control their content and users - they should create their own protocols or at least closed network using web protocols, write their own client software and distribute it.
AlexVN 3y ago
I'm not sure it's a question of what's "fair" or "right" or "legal". We (as a society) need to figure out what incentive we want to impose on the world. We (through a convoluted, but in the end democratic process that is supposed to represent the will of the people) decided that piracy is illegal not because there is some divine right of authors to get compensated, but because we believe that by making piracy too common we would kill the incentive for the future authors to create. Similary, we will need to decide on the laws around ad blocking. If we decide to keep it accessable, then the downside is that both the infrastructure work done by Google (or its competitors) and the creative work done by authors will become less profitable and thus the quality will decline. If we don't envision this happening, we should definetly get ad blockers without a second thought.
sam0x17 3y ago
> This is of course bringing up the discussion on the "morality" of Adblocking. I'd like to point out something that I don't think is getting enough attention. Don't forget the flipside, the "morality" of interfering with a user's freedom to selectively ignore certain content.
ddalex 3y ago
There was a point in the past where various empires were competing, and by no means was it clear that The Roman Empire would end up dominating the world close to being a monopoly. The Roman Empire is moving away from the parameters of their implicit win, including the kind and amount of victories they score. Had they "competed" in world domination with the current policies, maybe everybody would speak Persian by now. No, I won't be subject to the Byzantine Empire - because that was not part of the deal either. The empire was build on Rome. So until the Byzantines can figure out how to win _reasonable_ amount of _military victories_ - I won't pay taxes. Do you realize how shallow your argument sounds ? :)) Of course Youtube is turning the screws now that they have the lock-in. Ethics have nothing to do with it. And they will turn the screws until you either pay up or stop going there all together.

darklycan51 3y ago

The real reason why anyone could never compete with Youtube was (lack of) monetization

eqvinox 3y ago
That's actually an interesting question in itself. Google also has a domineering (though not monopoly) position in ads. If someone were to try to compete with an ad-funded service… how much of a problem would that be? Also: part of the problem is the quality of the ads. Could you actually get "better quality" ads for a competitor video platform? Do such ads even exist in sufficient number at this point? (I vaguely remember a significant portion of larger companies reducing their internet ad budgets because they simply weren't seeing good returns…)
raincole 3y ago
There is a very interesting example, but unknown to western readers. It's called Bilibili. It's the largest video platform in China[0]. However, it keeps losing money since forever, including in last year, and is expected to keep losing more in 2023. [0]: Youtube is blocked in China and you need a VPN to access it there.

boredpeter 3y ago

This reminds me of the concept of predatory pricing which is when a business lowers their prices to below cost in order to drive out all its competitors and create a monopoly. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/predatory-or-below-cost-pricing https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... I do wonder if it could be argued (maybe even in the current monopoly case against google) whether youtube engaged in predatory or below-cost pricing in order to drive out all of its competitors, establish a monopoly, and now use that monopoly in order to "raise prices" i.e. increase the amount of ads on its service in order to maximize its profit margins. Although this does seem to be the business plan of basically every startup out there. Get VC funding, run at a loss and burn through money but gain a monopoly market share, and once you've done that you can raise your prices and have a profit margin that far exceeds what should be normal.

selcuka 3y ago
> Get VC funding, run at a loss and burn through money but gain a monopoly market share, and once you've done that you can raise your prices Slightly off topic, but the business plan of most startups seems to be "get VC funding, and exit". What you wrote may be the business plan of VCs. I don't understand the valuation of many startups these days (even in the hypothetical case where they capture 100% of their potential market one day).
- gmerc 3y ago
  VCs don’t invest because your business has a bright future as a valuable, sustainable operation . Not anymore. The crypto dynamics have shifted the expectations so far to cheap, quick moment they most VCs, especially the a16z kind are more about “Can I juice this business and it’s metrics enough to sell it to someone to hold the bag”. Ironically I think the large numbers involved are basically part of that PR game - they act as proof that the business is worth it and attract attention and bagholder interest. The crypto economy worked like that too - the NFT wash trading, the signal metrics used to sell the idea that there is value where there is none. Probably something something wework too.

givemeethekeys 3y ago

Classic bait and switch. Google's own search page is a good example of how ads have overrun the search results.

Rastonbury 3y ago
Ad blocker detected please disable to use Search
- Indoctus 3y ago
  Don't give them ideas lol

zarzavat 3y ago

My perspective: Google is not an agent directed by morality when they interact with me, therefore I don’t allocate any morality when interacting with them. It’s a power relationship not a moral relationship. I do feel bad for the creators, but I would rather donate to their Patreons than buy YT premium.

eqvinox 3y ago
> I do feel bad for the creators, but I would rather donate to their Patreons than buy YT premium. I ended up subscribing to both Nebula and Dropout.tv, especially after noticing that a good portion of my favourite YT channels are in fact on Nebula. Sadly, this is primarly larger ones, and I do feel bad about smaller creators being kinda stuck on YT… especially when it's the odd one-time well-made video that really doesn't warrant e.g. Patreon. But yeah, the real moral quandry is with the creators. They're more or less under the same monopoly pressure; in most cases you just can't ignore the YT audience :(
- axelthegerman 3y ago
  Totally agree this is the real problem. Where do creators go if not YouTube!? Ideally they could self host videos which could be expensive AND not bring any revenue, neither do they are they discoverable - this is where the internet is broken these days. And maybe this is where micro transactions would have a proper use case, i.e. if you had a browser extension where you add $5 and then you can dish out 1ct or 10ct for some content...
  - j16sdiz 3y ago
    Nebula was created by a few creator, trying to solve this problem. I have no idea how well it worked out - I am still contented with the ad-filled YouTube
    - HeeroML 3y ago
      No it actually wasn’t. Nebula isn’t sustainable. It’s co financed by curiositystream.

philistine 3y ago

> And no, I won't pay for YouTube Premium — because that wasn't part of the deal either. There's also the ridiculous fact it is literally impossible to pay to remove the ads without also getting the horrible Youtube Music service.

lxgr 3y ago
What makes me really sad is that Google doesn't just not offer a "Music-less Youtube Premium" (due to a lack of attention or whatever) – no: They used to offer that product in some markets and have actively discontinued it.
- HeeroML 3y ago
  Just that it does. You only get ads in music videos then.
- redwall_hp 3y ago
  The EU should look long and hard at that: the market-dominating video platform, owned by the market-dominating search and advertising company, forcing bundled pricing for YouTube in order to leverage the YT monopoly for an edge in the music streaming market. Sounds anticompetitive as hell, and a government that actually cares about functioning markets should eviscerate them for it.
figmert 3y ago
Why does this matter? Can't you just not use it?
- willdr 3y ago
  Because they're sold together, so if you wanted forgo YouTube Music, you'd assume it'd be cheaper.
  - figmert 3y ago
    I'd be very surprised if it would be considering YouTube already has music where they already pays the copyright holder for. My guess is YouTube music is focused UI on an already offered service and separating it out will likely not make it cheaper, or if it does, it won't be a big difference.

jterrys 3y ago

Even prior to this change, as far back as a decade ago when Youtube (according to Google) was burning money, they still knew there was some perversely wealthy incentive to keep the platform around. Google has shut down far more useful products for far less. That leads me to believe that the value in Youtube goes far beyond ads. Right now it's merely trying to optimize and squeeze as much blood from stone as possible, up until they can measure the tipping point of maximum pain before users spend time on other platforms.

mrtksn 3y ago

Isn't that the whole premise of the SV tech? Give a dollar(unprofitable and unsustainable service) for a pennies by burning the money of the investors to capture a market then switch to high profit margin business practices and milk out the captured market thereafter. Sure, it can be framed as spend money when developing a product then make profit of it when released but the winners are determined by keeping alive the developed product longer than everyone else ane when everyone else is gone, then monetise. People who spent billions of dollars to run YouTube at loss for years were not philanthropists, they rightfully expect to make that money back and make much more on top of it.

mkesper 3y ago
Everything you said is right except for the "rightfully".
- mrtksn 3y ago
  Why?
  - ndriscoll 3y ago
    Because providing a product/service below cost to drive competitors out of the market followed by using your new monopoly to raise prices is exactly the definition of illegal predatory pricing.

brnt 3y ago

What is the morality of thinking anyone is allowed to fully control my machine? I guess I'm showing my age, but browsers were _user_ agents, once.

matheusmoreira 3y ago
Yeah. The audacity of these corporations. It's offensive that they even think they can dictate what our computers do or don't do.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
No one is forcing you to use youtube. I think the situation is more like the opposite, adblockers are trying to gain control of youtube servers in order to obtain the product without paying.
- brnt 3y ago
  YouTube isn't forced to serve me anything. If they don't want to, sure, they can go ahead. What _is_ served, I will parse however I see fit.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    I mean that's exactly what they're doing here... Refusing to serve the video until the ad is watched.
    - brnt 3y ago
      If I can parse whatever they serve such that I can skip it, they are evidently not refusing to serve.
- dartharva 3y ago
  Adblockers run within the browser's space, they don't intrude into any servers by any means whatsoever. Your statement is completely wrong and misguided.

HeeroML 3y ago

Just that energy and such got more costly. Why should YouTube pay extra cause you feel you had an agreement with them on how much ads there are?

wiseowise 3y ago
> Why should YouTube pay extra cause you feel you had an agreement with them on how much ads there are? Because I say so with my AdBlock. This is the reason why small guy should have power.

amadvance 3y ago

I'm also a heavy user of ad blockers, but there is something to be said in defense of YouTube. Creators have the final decision on the ads shown. I have a YouTube channel, and I always disable monetization on all my videos, so no ads are ever shown on my channel. If you see an ad, it's because the creator decided to include one. YouTube is simply the platform that enables this choice.

radley 3y ago
That's not correct. A few years ago YouTube changed their TOS, so they're now allowed to show ads on any content, regardless of settings.
- amadvance 3y ago
  You're mixing up two different things. It's true that YouTube now places ads to small channels that have not reached the monetization requirements. But after the channel satisfy such requirements, like 1000 subscribers, the creator gets control of the monetization and they can choose. For any major channel you watch, it's the creator decision that you see ads or not.
bongobingo1 3y ago
Is it an on-off switch, or a slider for how many and when?
- iforgotpassword 3y ago
  Your can individually toggle pre- mid- and Post-Roll ads. Your can even set suggested spots within the video for the mid-roll ads, but that doesn't really control how many will actually be played. This applies to videos with no copyrighted content. If you use any excerpts or music that someone else claims, anything might happen to your video regarding ads.
windowsrookie 3y ago
That's not necessarily true. If you are not in the Youtube partner program, Youtube can still monetize your videos and keep the ad money for themselves.

seydor 3y ago

And the platforms that were free and distributed, i.e. torrents became illegal. Youtube started with a ton of illegal stuff (and still contains tons of illegal stuff, but mostly in languages/regions that "don't matter"). Internet speeds are maturing, and maybe it is time to try again a self-hosted or distributed model. The hard part is to put ads in it, because ad-supported is traditionally the best medium for videos. However most video creators are already having sponsorship deals

adhesive_wombat 3y ago
> still contains tons of illegal stuff I came across whole episodes of British TV on there this very week that were uploaded 12 years ago. I know they have a strict "no humans involved, ever" system going, but the programme name was in the title and the video was one of those ones inset into a fake background and the audio was original. I find it amazing that no one (or rather nothing) with a ban button has noticed that for so long. If they actually cared even a microgram and they couldn't even get an intern to do a days' work searching for TV show titles, there'd be enough failed Reddit moderators out there who they could recruit who would gleefully do the job for free. Not that I would want them to - it's bad enough when only bring reactive to often-spurious complaints - but it's such a completely perfect lack of interest that it must be very deliberate.
- dageshi 3y ago
  Is it illegal though? Who owns it? General principle of the internet seems to be people can host what they like till someone who has legal ownership of it tells them to take it down at that point they're expected to take it down and keep it off their service unless added by the owner. That's what google is sticking to because frankly any other method would be a nightmare. The old tv episodes might have muddy/unclear ownership and so things continue to coast along until someone exercises their right of ownership.
  - seydor 3y ago
    yes it s entirely illegal hosting it , as it is copyrighted content, it even says so in the credits. there are tons of tv series from around the world being hosted, and it's not fair use even under the relaxed US laws. The fact that someone has not issued a takedown request doesn't make it legal either.

xxs 3y ago

>This is of course bringing up the discussion on the "morality" of Adblocking No, it does not. There is no discussion to be had.

nvm0n2 3y ago

> To me, there's currently no alternative to going onto YouTube Vimeo, Rumble, DailyMotion, Facebook Video and self-hosting all still exist you know. There are plenty of alternatives.

keep_reading 3y ago
Vimeo changed their model and are focused on paid business users now

rakkhi 3y ago

A few Argentinian peso via VPN for Youtube premium seems fine.

jedrek 3y ago

Do realize that viewers are not YouTube's only "customer". They spend a lot of time and energy courting video creators as well, and their monetization program is one of the few that allows even mid-sized creators to record videos for a living.

crote 3y ago
YouTube's partner program pays relatively little, though. Pretty much all mid-sized creators I follow also have sponsors and/or a Patreon - that's their main source of income.
- jedrek 3y ago
  It's still one of the best on the internet. That said, if you have the viewers to get monetized on YouTube, you probably have the viewers to make even more money off sponsorships/patreons/etc.

sensanaty 3y ago

Morally, I consider ads to be outright evil, especially the modern day cancer we call advertisement where they track every singular molecule of your existence. As soon as these scumbags stop hiring psychologists and other similar professionals to make the most addicting and psychologically impactful advertisements possible, then maybe I'll consider them less than pure evil. I still have uBlock turned off on a few sites, though that list is becoming vanishingly smaller. 4Chan, funnily enough, has the best ads, where it's just old school banner ads on the top of the page and the very bottom of the page. No click hijacking, no embedded ads made to mimic organic content, no fucking audio and flashing lights ads. The only type of targeting those ads have is that the general audience that goes on 4Chan is into anime and Japan, both of which I don't care about. If the internet still had these kind of ads, I think adblockers would be much less of a "problem", but since 99% of them are invasive garbage, whoever is pushing them and whoever argues it's "immoral" to block them can go fuck themselves.

lebed2045 3y ago
a counter take from me, as someone who uses adblocks everywhere possible but used to work for facebook ads department: ads aren't inherently bad, irregardless of much data do they track. What really bad is how this ads is targeted and how much ads is delivered. I would LOVE to see relevant to my interested and situation ads. I like fpv drones and often see interested ads on instagram and led to a purchase. The problem after that I can't just edit the vector of my interests for ads targeting and keep bombarded with something not relevant to my situation anymore, and boy so much of it I see. I really don't know why big ads network didn't move forward with user controlled ads mechanics - because we all humans buy something anyway, it's okay of being aware of the options on the market. It's not okay to mentally torture users with irrelevant, annoying and overwhelming amount of ads.

temporallobe 3y ago

What still gets me is that even with YT Premium, there are still ads if the content creators decide to embed them as part of the content. Yes, they are skippable, but there are still ads…that I paying, to NOT see. This is also a moral issue. What does the exact definition of “no ads” actually mean to YT and is their definition misleading or purposefully vague? Unless they qualify their definition with something like “you may still see in-video sponsored content”, ad-free should 100% ad-free, and it is irritating that that (perhaps) through some nuanced definition of “ads” that they allow this. IMO this needs to be investigated by the FCC. If you look at the advertising literature for Premium, it simply says “Enjoy ad-free videos…” with no asterisk or fine print that has any exclusions. Perhaps there is something deeply buried in one of the “terms and conditions” documents that allows for this, but I haven’t taken the time to look. My point is, YT and the content creators benefit from these ads on a supposed no-ad plan. Imagine if other streaming services like Netflix started doing this.

rchaud 3y ago
Like a TV show with ads, but where the TV actors put in their own ads right into the shows dialogue, in addition to the network's commercial breaks. This happens because Youtube doesn't pay content makers a flat rate, unless they're a whale.
- temporallobe 3y ago
  Yeah there are various ways to sneak advertising into content, but that why this is so insidious. Is product placement an “ad”? Is a quick mention of a sponsor an “ad”? Is a “passive” ad such as background graphic or wearing a sponsor’s t-shirt an “ad?”. Where do we draw that line? I think we’ve simply been conditioned to accept that ads are a normal and acceptable part of life, even if you pay not to have them. Remember when cable TV first became available to the public? It was supposed to be, and was at first, ad-free because you paid for it unlike broadcast TV. Now, cable TV is more ads than content in many cases, and those who have it pay dearly because in most markets, the cable companies have an effective monopoly. We have become the dystopian future we predicted and abhorred, but don’t even know it.
3y ago

freeAgent 3y ago

You have essentially laid out the tech company playbook. In so many cases, hyper-growth is subsidized by investors (or another part of a giant business). The product is offered to the public at FAR below cost in order to gain a monopoly-like market share. After they have successfully killed all viable competitors, they ratchet up prices (and/or ad-delivery), decrease spend on customer service, etc. and rake in profits. This is why the “growth mindset” is so ingrained in SV tech culture.

SergeAx 3y ago

I don't see any question on morality of blocking ads. Under no circumstances any living soul may be forced to view any kind of displeasing content. Web is an open protocol, anything accessible on the web with http code 200 is free to download. After downloading, I can alter that content in any way. Simple like that. If Youtube wants to control their content and users - they should create their own protocols or at least closed network using web protocols, write their own client software and distribute it.

AlexVN 3y ago

I'm not sure it's a question of what's "fair" or "right" or "legal". We (as a society) need to figure out what incentive we want to impose on the world. We (through a convoluted, but in the end democratic process that is supposed to represent the will of the people) decided that piracy is illegal not because there is some divine right of authors to get compensated, but because we believe that by making piracy too common we would kill the incentive for the future authors to create. Similary, we will need to decide on the laws around ad blocking. If we decide to keep it accessable, then the downside is that both the infrastructure work done by Google (or its competitors) and the creative work done by authors will become less profitable and thus the quality will decline. If we don't envision this happening, we should definetly get ad blockers without a second thought.

sam0x17 3y ago

> This is of course bringing up the discussion on the "morality" of Adblocking. I'd like to point out something that I don't think is getting enough attention. Don't forget the flipside, the "morality" of interfering with a user's freedom to selectively ignore certain content.

ddalex 3y ago

There was a point in the past where various empires were competing, and by no means was it clear that The Roman Empire would end up dominating the world close to being a monopoly. The Roman Empire is moving away from the parameters of their implicit win, including the kind and amount of victories they score. Had they "competed" in world domination with the current policies, maybe everybody would speak Persian by now. No, I won't be subject to the Byzantine Empire - because that was not part of the deal either. The empire was build on Rome. So until the Byzantines can figure out how to win _reasonable_ amount of _military victories_ - I won't pay taxes. Do you realize how shallow your argument sounds ? :)) Of course Youtube is turning the screws now that they have the lock-in. Ethics have nothing to do with it. And they will turn the screws until you either pay up or stop going there all together.