6 ms·

What is the stance of the people who work against the revenue generation of the services they consume? Should YouTube be a free service or what? It's only a s

What is the stance of the people who work against the revenue generation of the services they consume? Should YouTube be a free service or what? It's only a semi-ironic question. Perhaps someone has a vision for how it all works out. Full disclosure: I work on programmatic advertising technologies.

tehbeard 3y ago
You're never going to capture the "will never watch ads" group. What is being destroyed by YouTube's current policy that led to this anti adblock attempt, is pushing too far with the ads. Crap quality and overstuffed. A 5 second ad on a 4 minute video? Fine. 1:30 ad, one of TWO... on same video? Fuck. That. Noise. It's the same segmentation issue as piracy, y'all get hyperfocused on the group that will NEVER play ball, and ruin the experience so much for those that would, that they "swap teams".
- fxtentacle 3y ago
  That pretty much sums up my opinion, too. I'm happy to pay for my time and for convenience. If you violate either, that's on you. And let's be honest, losing access to most of YouTube is a rather miniscule loss.
- wiseowise 3y ago
  6 seconds video shows 15 seconds ad, lmao.
joenathanone 3y ago
If the USPS was never a public service America would literally look differently. Maybe social media(including YouTube) is the modern day USPS, the primary way Americans interact/communicate with each other.
veec_cas_tant 3y ago
If you use YouTube a lot, paying for no ads is a no brainer. I pay for YT premium, Apple News+, NYT, Kagi, etc. If you watch just a few videos a month, the price is just not worth it and there is no per-block pricing. Same goes for paid articles - I would have liked to read a few articles from TheInformation about OpenAI but there is no way I’d buy a subscription.
travoc 3y ago
What is your stance on borrowing from the public library, watching movies at a friend's house or getting up during commercials to make a sandwich?
- Analemma_ 3y ago
  The library (and the books inside it) are paid for by taxes. The movies you watch at your friend’s house was paid for by your friend. How are you paying for YouTube? The amount of effort people spend on these sophist explanations of why they don’t have to pay for the services they use is just amazing.
  - curtisblaine 3y ago
    What's your stance on muting TV commercials, zapping to another channel when TV commercials start, using TiVo, using TV commercials for bathroom pauses?
- tedunangst 3y ago
  So we're going to fund YouTube with taxpayer money now?
kibwen 3y ago
> What is the stance of the people who work against the revenue generation of the services they consume? Those services are fooling themselves. Consider television. Is it immoral to mute the TV during a commercial? No. Is it immoral to go get up and get a snack or go to the bathroom during a commercial? No. TV advertisers have absolutely no expectation that TV viewers will watch their ads. So why's it that when it comes to internet advertising all the advertisers suddenly wring their hands and whine and moan about their poor business model? Ads are nonsense, I won't watch them, stop wasting my time with them, and if you want to cover costs for your service, charge me for the privilege to access it. In the meantime, if you're foolishly giving away something for free, I'm going to consume it without remorse. The entire ad business model is nonsense, and it's not our responsibility as consumers to prop up the companies that have based their fragile fortunes on it.
- DevKoala 3y ago
  I am not asking about the morality of it. I believe consumers are in their right, moral or not, to block ads, and Youtube/Google is in their right to disable ad blockers. I am wondering if someone has a solution because I would really be interested in hearing it.
adityamwagh 3y ago
I’m ready to pay about a $2 per month for YT as a paid service. Personally, paying more than $2 for a software makes me want to avoid using it completely.
- curtisblaine 3y ago
  Agreed. More would not be worth for me. I could also do with a bit of competition. Maybe many smaller YouTubes serving different niches.
- DevKoala 3y ago
  How many hours of YouTube do you consume in a month?
bigyikes 3y ago
Ad-supported services account for the fact that some users block ads. If users blocking ads is enough to make the service unprofitable, the service should switch to a paid model or shut down. It's an adversarial relationship. The service is within their rights to shove ads down your throat, and you're within your rights to fight back. (I pay for YouTube Premium)
OJFord 3y ago
'If I can consume the same service with no ads I will' is my stance I think. I'm way more likely to donate to a channel I like than I am to put up with loud annoying obnoxious ads for things I'm never going to buy anyway if I don't have to. There's one I like, or at least used to, King's Fine Woodworking, that.. I don't know he clearly has some setting enabled that others don't, that means his channel is plastered in text link ads that just make it look crap, and you have to scroll way down to get to 'Uploads' (vs playlists of old videos you've seen before). Ads cheapen every channel they touch, the more there are the worse it is. 'Creators' are better off focussing on direct monetisation imo. Or sponsored unbiased content, product reviews etc. where it is actually related to the channel. Not like VPNs or backup battery systems are everywhere.
- maximus-decimus 3y ago
  You're not answering the question. Do you think Youtube should just be streaming to everybody for free? Do you think that's a sustainable business model?
  - OJFord 3y ago
    No I don't, I just mean if the model is ads that's fine, but if it's possible for me to block them I will, because I don't want to see them and it's not illegal. I do understand that means maybe they have to show more to people not blocking them, or start charging, or something. I'm not saying it should be provided free and adless, I'm just saying that doesn't matter, it's not the point, if it's free and can be adless then it will be. It's not my job to make sure it's sustainable by sitting through ads.
wiseowise 3y ago
> Should YouTube be a free service or what? Yes. They were loss leader for more than a decade and killed all competition because nobody had coffers deep enough to fight Google. Now because of their dominant position it’s impossible to migrate from it, because of network effect. So f** them, not my problem. I’m willing to pay for stuff that I enjoy (old videos from 10+ years ago), I’m not going to pay for modern cancer (just open YouTube in incognito tab to understand what I mean).
- DevKoala 3y ago
  This is a good point tbh. Google did destroy the competition on the space forcing a monopoly. So if there was a similar competing service with the same content quality and revenue models, would you subscribe/watch the ads?
  - wiseowise 3y ago
    Yes. Don’t misunderstand me, I do watch YouTube ads on my TV, but I’m pissed that nobody can challenge them anymore.
trjlwl 3y ago
I don't feel bad for blocking YouTube ads. Other sites tried a more sustainable subscription-based model and Google crushed them by running YouTube at a loss for years. They seem like very smart people that don't need my help to turn a profit.
saidinesh5 3y ago
> What is the stance of the people who work against the revenue generation of the services they consume? Would the advertisers really want to pay for their ads to be shown to people who aren't interested in their products? Every ad view costs them money. (I know, there are also the advertisers who just want to spread their message and aren't selling any products..) If the ads are actually useful to people, would they still jump through all these hoops to block them? The ad supported model is only sustainable for the ad company if it is a win for both advertisers AND end users. "You are not paying for the (premium) service, so we will degrade your service and force you to watch ads so we can pay our bills" is usually a sign that youtube is chasing after short term profits at the detriment of it's own advertisers / end users imo. I know this is a little too simplistic and I don't have any real answers... but this is how i'm looking at this whole debacle.
wintermutestwin 3y ago
I’ll gladly pay for useful ad free services when you stop double dipping and stealing my data.
mindslight 3y ago
First, there is the glaring ethical violation of writing software that deliberately works against the user's interest. In this case the Youtube player is not just playing the requested video, but also displaying ads, backhauling surveillance telemetry, and trying to lure users into the world of conspiracy tripe. It's unfortunate that software development has very little in the way of professional ethics and essentially relies on punk volunteers to counter the surveillance industry's continual aggression, but here we are. Second, Youtube gained outsized winner-take-all popularity by the anticompetitive dumping of hosting and development effort at below the apparent cost. This created a simulation of the early Internet's liberating spirit while killing any competitors that could have been based around sustainable economics (ideally some combination of publisher hosting plus p2p). Blocking ads is continuing the relationship as Youtube created it. Third, just fuck ads in general. The original post is a fun piece of art, but even seeing those three quick blips in the demo video was still an unneeded mental attack. The less I have to suffer and mentally repel corporate attempts at faking social proof, especially interruptive video/audio ones, the better my life is. If I could get AR glasses that blocked billboards, I would. My only concern of Youtube somehow going out of business would be losing the back catalog, which I think is better served by independent archiving rather than framing business revenue as some kind of collective responsibility.
hot_gril 3y ago
My stance is that ads don't work on me, so either YouTube or the advertiser is losing money on me, and they know it. Would rather choose the option that doesn't waste my time too.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
LegibleCrimson 3y ago
I pay for plenty of things, but I'm not going to pay an advertising giant for anything. Google is an abusive, greedy company, and I'm forced to pay too many of those in the course of daily life as it is. When I'm given the choice, I only pay companies that I respect. If they successfully block ad blockers, I'll mute the ads and do something else while they're playing. I'm fine paying for YouTube as soon as it's not in Google's hands. Until then, I'd consider it an ethical wrong for me to pay for it.

tehbeard 3y ago

You're never going to capture the "will never watch ads" group. What is being destroyed by YouTube's current policy that led to this anti adblock attempt, is pushing too far with the ads. Crap quality and overstuffed. A 5 second ad on a 4 minute video? Fine. 1:30 ad, one of TWO... on same video? Fuck. That. Noise. It's the same segmentation issue as piracy, y'all get hyperfocused on the group that will NEVER play ball, and ruin the experience so much for those that would, that they "swap teams".

fxtentacle 3y ago
That pretty much sums up my opinion, too. I'm happy to pay for my time and for convenience. If you violate either, that's on you. And let's be honest, losing access to most of YouTube is a rather miniscule loss.
wiseowise 3y ago
6 seconds video shows 15 seconds ad, lmao.

joenathanone 3y ago

If the USPS was never a public service America would literally look differently. Maybe social media(including YouTube) is the modern day USPS, the primary way Americans interact/communicate with each other.

veec_cas_tant 3y ago

If you use YouTube a lot, paying for no ads is a no brainer. I pay for YT premium, Apple News+, NYT, Kagi, etc. If you watch just a few videos a month, the price is just not worth it and there is no per-block pricing. Same goes for paid articles - I would have liked to read a few articles from TheInformation about OpenAI but there is no way I’d buy a subscription.

travoc 3y ago

What is your stance on borrowing from the public library, watching movies at a friend's house or getting up during commercials to make a sandwich?

Analemma_ 3y ago
The library (and the books inside it) are paid for by taxes. The movies you watch at your friend’s house was paid for by your friend. How are you paying for YouTube? The amount of effort people spend on these sophist explanations of why they don’t have to pay for the services they use is just amazing.
- curtisblaine 3y ago
  What's your stance on muting TV commercials, zapping to another channel when TV commercials start, using TiVo, using TV commercials for bathroom pauses?
tedunangst 3y ago
So we're going to fund YouTube with taxpayer money now?

kibwen 3y ago

> What is the stance of the people who work against the revenue generation of the services they consume? Those services are fooling themselves. Consider television. Is it immoral to mute the TV during a commercial? No. Is it immoral to go get up and get a snack or go to the bathroom during a commercial? No. TV advertisers have absolutely no expectation that TV viewers will watch their ads. So why's it that when it comes to internet advertising all the advertisers suddenly wring their hands and whine and moan about their poor business model? Ads are nonsense, I won't watch them, stop wasting my time with them, and if you want to cover costs for your service, charge me for the privilege to access it. In the meantime, if you're foolishly giving away something for free, I'm going to consume it without remorse. The entire ad business model is nonsense, and it's not our responsibility as consumers to prop up the companies that have based their fragile fortunes on it.

DevKoala 3y ago
I am not asking about the morality of it. I believe consumers are in their right, moral or not, to block ads, and Youtube/Google is in their right to disable ad blockers. I am wondering if someone has a solution because I would really be interested in hearing it.

adityamwagh 3y ago

I’m ready to pay about a $2 per month for YT as a paid service. Personally, paying more than $2 for a software makes me want to avoid using it completely.

curtisblaine 3y ago
Agreed. More would not be worth for me. I could also do with a bit of competition. Maybe many smaller YouTubes serving different niches.
DevKoala 3y ago
How many hours of YouTube do you consume in a month?

bigyikes 3y ago

Ad-supported services account for the fact that some users block ads. If users blocking ads is enough to make the service unprofitable, the service should switch to a paid model or shut down. It's an adversarial relationship. The service is within their rights to shove ads down your throat, and you're within your rights to fight back. (I pay for YouTube Premium)

OJFord 3y ago

'If I can consume the same service with no ads I will' is my stance I think. I'm way more likely to donate to a channel I like than I am to put up with loud annoying obnoxious ads for things I'm never going to buy anyway if I don't have to. There's one I like, or at least used to, King's Fine Woodworking, that.. I don't know he clearly has some setting enabled that others don't, that means his channel is plastered in text link ads that just make it look crap, and you have to scroll way down to get to 'Uploads' (vs playlists of old videos you've seen before). Ads cheapen every channel they touch, the more there are the worse it is. 'Creators' are better off focussing on direct monetisation imo. Or sponsored unbiased content, product reviews etc. where it is actually related to the channel. Not like VPNs or backup battery systems are everywhere.

maximus-decimus 3y ago
You're not answering the question. Do you think Youtube should just be streaming to everybody for free? Do you think that's a sustainable business model?
- OJFord 3y ago
  No I don't, I just mean if the model is ads that's fine, but if it's possible for me to block them I will, because I don't want to see them and it's not illegal. I do understand that means maybe they have to show more to people not blocking them, or start charging, or something. I'm not saying it should be provided free and adless, I'm just saying that doesn't matter, it's not the point, if it's free and can be adless then it will be. It's not my job to make sure it's sustainable by sitting through ads.

wiseowise 3y ago

> Should YouTube be a free service or what? Yes. They were loss leader for more than a decade and killed all competition because nobody had coffers deep enough to fight Google. Now because of their dominant position it’s impossible to migrate from it, because of network effect. So f** them, not my problem. I’m willing to pay for stuff that I enjoy (old videos from 10+ years ago), I’m not going to pay for modern cancer (just open YouTube in incognito tab to understand what I mean).

DevKoala 3y ago
This is a good point tbh. Google did destroy the competition on the space forcing a monopoly. So if there was a similar competing service with the same content quality and revenue models, would you subscribe/watch the ads?
- wiseowise 3y ago
  Yes. Don’t misunderstand me, I do watch YouTube ads on my TV, but I’m pissed that nobody can challenge them anymore.

trjlwl 3y ago

I don't feel bad for blocking YouTube ads. Other sites tried a more sustainable subscription-based model and Google crushed them by running YouTube at a loss for years. They seem like very smart people that don't need my help to turn a profit.

saidinesh5 3y ago

> What is the stance of the people who work against the revenue generation of the services they consume? Would the advertisers really want to pay for their ads to be shown to people who aren't interested in their products? Every ad view costs them money. (I know, there are also the advertisers who just want to spread their message and aren't selling any products..) If the ads are actually useful to people, would they still jump through all these hoops to block them? The ad supported model is only sustainable for the ad company if it is a win for both advertisers AND end users. "You are not paying for the (premium) service, so we will degrade your service and force you to watch ads so we can pay our bills" is usually a sign that youtube is chasing after short term profits at the detriment of it's own advertisers / end users imo. I know this is a little too simplistic and I don't have any real answers... but this is how i'm looking at this whole debacle.

wintermutestwin 3y ago

I’ll gladly pay for useful ad free services when you stop double dipping and stealing my data.

mindslight 3y ago

First, there is the glaring ethical violation of writing software that deliberately works against the user's interest. In this case the Youtube player is not just playing the requested video, but also displaying ads, backhauling surveillance telemetry, and trying to lure users into the world of conspiracy tripe. It's unfortunate that software development has very little in the way of professional ethics and essentially relies on punk volunteers to counter the surveillance industry's continual aggression, but here we are. Second, Youtube gained outsized winner-take-all popularity by the anticompetitive dumping of hosting and development effort at below the apparent cost. This created a simulation of the early Internet's liberating spirit while killing any competitors that could have been based around sustainable economics (ideally some combination of publisher hosting plus p2p). Blocking ads is continuing the relationship as Youtube created it. Third, just fuck ads in general. The original post is a fun piece of art, but even seeing those three quick blips in the demo video was still an unneeded mental attack. The less I have to suffer and mentally repel corporate attempts at faking social proof, especially interruptive video/audio ones, the better my life is. If I could get AR glasses that blocked billboards, I would. My only concern of Youtube somehow going out of business would be losing the back catalog, which I think is better served by independent archiving rather than framing business revenue as some kind of collective responsibility.

hot_gril 3y ago

My stance is that ads don't work on me, so either YouTube or the advertiser is losing money on me, and they know it. Would rather choose the option that doesn't waste my time too.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

LegibleCrimson 3y ago

I pay for plenty of things, but I'm not going to pay an advertising giant for anything. Google is an abusive, greedy company, and I'm forced to pay too many of those in the course of daily life as it is. When I'm given the choice, I only pay companies that I respect. If they successfully block ad blockers, I'll mute the ads and do something else while they're playing. I'm fine paying for YouTube as soon as it's not in Google's hands. Until then, I'd consider it an ethical wrong for me to pay for it.