15 ms·

YouTube's ban leads to a record number of users uninstalling their ad-blockers

31 points by goplayoutside 3y ago

vouaobrasil 3y ago
Chances are it's just to install a BETTER adblocker...but even if not, YouTube is being greedy here. They could still make a fairly profitable site and compete based on features and usability, but instead they are maximizing their revenue at the cost of all else. They are greedy, and instead of having a thriving business, they are making the exact same mistake as cable TV providers: choking th life out of viewers with too many ads for short-term gain at the cost of longevity. Frankly, in the past years, nothing makes me more sick that the pure greed of tech companies doing things just because they can, and Google and its employees are at the top of that list of those who make me wretch.
- repelsteeltje 3y ago
  I see what you mean about Google's greed. But to be perfectly honoust there is some greed on our behalf as well. The "contract" with YouTube being: don't pay us in $$$, give us your privacy — by attempting to use without revealing our privacy gold we're somewhat free loading, being greedy. It would be better to reject the "contract" and find different ways to access the content without relying on Google's "free" distribution infrastructure. There are alternatives (like https://peertube.tv/ https://peertube.tv/) It's a sad content distribution and discoverability (especially video) has become so centralized.
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    Yes, I do agree with you. It is not just Google's greed but also our own. In fact, if I had the time and resources, I would love to create a different video sharing site. It would be a site that is like YouTube but only allows 1080P video (to save on hosting). It would take a few minutes, maybe 5 to load a video, to save on bandwidth. It would have a limit on video length as well maybe, It would also not have any analytics or recommendation algorithm, and it would have a modest paid tier (2$ a month for some additional features). It might have a Patreon-like feature from which I would take a modest percentage, just to pay for hosting. Instead of a recommendation algorithm, it would have some basic categories and new videos would just appear in the categories that you subscribe to, but only sorted by date. It would be a slower, simpler site for genuine video sharing, but with some limitations to keep things realistic. I am being 100% serious: I do think a slower, more modest site with less features would be quite nice, sort of like Medium but for video.
    - ddorian43 3y ago
      > would be quite nice, sort of like Medium The worst example possible.
      - vouaobrasil 3y ago
        Medium has its problems but at least it is trying to find another business model besides the ad-only kind, and that in itself is laudable.
        iamgpt 3y ago
        Medium employs the worst kind of ad-business model. I'm not referring to traditional ads but to the practice of imposing a corporate paywall (which is akin to an ad since it's not your paywall but the company's) to entice users into paying Medium for content that they don't even own. Additionally, they pay creators peanuts through an opaque monetization system. It's reminiscent of every other content aggregator website now.
    - jefftk 3y ago
      I don't see how taking 5min to start playing a video saves you much on bandwidth? I see how you save by accepting somewhat longer start times, and more variance, but even with the delay you're still paying to transfer the same number of bytes.
      - vouaobrasil 3y ago
        Well, it would load the video more slowly, thereby causing people to watch fewer videos. Their selections would be more thoughtful and more focused rather than frenetic and shallow.
        jefftk 3y ago
        Or people would set lots of videos to load in background tabs but only get around to watching some of them.
  - simbolit 3y ago
    You would think controlling what the world watches via algorithms with no oversight whatsoever would be a valuable thing to have. But having that AND getting ad money is more valuable, of course, so they do it.
    - Ekaros 3y ago
      Isn't the first one what makes the later one valuable? And without it would have somewhat less value... And who would actually pay on what people watch? Would that really be sustainable model?
      - slowmovintarget 3y ago
        The first one lets you move opinion on things like AI regulation, anti-trust actions, election sentiment, and more... so the first one is valuable on its own. If you have the first, using it to get the second is like using a commercial passenger jet as a reading light (yes that's a Jim Butcher reference).
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
      They also get all of your information/habits/etc.. It's pretty sweet being an all powerful tech company.
      - taylodl 3y ago
        Which has what value, exactly? I see the value being for lining up the ads you're most likely to be relevant to you. It increases the amount they can charge advertisers, and you're seeing ads that are more relevant to you. Is there some other value in having this information?
        simbolit 3y ago
        in the individual case, it's ads or blackmail (and because the latter is illegal, Google isn't doing it). in the aggregate, at the population level? very valuable. especially changes over time.
  - jaimehrubiks 3y ago
    Not sure why you're being down voted. I love ad blockers and that's my go-to when it comes to Google. But I think it's fair for them to offer YouTube in exchange of either privacy, ads or premium subscription
    - dfxm12 3y ago
      It is naive to think they don't collect data from their YT premium users. Plus, for free users they show ads and collect data.
- mrweasel 3y ago
  > but even if not, YouTube is being greedy here While I agree with the greedy part, what do you specifically suggest they do? If they do nothing then the people without an adblocker are effectively subsidizing those who don't see the ads, resulting in them seeing more ads. If you don't want ads there's YouTube Premium ( even if it sucks that you need to get YouTube Music at the same time ). The worst part of that deal is that I'm pretty confident that Google is still collecting everything that can about me and uses it everywhere else.
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    I think Google should offer a paid tier like YouTube premium, but with the following feautures: (1) You can opt out of any analytics and tracking (2) They would turn off ads for your OWN channel. So for example, if I have a channel and I pay for premium, then I should be able to TURN OFF ads so that OTHERS who view my channel don't see ads. If Google had these features, I would buy premium in a heartbeat.
    - Ekaros 3y ago
      If we consider popular channels I wonder if single premium subscription is enough to cover the costs. Maybe Youtube could become actual hosting platform and allow creators and companies to pay some fee per minute of streaming at each resolution.
    - IgorPartola 3y ago
      Why not Vimeo?
      - vouaobrasil 3y ago
        It is a good option.
        taylodl 3y ago
        Technically, but not practically. None of the channels I subscribe to are on it. At the end of the day it's all about content. If YouTube had no content then I wouldn't be there.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
  > They are greedy, and instead of having a thriving business, they are making the exact same mistake as cable TV providers: How are they supposed to have a thriving business with no ads? Why would anyone pay for YouTube if not to remove the ads? The videos that get the most views only exist because YouTube shares ad revenue with creators. That content largely wouldn't exist without ad money to fund it. The cost to run YouTube is enormous.
simbolit 3y ago
https://piped.video https://piped.video https://piped.kavin.rocks https://piped.kavin.rocks https://yewtu.be https://yewtu.be
- aitchnyu 3y ago
  Libredirect extension to automatically get a curated list of instances and choose the ones with lowest ping times and dash (better than 720p) enabled. Also for dozens of other enshittified services.
- adrianfanaca 3y ago
  I just don’t understand why people don’t use Invidious instead of paying money to these greedy bastards
  - notpushkin 3y ago
    Because (a) it's not that widely known and (b) Google is trying to block it [1], so many instances are broken now, which isn't a great experience. [1]: https://github.com/iv-org/invidious/issues/3915 https://github.com/iv-org/invidious/issues/3915
    - adrianfanaca 3y ago
      I know they’re trying to block it. Even this thread which is flagged now is a case in point. Let’s kill the greedy bastards. Let’s make Google bankrupt, anyway it’s not useful much anymore
djoldman 3y ago
uBlock has been working fine. If you get blocked from youtube, you can go to uBlock options, click purge all caches, then "Update Now." Do a full reload in youtube and you're good to go. Tactics are changing continually.
- LandR 3y ago
  This isn't working for me on Firefox / uBlock and Ubuntu :( I don't get the popup, but the video is just black and the play button does nothing.
  - suby 3y ago
    Did you already hit their three strikes soft ban prior to updating the cache?
    - LandR 3y ago
      Possibly. I didn't know this was a thing!
    - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
      What is it? Hard for anyone to tell without describing it.
  - leosanchez 3y ago
    I have mostly same configuration except I use Fedora. Sometimes ublock doesn't work for me. I just open the video in a temporary container it works without any issues. Have you tried this approach?
    - LandR 3y ago
      Thanks, this seems to work for me!
  - LinuxBender 3y ago
    It's mostly affecting people that log into Youtube and don't block javascript from google. That's why there are so many people with conflicting anecdotes.
BiteCode_dev 3y ago
They will win. They will setup DRM, or render the full site in canvas, or with wasm, or something, or requires a TPM trusted signatured in an approved web browser or some shit. The new generation will accept a limited client, because they know mostly locked down phones. So only a few will not accept it, and they will not have to care about it a single bit.
- malermeister 3y ago
  They won't. The movie industry has been trying to stop piracy with technical measures forever. Things still get pirated. Every measure they take will be broken. They'll win over the masses, which is what they really care about. But they won't ever defeat the die-hards.
  - matthewfelgate 3y ago
    Netflix killed Torrents. Spotify killed Napster.
    - 3by7 3y ago
      > Netflix killed Torrents. Not really.
    - Zagitta 3y ago
      Torrenting is on the rise again since the golden era of streaming where Netflix gave you access to everything has ended. https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/digital-content-piracy-is-on-the-rise-report-says/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/digital-cont...
    - SonicScrub 3y ago
      By providing a better service. Not by combatting the pirates in a technological arms race. Incidentally, movie/TV piracy is on the rise again as streaming has become more fragmented and more expensive. https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/25/streaming-video-piracy/#:~:text=Streaming%20video%20piracy%20increasing%20in%20response&text=Data%20shows%20that%20accesses%20to,the%20end%20of%202022%20%5B%E2%80%A6%5D https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/25/streaming-video-piracy/#:~:te...
tennisflyi 3y ago
I just use Brave and no ads or warnings.
nannal 3y ago
> https://github.com/0x48piraj/fadblock https://github.com/0x48piraj/fadblock I'm trying out alternatives fadblock seems to work well enough so far, but this is enshitification. If it comes to it I'll migrate over to using yt-dlp or disregard YT entirely and find somewhere else. I believe others feel similarly. Ads are not acceptable to me.
fluoridation 3y ago
There's an argument to be made that a site that permits ad blockers should command a higher price from advertisers than one that forbids them, since a user who would use an ad blocker is the least likely user to ever click on an ad. If you're showing ads to a userbase that consists of a mix of users who would and wouldn't use an ad blocker if able to do it, then you're increasing your impressions by policy without increasing your conversions, compared to a site that shows ads only to users who have the chance to block ads and don't.
- dspillett 3y ago
  Depending on the way the site and its ads are presented, and which ad-blocked is in use, that argument often falls flat because the blocked adverts still get counted as delivered as they leave the relevant server and are blocked from rendering client-side. Obviously this is not universally true (for example DNS based blocking stops the request for the ad content going through at all so if the counting is done at that point a blocked ad won't be counted) but a lot of in-browser blocks might see the blocked impression still counted.
  - fluoridation 3y ago
    >that argument often falls flat because the blocked adverts still get counted as delivered as they leave the relevant server and are blocked from rendering client-side And this counter-argument falls flat because YouTube must be able to detect which users are blocking ads in order to show them a message to disable ad blocking. If YouTube is detecting that situation and still counting blocked ads as delivered then they're cheating their customers. There are only three possibilities: 1. YouTube can't tell if user A is blocking ads, so the customer gets billed for an impression that didn't happen, but the user also can't be stopped from blocking the ad. 2. YouTube can tell when user A blocks ads, and must shoulder the cost of delivering a video without a corresponding ad impression. The argument I brought up addresses this. 3. YouTube can tell when user A blocks ads, and changes the customer anyway. In this case YT would have no incentive to stop people from blocking ads.
    - 3y ago
personalityson 3y ago
I once watched a 15 min Youtube ad about immigrants running an ice scream sandwich shop. Just wanted to see how long it was
zo1 3y ago
I simply stopped watching YouTube.
southernplaces7 3y ago
Those of you defending youtube on this, have you actually tried watching anything on the site without ad blockers? It's not just that they serve you occasional, only moderately annoying ads as a subsidy for not paying, they do it in such an intrusively pervasive manner that it seems intentionally designed to make it nearly unusable. The sheer quantity of garbage interrupting your music or anything else you care to watch goes way beyond reasonable and right into the land of "fuck you until you pay". It's downright shitty from a highly profitable company whose content volume is entirely created by other users themselves who in any case regularly get demonetized from the ads in their own content for all sorts of arbitrary X and Y bullshit reasons, to the point that those running most of my favorite channels don't even make anything from the very same ads that youtube crams down everyone elses throats.
- izacus 3y ago
  My YouTube with premium subscription works just fine across all platforms with no ads. They give me service, I give them money, sounds fair.
  - southernplaces7 3y ago
    Well good for you, would you like a pat on the back? You completely missed the main points I'm making, that the very body of content you enjoy was started and created by users themselves and at one point with much of it being in violation of copyright rules with YT fully benefiting from that, only to now get morally righteous about ad blockers being used to block a deliberately, grossly enshittified viewing experience. Even content creators themselves barely benefit from these ads, because an incredible percentage of them are constantly demonetized for endless arbitrary algorithmic reasons.
- jefftk 3y ago
  > Those of you defending youtube on this, have you actually tried watching anything on the site without ad blockers? That's how I normally watch YouTube. It's fine? The ads are mostly skippable after a few seconds. If I was more into YouTube I'd probably pay to remove ads, but I probably average 15min a day.
SPBS 3y ago
Well good, because hopefully it will shed enough load that YouTube considers it a success doesn't go any further than this. uBlock Origin still works, that's good enough for me.
AraceliHarker 3y ago
The statement "subscriptions to AdGuard's paid service surged, as it's not affected by YouTube's crackdown" is false. AdGuard apps are also affected by YouTube's anti-adblocker measures. However, there are workarounds. You can avoid the anti-adblocker measures by setting your user agent to an old browser, such as Internet Explorer.
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
This doesn't really pass the sniff test, unless users of ad blockers are particularly uninformed. If you want to avoid the YT messages, you can turn off the blocker for YT. If you're uninstalling then you're likely upgrading to a blocker that actually works. The article might be more convincing if they included stats from reliable YT blockers like uBlock Origin.
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
[dupe] Lots of news last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38128765 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38128765
_heimdall 3y ago
Why did this get flagged?
DamnInteresting 3y ago
I deeply dislike advertising, but I am also willing to pay for services I value, so I am subscribed to YouTube Premium. But given how evil and greedy Google has become, I fully expect the "premium" service to eventually transition from no ads to "limited ads" (and that is the day I will cancel my account and walk away forever).

31 points by goplayoutside 3y ago

Chances are it's just to install a BETTER adblocker...but even if not, YouTube is being greedy here. They could still make a fairly profitable site and compete based on features and usability, but instead they are maximizing their revenue at the cost of all else. They are greedy, and instead of having a thriving business, they are making the exact same mistake as cable TV providers: choking th life out of viewers with too many ads for short-term gain at the cost of longevity. Frankly, in the past years, nothing makes me more sick that the pure greed of tech companies doing things just because they can, and Google and its employees are at the top of that list of those who make me wretch.

repelsteeltje 3y ago
I see what you mean about Google's greed. But to be perfectly honoust there is some greed on our behalf as well. The "contract" with YouTube being: don't pay us in $$$, give us your privacy — by attempting to use without revealing our privacy gold we're somewhat free loading, being greedy. It would be better to reject the "contract" and find different ways to access the content without relying on Google's "free" distribution infrastructure. There are alternatives (like https://peertube.tv/ https://peertube.tv/) It's a sad content distribution and discoverability (especially video) has become so centralized.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  Yes, I do agree with you. It is not just Google's greed but also our own. In fact, if I had the time and resources, I would love to create a different video sharing site. It would be a site that is like YouTube but only allows 1080P video (to save on hosting). It would take a few minutes, maybe 5 to load a video, to save on bandwidth. It would have a limit on video length as well maybe, It would also not have any analytics or recommendation algorithm, and it would have a modest paid tier (2$ a month for some additional features). It might have a Patreon-like feature from which I would take a modest percentage, just to pay for hosting. Instead of a recommendation algorithm, it would have some basic categories and new videos would just appear in the categories that you subscribe to, but only sorted by date. It would be a slower, simpler site for genuine video sharing, but with some limitations to keep things realistic. I am being 100% serious: I do think a slower, more modest site with less features would be quite nice, sort of like Medium but for video.
  - ddorian43 3y ago
    > would be quite nice, sort of like Medium The worst example possible.
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      Medium has its problems but at least it is trying to find another business model besides the ad-only kind, and that in itself is laudable.
      - iamgpt 3y ago
        Medium employs the worst kind of ad-business model. I'm not referring to traditional ads but to the practice of imposing a corporate paywall (which is akin to an ad since it's not your paywall but the company's) to entice users into paying Medium for content that they don't even own. Additionally, they pay creators peanuts through an opaque monetization system. It's reminiscent of every other content aggregator website now.
  - jefftk 3y ago
    I don't see how taking 5min to start playing a video saves you much on bandwidth? I see how you save by accepting somewhat longer start times, and more variance, but even with the delay you're still paying to transfer the same number of bytes.
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      Well, it would load the video more slowly, thereby causing people to watch fewer videos. Their selections would be more thoughtful and more focused rather than frenetic and shallow.
      - jefftk 3y ago
        Or people would set lots of videos to load in background tabs but only get around to watching some of them.
- simbolit 3y ago
  You would think controlling what the world watches via algorithms with no oversight whatsoever would be a valuable thing to have. But having that AND getting ad money is more valuable, of course, so they do it.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    Isn't the first one what makes the later one valuable? And without it would have somewhat less value... And who would actually pay on what people watch? Would that really be sustainable model?
    - slowmovintarget 3y ago
      The first one lets you move opinion on things like AI regulation, anti-trust actions, election sentiment, and more... so the first one is valuable on its own. If you have the first, using it to get the second is like using a commercial passenger jet as a reading light (yes that's a Jim Butcher reference).
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
    They also get all of your information/habits/etc.. It's pretty sweet being an all powerful tech company.
    - taylodl 3y ago
      Which has what value, exactly? I see the value being for lining up the ads you're most likely to be relevant to you. It increases the amount they can charge advertisers, and you're seeing ads that are more relevant to you. Is there some other value in having this information?
      - simbolit 3y ago
        in the individual case, it's ads or blackmail (and because the latter is illegal, Google isn't doing it). in the aggregate, at the population level? very valuable. especially changes over time.
- jaimehrubiks 3y ago
  Not sure why you're being down voted. I love ad blockers and that's my go-to when it comes to Google. But I think it's fair for them to offer YouTube in exchange of either privacy, ads or premium subscription
  - dfxm12 3y ago
    It is naive to think they don't collect data from their YT premium users. Plus, for free users they show ads and collect data.
mrweasel 3y ago
> but even if not, YouTube is being greedy here While I agree with the greedy part, what do you specifically suggest they do? If they do nothing then the people without an adblocker are effectively subsidizing those who don't see the ads, resulting in them seeing more ads. If you don't want ads there's YouTube Premium ( even if it sucks that you need to get YouTube Music at the same time ). The worst part of that deal is that I'm pretty confident that Google is still collecting everything that can about me and uses it everywhere else.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  I think Google should offer a paid tier like YouTube premium, but with the following feautures: (1) You can opt out of any analytics and tracking (2) They would turn off ads for your OWN channel. So for example, if I have a channel and I pay for premium, then I should be able to TURN OFF ads so that OTHERS who view my channel don't see ads. If Google had these features, I would buy premium in a heartbeat.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    If we consider popular channels I wonder if single premium subscription is enough to cover the costs. Maybe Youtube could become actual hosting platform and allow creators and companies to pay some fee per minute of streaming at each resolution.
  - IgorPartola 3y ago
    Why not Vimeo?
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      It is a good option.
      - taylodl 3y ago
        Technically, but not practically. None of the channels I subscribe to are on it. At the end of the day it's all about content. If YouTube had no content then I wouldn't be there.
onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
> They are greedy, and instead of having a thriving business, they are making the exact same mistake as cable TV providers: How are they supposed to have a thriving business with no ads? Why would anyone pay for YouTube if not to remove the ads? The videos that get the most views only exist because YouTube shares ad revenue with creators. That content largely wouldn't exist without ad money to fund it. The cost to run YouTube is enormous.

simbolit 3y ago

https://piped.video https://piped.video https://piped.kavin.rocks https://piped.kavin.rocks https://yewtu.be https://yewtu.be

aitchnyu 3y ago
Libredirect extension to automatically get a curated list of instances and choose the ones with lowest ping times and dash (better than 720p) enabled. Also for dozens of other enshittified services.
adrianfanaca 3y ago
I just don’t understand why people don’t use Invidious instead of paying money to these greedy bastards
- notpushkin 3y ago
  Because (a) it's not that widely known and (b) Google is trying to block it [1], so many instances are broken now, which isn't a great experience. [1]: https://github.com/iv-org/invidious/issues/3915 https://github.com/iv-org/invidious/issues/3915
  - adrianfanaca 3y ago
    I know they’re trying to block it. Even this thread which is flagged now is a case in point. Let’s kill the greedy bastards. Let’s make Google bankrupt, anyway it’s not useful much anymore

djoldman 3y ago

uBlock has been working fine. If you get blocked from youtube, you can go to uBlock options, click purge all caches, then "Update Now." Do a full reload in youtube and you're good to go. Tactics are changing continually.

LandR 3y ago
This isn't working for me on Firefox / uBlock and Ubuntu :( I don't get the popup, but the video is just black and the play button does nothing.
- suby 3y ago
  Did you already hit their three strikes soft ban prior to updating the cache?
  - LandR 3y ago
    Possibly. I didn't know this was a thing!
  - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
    What is it? Hard for anyone to tell without describing it.
- leosanchez 3y ago
  I have mostly same configuration except I use Fedora. Sometimes ublock doesn't work for me. I just open the video in a temporary container it works without any issues. Have you tried this approach?
  - LandR 3y ago
    Thanks, this seems to work for me!
- LinuxBender 3y ago
  It's mostly affecting people that log into Youtube and don't block javascript from google. That's why there are so many people with conflicting anecdotes.

BiteCode_dev 3y ago

They will win. They will setup DRM, or render the full site in canvas, or with wasm, or something, or requires a TPM trusted signatured in an approved web browser or some shit. The new generation will accept a limited client, because they know mostly locked down phones. So only a few will not accept it, and they will not have to care about it a single bit.

malermeister 3y ago
They won't. The movie industry has been trying to stop piracy with technical measures forever. Things still get pirated. Every measure they take will be broken. They'll win over the masses, which is what they really care about. But they won't ever defeat the die-hards.
- matthewfelgate 3y ago
  Netflix killed Torrents. Spotify killed Napster.
  - 3by7 3y ago
    > Netflix killed Torrents. Not really.
  - Zagitta 3y ago
    Torrenting is on the rise again since the golden era of streaming where Netflix gave you access to everything has ended. https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/digital-content-piracy-is-on-the-rise-report-says/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/digital-cont...
  - SonicScrub 3y ago
    By providing a better service. Not by combatting the pirates in a technological arms race. Incidentally, movie/TV piracy is on the rise again as streaming has become more fragmented and more expensive. https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/25/streaming-video-piracy/#:~:text=Streaming%20video%20piracy%20increasing%20in%20response&text=Data%20shows%20that%20accesses%20to,the%20end%20of%202022%20%5B%E2%80%A6%5D https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/25/streaming-video-piracy/#:~:te...

tennisflyi 3y ago

I just use Brave and no ads or warnings.

nannal 3y ago

> https://github.com/0x48piraj/fadblock https://github.com/0x48piraj/fadblock I'm trying out alternatives fadblock seems to work well enough so far, but this is enshitification. If it comes to it I'll migrate over to using yt-dlp or disregard YT entirely and find somewhere else. I believe others feel similarly. Ads are not acceptable to me.

fluoridation 3y ago

There's an argument to be made that a site that permits ad blockers should command a higher price from advertisers than one that forbids them, since a user who would use an ad blocker is the least likely user to ever click on an ad. If you're showing ads to a userbase that consists of a mix of users who would and wouldn't use an ad blocker if able to do it, then you're increasing your impressions by policy without increasing your conversions, compared to a site that shows ads only to users who have the chance to block ads and don't.

dspillett 3y ago
Depending on the way the site and its ads are presented, and which ad-blocked is in use, that argument often falls flat because the blocked adverts still get counted as delivered as they leave the relevant server and are blocked from rendering client-side. Obviously this is not universally true (for example DNS based blocking stops the request for the ad content going through at all so if the counting is done at that point a blocked ad won't be counted) but a lot of in-browser blocks might see the blocked impression still counted.
- fluoridation 3y ago
  >that argument often falls flat because the blocked adverts still get counted as delivered as they leave the relevant server and are blocked from rendering client-side And this counter-argument falls flat because YouTube must be able to detect which users are blocking ads in order to show them a message to disable ad blocking. If YouTube is detecting that situation and still counting blocked ads as delivered then they're cheating their customers. There are only three possibilities: 1. YouTube can't tell if user A is blocking ads, so the customer gets billed for an impression that didn't happen, but the user also can't be stopped from blocking the ad. 2. YouTube can tell when user A blocks ads, and must shoulder the cost of delivering a video without a corresponding ad impression. The argument I brought up addresses this. 3. YouTube can tell when user A blocks ads, and changes the customer anyway. In this case YT would have no incentive to stop people from blocking ads.
  - 3y ago

personalityson 3y ago

I once watched a 15 min Youtube ad about immigrants running an ice scream sandwich shop. Just wanted to see how long it was

zo1 3y ago

I simply stopped watching YouTube.

southernplaces7 3y ago

Those of you defending youtube on this, have you actually tried watching anything on the site without ad blockers? It's not just that they serve you occasional, only moderately annoying ads as a subsidy for not paying, they do it in such an intrusively pervasive manner that it seems intentionally designed to make it nearly unusable. The sheer quantity of garbage interrupting your music or anything else you care to watch goes way beyond reasonable and right into the land of "fuck you until you pay". It's downright shitty from a highly profitable company whose content volume is entirely created by other users themselves who in any case regularly get demonetized from the ads in their own content for all sorts of arbitrary X and Y bullshit reasons, to the point that those running most of my favorite channels don't even make anything from the very same ads that youtube crams down everyone elses throats.

izacus 3y ago
My YouTube with premium subscription works just fine across all platforms with no ads. They give me service, I give them money, sounds fair.
- southernplaces7 3y ago
  Well good for you, would you like a pat on the back? You completely missed the main points I'm making, that the very body of content you enjoy was started and created by users themselves and at one point with much of it being in violation of copyright rules with YT fully benefiting from that, only to now get morally righteous about ad blockers being used to block a deliberately, grossly enshittified viewing experience. Even content creators themselves barely benefit from these ads, because an incredible percentage of them are constantly demonetized for endless arbitrary algorithmic reasons.
jefftk 3y ago
> Those of you defending youtube on this, have you actually tried watching anything on the site without ad blockers? That's how I normally watch YouTube. It's fine? The ads are mostly skippable after a few seconds. If I was more into YouTube I'd probably pay to remove ads, but I probably average 15min a day.

SPBS 3y ago

Well good, because hopefully it will shed enough load that YouTube considers it a success doesn't go any further than this. uBlock Origin still works, that's good enough for me.

AraceliHarker 3y ago

The statement "subscriptions to AdGuard's paid service surged, as it's not affected by YouTube's crackdown" is false. AdGuard apps are also affected by YouTube's anti-adblocker measures. However, there are workarounds. You can avoid the anti-adblocker measures by setting your user agent to an old browser, such as Internet Explorer.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago

This doesn't really pass the sniff test, unless users of ad blockers are particularly uninformed. If you want to avoid the YT messages, you can turn off the blocker for YT. If you're uninstalling then you're likely upgrading to a blocker that actually works. The article might be more convincing if they included stats from reliable YT blockers like uBlock Origin.

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

[dupe] Lots of news last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38128765 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38128765

_heimdall 3y ago

Why did this get flagged?

DamnInteresting 3y ago

I deeply dislike advertising, but I am also willing to pay for services I value, so I am subscribed to YouTube Premium. But given how evil and greedy Google has become, I fully expect the "premium" service to eventually transition from no ads to "limited ads" (and that is the day I will cancel my account and walk away forever).