4 ms·

The "war" headline makes it sound incendiary. What I read was a fascinating story about how conflicted the whole space is, and how Google is sponsoring develop

The "war" headline makes it sound incendiary. What I read was a fascinating story about how conflicted the whole space is, and how Google is sponsoring developers to work on ad-blocking technology, and about how Google concedes that advertisement is problematic from many sides, privacy, distraction, inappropriate context.... Personally I loathe and detest advertisements, and the entire advertising industry because "consumerism" is a derelict philosophy. But from a simply practical stance, I use video clips in education, so yt-dlp ensures I have a reliable offline copy for lectures. Having ads show up in a lesson or conference would be wholly inappropriate. On the other hand I've read comments from people here who say they love ads. They say they find them useful, and even that targeted ads bring value to their lives. If those people are being sincere (and why would they not be?), then there's obviously a market for advertising. And a need for ad-free technology too. I'm all for diversity. It's nice that different people have different tastes and needs. So if YouTube were sincere, and technically capable, we'd simply have two URLs https://noads.youtube.com/ https://noads.youtube.com/ and https://ads.youtube.com/ https://ads.youtube.com/ People could choose what they want. Ads or no ads. Instead of that we get "war", which is always a bonfire of wealth, and psychologically deleterious to all involved. So some thoughts come to mind; Maybe The people who say they "like ads" aren't sincere. They are either paid mouthpieces for the advertising industry, or they suffer from "identification" (aka fanboyism) which leads them to make dishonest comments. Or perhaps YouTube haven't realised how stupid they are being spending millions on fighting ad-blockers when instead they could just offer an ad-free channel to those that want it. Or even more silly; nobody has realised that the optimal solution (economically and politically) is just giving people what they want in the first place, rather than turning it into a childish battle of wills.

bambax 3y ago
> So if YouTube were sincere, and technically capable, we'd simply have two URLs https://noads.youtube.com/ https://noads.youtube.com/ and https://ads.youtube.com/ https://ads.youtube.com/ They do. The noads one is available with a subscription.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Exactly! You can _pay_ not to be inconvenienced and harmed. Whereas they could simply be less greedy and make money from the folks for whom advertisements are a harmless convenience. That's precisely what makes YouTube (and therefore Google) an unethical company. I mean, you made the case for me! I was avoiding saying that Google are wicked and evil by presenting a rational win-win - along with the possibility that they might have missed the rational solution :) But your observation that they _exploit_ the discomfort of others (rather than providing a valued product) , when there is no need to, says everything that needs to be said. TFA presents Google as being "conflicted" by a "complex landscape". So much so that they "sponsor" ad-blocking researchers. And we are supposed to be sympathetic and say; "geee yah, ain't business hard" The reality is that they're just greedy and totally full of shit.
  - beej71 3y ago
    I think they're unethical for other reasons (e.g. WEI and other attempts to break interoperability). But just asking for money or ads is pretty common in business. And basically no one likes either. Just because people don't want to part with their cash doesn't make it unethical to demand it in exchange for goods or services, does it? Or to demand money for a higher-value product. I figure a lot of this seemingly contradictory behavior is out there for plausible deniability when they go before the judge. "No, see we weren't trying to force people into a certain product by leveraging our majority market position. We're trying to give them options!" But their number one goal is to make money, so, yes, they are greedy in that regard.
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      Sure. Let's not start enumerating all the ways that Google are unethical, because I am not sure how well Dang and the team have hardened $max_post_length against buffer overflows. > Just because people don't want to part with their cash doesn't make it unethical to demand it in exchange for goods or services, does it? I don't think I said or even implied that. There are many ways to provide value and run a good business. And "cash"! I'm probably one of the biggest advocates of that around here :) > I figure a lot of this seemingly contradictory behaviour is out there for plausible deniability when they go before the judge. "No, see we weren't trying to force people into a certain product by leveraging our majority market position. We're trying to give them options!" That, very much. So, in Cantor's style, let's add dishonesty to the infinite set of all ways Google are unethical :)
sys_64738 3y ago
GOOG is an ad company so any sponsoring they do is only going to be to their benefit. It particular it will be used as a means to promote their ad-blocking technology in Chrome which allows only certain ads through. If you can't beat them then try to control them within. Fox in the chicken coup, etc. Plenty of metaphors for GOOG's predatory practices here. Personally, the sooner ad companies like GOOG are wiped from the face of the planet then the better for humanity.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  > Personally, the sooner ad companies like GOOG are wiped from the face of the planet then the better for humanity. I fully agree. The Bill Hicks position on advertising and marketing always seemed a little charitable to me. And yet there is space, indeed a great necessity, for companies like the one Google used to be. Independent commercial actors are an absolutely vital element of our information ecosystem. Otherwise, who wants to rely on governments and regulators to oversee search and manage "truth" ? Here, we all know that the story of Google is a story of "The Fall" (Not Mark E Smith's band). And we always talk of that corruption as if it were "inevitable", a fact of human nature no less. But I don't think so, and remain optimistic that "How we stop the enshitification of everything?" remains a vital question. Google is the lesson. Google became an ad company. They fucked up. They dropped the ball. They turned their back on a worthy and moral mission. They turned their back on truth. In the end nothing achieved at Google by all those smart hard working people will be remembered as anything but a cheap manipulation. Just another crappy advertiser who took the immense potential of "The Information Age", held it in their hands, and then utterly betrayed it.

bambax 3y ago

> So if YouTube were sincere, and technically capable, we'd simply have two URLs https://noads.youtube.com/ https://noads.youtube.com/ and https://ads.youtube.com/ https://ads.youtube.com/ They do. The noads one is available with a subscription.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
Exactly! You can _pay_ not to be inconvenienced and harmed. Whereas they could simply be less greedy and make money from the folks for whom advertisements are a harmless convenience. That's precisely what makes YouTube (and therefore Google) an unethical company. I mean, you made the case for me! I was avoiding saying that Google are wicked and evil by presenting a rational win-win - along with the possibility that they might have missed the rational solution :) But your observation that they _exploit_ the discomfort of others (rather than providing a valued product) , when there is no need to, says everything that needs to be said. TFA presents Google as being "conflicted" by a "complex landscape". So much so that they "sponsor" ad-blocking researchers. And we are supposed to be sympathetic and say; "geee yah, ain't business hard" The reality is that they're just greedy and totally full of shit.
- beej71 3y ago
  I think they're unethical for other reasons (e.g. WEI and other attempts to break interoperability). But just asking for money or ads is pretty common in business. And basically no one likes either. Just because people don't want to part with their cash doesn't make it unethical to demand it in exchange for goods or services, does it? Or to demand money for a higher-value product. I figure a lot of this seemingly contradictory behavior is out there for plausible deniability when they go before the judge. "No, see we weren't trying to force people into a certain product by leveraging our majority market position. We're trying to give them options!" But their number one goal is to make money, so, yes, they are greedy in that regard.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    Sure. Let's not start enumerating all the ways that Google are unethical, because I am not sure how well Dang and the team have hardened $max_post_length against buffer overflows. > Just because people don't want to part with their cash doesn't make it unethical to demand it in exchange for goods or services, does it? I don't think I said or even implied that. There are many ways to provide value and run a good business. And "cash"! I'm probably one of the biggest advocates of that around here :) > I figure a lot of this seemingly contradictory behaviour is out there for plausible deniability when they go before the judge. "No, see we weren't trying to force people into a certain product by leveraging our majority market position. We're trying to give them options!" That, very much. So, in Cantor's style, let's add dishonesty to the infinite set of all ways Google are unethical :)

sys_64738 3y ago

GOOG is an ad company so any sponsoring they do is only going to be to their benefit. It particular it will be used as a means to promote their ad-blocking technology in Chrome which allows only certain ads through. If you can't beat them then try to control them within. Fox in the chicken coup, etc. Plenty of metaphors for GOOG's predatory practices here. Personally, the sooner ad companies like GOOG are wiped from the face of the planet then the better for humanity.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
> Personally, the sooner ad companies like GOOG are wiped from the face of the planet then the better for humanity. I fully agree. The Bill Hicks position on advertising and marketing always seemed a little charitable to me. And yet there is space, indeed a great necessity, for companies like the one Google used to be. Independent commercial actors are an absolutely vital element of our information ecosystem. Otherwise, who wants to rely on governments and regulators to oversee search and manage "truth" ? Here, we all know that the story of Google is a story of "The Fall" (Not Mark E Smith's band). And we always talk of that corruption as if it were "inevitable", a fact of human nature no less. But I don't think so, and remain optimistic that "How we stop the enshitification of everything?" remains a vital question. Google is the lesson. Google became an ad company. They fucked up. They dropped the ball. They turned their back on a worthy and moral mission. They turned their back on truth. In the end nothing achieved at Google by all those smart hard working people will be remembered as anything but a cheap manipulation. Just another crappy advertiser who took the immense potential of "The Information Age", held it in their hands, and then utterly betrayed it.