8 ms·

And 100% of my YouTube ads are scams the last few weeks, many with deepfake fuckery going on. This whole side of the Web needs to be put down. The algo-feed ad

And 100% of my YouTube ads are scams the last few weeks, many with deepfake fuckery going on. This whole side of the Web needs to be put down. The algo-feed ad-clearinghouse side. It’s a cesspit.

RajT88 3y ago
Most of the facebook ads shown to me for the last few years were scams of varying sorts. Ranging from fast fashion sites "going out of business" (whose domain was registered within the last 90 days) to kickstarter campaigns for cloned products to drop-shipped products with slick videos whose discount price is 3x what it costs for the same on Amazon...
miah_ 3y ago
This right here is why we adblock. Google needs to wake up and do something if they really want to stop people from using adblocks on Youtube, or their other properties.
- unshavedyak 3y ago
  Why would they tho? As long as the ads pay, they win. Plus if people don't leave, and instead switch to the massively overpriced $15/m (or w/e) subscription, they make out even better. Google wins as long as the viewers don't leave.
  - katbyte 3y ago
    > the massively overpriced $15/m why do you consider this massively overpriced? 55% of it i believe goes to content creators and they make more from a subscription watch then an ad supported watch.
    - unshavedyak 3y ago
      > why do you consider this massively overpriced? Because i struggle to imagine the ads i watch would amount to $15/m. So it feels like significant markup. A flat rate seems either upcharging, or subsidizing. Neither feel good as a consumer. I rather (and have) quit than pay them $15/m for a handful of ads. They started fighting a month back or w/e and i just stopped watching them for ~2 weeks. When i tried later, the "problem" was gone lol. Not sure what happened. I'd much rather pay for a platform that gives money to creators more directly. I pay for a fair share of things on Patreon, for example. edit: I should note, my assumptions on price are based on how little ad views net in value.
      - unshavedyak 3y ago
        Sidenote, i'd love to hear of platforms that are more creator first. Anyone have any recommendations for additional platforms that give money directly to creators?
      - katbyte 3y ago
        Imho content is content and the creators get more when I pay, and I also don’t see ads. It’s win win and cheaper then other streaming platforms so I don’t see it being out of line cost wise. 55% to creators 45% to platform to host and stream while also supporting a ton of creators who have little to no views. Seems a better deal then Netflix ect with more ability to control where your dollar goes
        unshavedyak 3y ago
        Yea, i think i'd agree if i saw the revenue split or if they helped me understand what went to consumers. I'm not invested enough to research this (which isn't an excuse, just saying i'm not interested), so as a basic consumer my assumption is that the revenue i put into something like Patreon is far better than Youtube. I say that primarily because of experience. For example i subscribe to Spotify, and the revenue split there is atrocious and often a point of debate between platforms. Maybe YT is better, but it's not clear to me from the outside if that's true.
- pjc50 3y ago
  They did do something: they blocked people using adblockers. Really we need some body like the UK ASA to say "you're liable for all these frauds, Google".
  - korse 3y ago
    They tried to block people using adblockers perhaps or maybe they rolled the block out in a non-uniform manner? I still haven't had any problems.
    - trinsic2 3y ago
      NoScript baby.
  - frogpelt 3y ago
    Really? So the advertising agency would have an Investigation Unit that makes sure the companies aren't scams before allowing them to advertise?
    - kelseyfrog 3y ago
      If they want to minimize their risk for liability, yes. If they want to freewheel or assume liability no. Let the market decide.
    - realusername 3y ago
      Some stuff can always slip through for sure but when more than half of the ads are looking illegal, that's going to be hard to invoke that they are doing due diligence.
    - flir 3y ago
      Wasn't a problem with broadcast TV. Seems like the internet ad industry wants scale, but doesn't want to solve the problems of scale.
    - pjc50 3y ago
      After advertising. Which is admittedly kind of useless in a world of anonymous, unaccountable, international advertisers. e.g. https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/person-s--unknown-a23-1198241-person-s--unknown.html https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/person-s--unknown-a23-1198241... Enforcement is very limited to "misleading ad must not appear again". Eventually they'll have to do something a bit toothier or we're going to have an all-scam internet.
- Log_out_ 3y ago
  Die Geister die ich rief, die werd ich nun nicht los
- jvolkman 3y ago
  YouTube offers an ad-free service. (yes, I know content providers can still embed their own promotions into their videos).
  - pierat 3y ago
    Ublock Origin is great at anti-adverts and anti-anti-adtech. For everything else, use SponsorBlock! (Crowdsourced auto-skip YouTube for annoying in-video adverts)
  - yedava 3y ago
    It does, but Youtube still collects your data and sells it to advertisers. So watching a video on Youtube could mean seeing targeted ads on other platforms. So the solution is to always use adblocking everywhere.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    If the "ad-free" service features videos with inline ads, it's not really ad-free.
    - jvolkman 3y ago
      The inline ads are part of the content you're watching, not injected by YouTube. You may not like them, but there's a distinction.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
        Yes there's distinction internally, but as the consumer I care that I'm getting ads more than the details
    - mardef 3y ago
      It serves the authors content ad-free. You can choose to subscribe to authors that do not place ads or sponsored content in their videos. When I dropped cable I started subscribing to dozens of channels and now have a pretty solid subscription list. Many creators I follow have dabbled in different forms of monetization, and I've preferred to stick with the ones that offer patterns or other methods of supporting them. I don't think it's fair to criticize googles product offering for the content creators choices
- jshen 3y ago
  The solution is paying for content, but it's been shown over and over again that the vast majority of people won't pay for most of the content they consume.
  - libraryatnight 3y ago
    Seems like the content market is due for a correction, then. If people are sick of toxic ads, and toxic ads pay for content, but nobody else wants to pay for the content, the content can just die and we'll figure something else out I'm sure.
    - shellygoodman 3y ago
      I think you're on the right track. Unfortunately, the toxic "free" model with ads has trained everybody to expect all content for free. This is completely unsustainable; there will be a correction of some sort, and it's my opinion that we've already entered that stage. It's going to be painful, but I'm hopeful that the end state is that people consider ad-laden "free" content to be not worth their time. I'm already there. I signed up for Kagi search recently (I'm not affiliated with them in any way, just a satisfied customer), and aside from searching reddit, I consider their results to be superior to Google's. One of their main signals for downranking is how heavily ad/tracker-laden a page is.
      - jshen 3y ago
        Why do you believe that youtube and facebook aren't sustainable? They seem sustainable to me.
      - libraryatnight 3y ago
        I'm also a Kagi user! I'm leaning towards using products that I pay for that promise me a dignified experience. I worry though, that we're heading to future where there's a class of people that do not see ads and have some degree of privacy and a class of people that do see ads and have no privacy and I fear for their minds and that culture, as I do not think that system lends itself to narrowing any inequality gaps. I worry for increasingly ad supported hardware. I worry. ;)
- numpad0 3y ago
  Entirely coincidental, but, Google(1998-) is nearing the age of Sun Microsystems(1982-2010) when it died.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    And the same age when Microsoft saw (then) record profits, as well as Amazon (though the pandemic did help). Can't exactly make a one-to-one comparison on a single datapoint alone
  - rollcat 3y ago
    It would be a sick and ironic twist of fate if it met the same end. Oracle was quite unhappy at the time, with Google building their own DB.
  - Ferret7446 3y ago
    > Entirely coincidental Au contraire, it's very likely that it's not a coincidence.
- rchaud 3y ago
  This goes beyond adblock; Google/FB can/have easily overridden that. What we need is regulation, like there is for TV, radio and magazines.
- smugglerFlynn 3y ago
  This is like going back ~20 years and trying to stop publishers from placing shady ads in cheap yellow papers. The internet is just a medium, and Facebook / YouTube are just mass platforms filled with people who click on these ads. But YouTube specifically has built-in segmentation that allows to skip this whole cesspit, it is called YouTube Premium. Same way you would skip yellow papers at kiosk and spend money on better press twenty years ago. (afaik Facebook was recently forced to introduce similar [half-baked] subscription model due to local EU regulations.)
spacecadet 3y ago
We need to burn it down and resow the seeds.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  With the same incentives you will end up with the same monstrosity. Fix the incentives not the symptoms.
  - spacecadet 3y ago
    Sure, figured "resow the seeds" would say that, but over yer head. Sorry.
    - _Algernon_ 3y ago
      Pick a better metaphor next time lol.
    - majewsky 3y ago
      Not a native speaker, but for what it's worth, "resow the seeds" has a strong connotation of "just try the same thing again" to me. As in, "Last year's crop has been destroyed by a drought. We'll resow the same kind of seeds and try again this year."
akomtu 3y ago
Don't forget that the recommended videos themselves are manipulative bullshit.
the_snooze 3y ago
It's a sign that mass-communication-for-everyone-at-scale isn't a great idea after all. We can just go back to small forums and private group chats. Let human-scale social norms rule instead of algorithmically-amplified grey goo.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  No one can afford that. There's a reason why a lot of forums went downhill and got replaced by Reddit... moderating them is a constant effort (and Reddit at least takes over the legally mandated stuff like CSAM, piracy and basic anti-spam), admins are tired of skiddies exploiting phpBB or whatever vulnerabilities the very second they get public, you gotta deal with trolls DDoS'ing you for fun, and also users are lazy because they don't want Yet Another Login (not to mention, Reddit centralizes notifications vs a flooded mailbox). And for blogs, the situation is very similar.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Yep, forums were small when the web was small. Once the web got bigger so did forums and the problems that came with it. After that the spam, hacking, and DDOS just got out of control. The tools for any one individual to make your life hell are just that much better these days. Forums died all the time back then because the admin got tired of the mess. People these days would be far less tolerant of joining these small groups and pouring time into them, only to have them disappear a few months later.
- onetokeoverthe 3y ago
  [dead]
- int_19h 3y ago
  Except we can't, as evident by the fact that this isn't happening. So what now, a ban on "mass communication for everyone at scale"? How exactly will that be defined and enforced?
dissident_coder 3y ago
This is why I refuse to turn off my adblocker on YouTube, and never will. I'm not rewarding YouTube with my money (for YT Premium) for being absolutely useless at vetting their advertisers. I'd rather just not use YouTube at all if it comes to it.
- reustle 3y ago
  You eventually get to a scale where vetting is near impossible. Paying for premium brings them closer to a state where they don’t need advertising at all.
  - dissident_coder 3y ago
    > You eventually get to a scale where vetting is near impossible. This isn't my problem.
  - ska 3y ago
    > You eventually get to a scale where vetting is near impossible. That's a choice, no?
  - notnullorvoid 3y ago
    Even in the impossible scenario that 100% of users paid, they would start introducing ads elsewhere like for higher bitrate/resolution. Those ad spots are valuable. Ads are Google's main businesses, they should be responsible for vetting. Saying it's a scaling issue is a poor excuse, and if that is their legitimate stance then it should be used as evidence that the government needs to step in.
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    The largest television networks in the world haven't reached that scale yet...
    - wharvle 3y ago
      Scale of ad slots sold, not scale of audience. Google’s elected to do this the way that makes it impossible for them to scrutinize what they’re broadcasting to the world, because it makes line go up-and-right slightly better than doing it the other way, so long as they aren’t forced to take responsibility for what they’re promoting.
holoduke 3y ago
time to go back to BBS. text only. New protocol. Completely outside of www.
- alexjm 3y ago
  BBS, Gopher, Usenet, and friends are all still there - no need to invent a new protocol.
- squarefoot 3y ago
  Usenet was the solution: ads were not accepted there precisely not to turn it into the crap that web has become much later, but some big names decided to destroy it, and as of 2023 they mostly succeeded. The protocol is free, although it would likely need a significant overhaul to make it more robust, secure and censorship proof, possibly by introducing delivery through distributed encrypted p2p.
memish 3y ago
Twitter/X has a productive approach with Community Notes. Scam ads get noted.
- evan_ 3y ago
  I think they're already adapting to that- posting lots and logs of slightly different ads from different accounts, probably all going to the same place.
- Arrath 3y ago
  I'm afraid Community Notes is on borrowed time, considering Musk's incensed reactions to getting noted lately.
  - bdcravens 3y ago
    Perhaps but surely it's a small change for them to "whitelist" accounts for exemption from community notes.
edf13 3y ago
Tried reading a local newspaper website recently? It’s a mess of ads, pop ups, scams leaving a small 2-3 line window of text to read and scroll!
- josefresco 3y ago
  In my region there are two kinds of newspapers: Corporate owned, and locally owned. The locally owned newspaper has none of this garbage whereas the "corporate owned" newspaper has ALL of it.
- strangattractor 3y ago
  The names of all the channels on youtube are starting to remind of all those stupid company names (LYRXXX, COOFANDY etc) you see on Amazon. The true destructive contribution of AI will simply be the exponential shitification of the Internet experience.
- colpabar 3y ago
  The cause of both of these problems is that society at large is completely hooked on free content. Nobody wants to pay for anything on a screen, and why would they if they can get it for free? So content producers are forced to sell adspace, and now "user engagement" is their top priority, and the quality of their content drops and they adopt user-hostile patterns to "force" engagement. None of these problems will get better until 1) consumers pay for things they want, and waaaaaaay more importantly, 2) producers produce content that consumers are willing to pay for. So, it may just never happen.
- goles 3y ago
  Having changed a lot of my media habits post-2020 reading a newspaper (including digital versions[1]) has become my favorite way to consume news for a few fairly-obvious sounding reasons when said aloud in the current landscape. - Newspapers end. Any news site, or social media peddling news in disguise, will never stop showing you content. Even if that content is something you won't like, and they know you won't like it, but they must retain you at all costs. They simply let you scroll forever. When I'm done with the paper I move on with my day. - Newspapers are never written 'for you'. The paper clearly writes for an audience but not me as an individual. Not everything I see will be because an Algorithm or someone in product believes this will drive N% more clicks or revenue from me. I can better understand my own biases. - Ads are obvious, clearly labeled, distinctly different from content, and often includes who paid for them. Ads are also not animated or obtrusive (if sometimes large), which if you turn off ad-block and go to any site these days is a jarring experience. Even sometimes with ad-block on. [1]https://www.barnesandnoble.com/b/nook-newsstand/newsstand/newspapers/_/N-8raZ8qeZ1gzr https://www.barnesandnoble.com/b/nook-newsstand/newsstand/ne...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Beijinger 3y ago
"And 100% of my YouTube ads are scams" Dude, I dream of my YouTube ads are being scams. I get greeted every time by a game ad. Some kind of dwarf dies on an apple being offered or something, and dying sounds like someone is throwing up. Please give me your scam ads.
- araes 3y ago
  Agreed. I only get polygonal underwear (fetish?) images and women cut off at the neck. Can't even read about a TB hard drive without it being some Temu clever boob window shot with "cunting season" or similar written nearby [1]. Not a prude, but this is just dumb. When did ads stop even attempting to sell me anything? They don't even try anymore. Now they just show me thinly disguised images of dildos. [1] Typical Example: https://i.imgur.com/sRu8s0I.png https://i.imgur.com/sRu8s0I.png
brnt 3y ago
What ads?
- tim333 3y ago
  I was kind of thinking that having got the adblock going again. I mean I know ads are out there somewhere.
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
"This whole side of the Web needs to be put down." It's Meta/Facebook's and Alphabet/Google's "business model".

And 100% of my YouTube ads are scams the last few weeks, many with deepfake fuckery going on. This whole side of the Web needs to be put down. The algo-feed ad-clearinghouse side. It’s a cesspit.

RajT88 3y ago

Most of the facebook ads shown to me for the last few years were scams of varying sorts. Ranging from fast fashion sites "going out of business" (whose domain was registered within the last 90 days) to kickstarter campaigns for cloned products to drop-shipped products with slick videos whose discount price is 3x what it costs for the same on Amazon...

miah_ 3y ago

This right here is why we adblock. Google needs to wake up and do something if they really want to stop people from using adblocks on Youtube, or their other properties.

unshavedyak 3y ago
Why would they tho? As long as the ads pay, they win. Plus if people don't leave, and instead switch to the massively overpriced $15/m (or w/e) subscription, they make out even better. Google wins as long as the viewers don't leave.
- katbyte 3y ago
  > the massively overpriced $15/m why do you consider this massively overpriced? 55% of it i believe goes to content creators and they make more from a subscription watch then an ad supported watch.
  - unshavedyak 3y ago
    > why do you consider this massively overpriced? Because i struggle to imagine the ads i watch would amount to $15/m. So it feels like significant markup. A flat rate seems either upcharging, or subsidizing. Neither feel good as a consumer. I rather (and have) quit than pay them $15/m for a handful of ads. They started fighting a month back or w/e and i just stopped watching them for ~2 weeks. When i tried later, the "problem" was gone lol. Not sure what happened. I'd much rather pay for a platform that gives money to creators more directly. I pay for a fair share of things on Patreon, for example. edit: I should note, my assumptions on price are based on how little ad views net in value.
    - unshavedyak 3y ago
      Sidenote, i'd love to hear of platforms that are more creator first. Anyone have any recommendations for additional platforms that give money directly to creators?
    - katbyte 3y ago
      Imho content is content and the creators get more when I pay, and I also don’t see ads. It’s win win and cheaper then other streaming platforms so I don’t see it being out of line cost wise. 55% to creators 45% to platform to host and stream while also supporting a ton of creators who have little to no views. Seems a better deal then Netflix ect with more ability to control where your dollar goes
      - unshavedyak 3y ago
        Yea, i think i'd agree if i saw the revenue split or if they helped me understand what went to consumers. I'm not invested enough to research this (which isn't an excuse, just saying i'm not interested), so as a basic consumer my assumption is that the revenue i put into something like Patreon is far better than Youtube. I say that primarily because of experience. For example i subscribe to Spotify, and the revenue split there is atrocious and often a point of debate between platforms. Maybe YT is better, but it's not clear to me from the outside if that's true.
pjc50 3y ago
They did do something: they blocked people using adblockers. Really we need some body like the UK ASA to say "you're liable for all these frauds, Google".
- korse 3y ago
  They tried to block people using adblockers perhaps or maybe they rolled the block out in a non-uniform manner? I still haven't had any problems.
  - trinsic2 3y ago
    NoScript baby.
- frogpelt 3y ago
  Really? So the advertising agency would have an Investigation Unit that makes sure the companies aren't scams before allowing them to advertise?
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    If they want to minimize their risk for liability, yes. If they want to freewheel or assume liability no. Let the market decide.
  - realusername 3y ago
    Some stuff can always slip through for sure but when more than half of the ads are looking illegal, that's going to be hard to invoke that they are doing due diligence.
  - flir 3y ago
    Wasn't a problem with broadcast TV. Seems like the internet ad industry wants scale, but doesn't want to solve the problems of scale.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    After advertising. Which is admittedly kind of useless in a world of anonymous, unaccountable, international advertisers. e.g. https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/person-s--unknown-a23-1198241-person-s--unknown.html https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/person-s--unknown-a23-1198241... Enforcement is very limited to "misleading ad must not appear again". Eventually they'll have to do something a bit toothier or we're going to have an all-scam internet.
Log_out_ 3y ago
Die Geister die ich rief, die werd ich nun nicht los
jvolkman 3y ago
YouTube offers an ad-free service. (yes, I know content providers can still embed their own promotions into their videos).
- pierat 3y ago
  Ublock Origin is great at anti-adverts and anti-anti-adtech. For everything else, use SponsorBlock! (Crowdsourced auto-skip YouTube for annoying in-video adverts)
- yedava 3y ago
  It does, but Youtube still collects your data and sells it to advertisers. So watching a video on Youtube could mean seeing targeted ads on other platforms. So the solution is to always use adblocking everywhere.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  If the "ad-free" service features videos with inline ads, it's not really ad-free.
  - jvolkman 3y ago
    The inline ads are part of the content you're watching, not injected by YouTube. You may not like them, but there's a distinction.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
      Yes there's distinction internally, but as the consumer I care that I'm getting ads more than the details
  - mardef 3y ago
    It serves the authors content ad-free. You can choose to subscribe to authors that do not place ads or sponsored content in their videos. When I dropped cable I started subscribing to dozens of channels and now have a pretty solid subscription list. Many creators I follow have dabbled in different forms of monetization, and I've preferred to stick with the ones that offer patterns or other methods of supporting them. I don't think it's fair to criticize googles product offering for the content creators choices
jshen 3y ago
The solution is paying for content, but it's been shown over and over again that the vast majority of people won't pay for most of the content they consume.
- libraryatnight 3y ago
  Seems like the content market is due for a correction, then. If people are sick of toxic ads, and toxic ads pay for content, but nobody else wants to pay for the content, the content can just die and we'll figure something else out I'm sure.
  - shellygoodman 3y ago
    I think you're on the right track. Unfortunately, the toxic "free" model with ads has trained everybody to expect all content for free. This is completely unsustainable; there will be a correction of some sort, and it's my opinion that we've already entered that stage. It's going to be painful, but I'm hopeful that the end state is that people consider ad-laden "free" content to be not worth their time. I'm already there. I signed up for Kagi search recently (I'm not affiliated with them in any way, just a satisfied customer), and aside from searching reddit, I consider their results to be superior to Google's. One of their main signals for downranking is how heavily ad/tracker-laden a page is.
    - jshen 3y ago
      Why do you believe that youtube and facebook aren't sustainable? They seem sustainable to me.
    - libraryatnight 3y ago
      I'm also a Kagi user! I'm leaning towards using products that I pay for that promise me a dignified experience. I worry though, that we're heading to future where there's a class of people that do not see ads and have some degree of privacy and a class of people that do see ads and have no privacy and I fear for their minds and that culture, as I do not think that system lends itself to narrowing any inequality gaps. I worry for increasingly ad supported hardware. I worry. ;)
numpad0 3y ago
Entirely coincidental, but, Google(1998-) is nearing the age of Sun Microsystems(1982-2010) when it died.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  And the same age when Microsoft saw (then) record profits, as well as Amazon (though the pandemic did help). Can't exactly make a one-to-one comparison on a single datapoint alone
- rollcat 3y ago
  It would be a sick and ironic twist of fate if it met the same end. Oracle was quite unhappy at the time, with Google building their own DB.
- Ferret7446 3y ago
  > Entirely coincidental Au contraire, it's very likely that it's not a coincidence.
rchaud 3y ago
This goes beyond adblock; Google/FB can/have easily overridden that. What we need is regulation, like there is for TV, radio and magazines.
smugglerFlynn 3y ago
This is like going back ~20 years and trying to stop publishers from placing shady ads in cheap yellow papers. The internet is just a medium, and Facebook / YouTube are just mass platforms filled with people who click on these ads. But YouTube specifically has built-in segmentation that allows to skip this whole cesspit, it is called YouTube Premium. Same way you would skip yellow papers at kiosk and spend money on better press twenty years ago. (afaik Facebook was recently forced to introduce similar [half-baked] subscription model due to local EU regulations.)

spacecadet 3y ago

We need to burn it down and resow the seeds.

hackerlight 3y ago
With the same incentives you will end up with the same monstrosity. Fix the incentives not the symptoms.
- spacecadet 3y ago
  Sure, figured "resow the seeds" would say that, but over yer head. Sorry.
  - _Algernon_ 3y ago
    Pick a better metaphor next time lol.
  - majewsky 3y ago
    Not a native speaker, but for what it's worth, "resow the seeds" has a strong connotation of "just try the same thing again" to me. As in, "Last year's crop has been destroyed by a drought. We'll resow the same kind of seeds and try again this year."

akomtu 3y ago

Don't forget that the recommended videos themselves are manipulative bullshit.

the_snooze 3y ago

It's a sign that mass-communication-for-everyone-at-scale isn't a great idea after all. We can just go back to small forums and private group chats. Let human-scale social norms rule instead of algorithmically-amplified grey goo.

mschuster91 3y ago
No one can afford that. There's a reason why a lot of forums went downhill and got replaced by Reddit... moderating them is a constant effort (and Reddit at least takes over the legally mandated stuff like CSAM, piracy and basic anti-spam), admins are tired of skiddies exploiting phpBB or whatever vulnerabilities the very second they get public, you gotta deal with trolls DDoS'ing you for fun, and also users are lazy because they don't want Yet Another Login (not to mention, Reddit centralizes notifications vs a flooded mailbox). And for blogs, the situation is very similar.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Yep, forums were small when the web was small. Once the web got bigger so did forums and the problems that came with it. After that the spam, hacking, and DDOS just got out of control. The tools for any one individual to make your life hell are just that much better these days. Forums died all the time back then because the admin got tired of the mess. People these days would be far less tolerant of joining these small groups and pouring time into them, only to have them disappear a few months later.
onetokeoverthe 3y ago
[dead]
int_19h 3y ago
Except we can't, as evident by the fact that this isn't happening. So what now, a ban on "mass communication for everyone at scale"? How exactly will that be defined and enforced?

dissident_coder 3y ago

This is why I refuse to turn off my adblocker on YouTube, and never will. I'm not rewarding YouTube with my money (for YT Premium) for being absolutely useless at vetting their advertisers. I'd rather just not use YouTube at all if it comes to it.

reustle 3y ago
You eventually get to a scale where vetting is near impossible. Paying for premium brings them closer to a state where they don’t need advertising at all.
- dissident_coder 3y ago
  > You eventually get to a scale where vetting is near impossible. This isn't my problem.
- ska 3y ago
  > You eventually get to a scale where vetting is near impossible. That's a choice, no?
- notnullorvoid 3y ago
  Even in the impossible scenario that 100% of users paid, they would start introducing ads elsewhere like for higher bitrate/resolution. Those ad spots are valuable. Ads are Google's main businesses, they should be responsible for vetting. Saying it's a scaling issue is a poor excuse, and if that is their legitimate stance then it should be used as evidence that the government needs to step in.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  The largest television networks in the world haven't reached that scale yet...
  - wharvle 3y ago
    Scale of ad slots sold, not scale of audience. Google’s elected to do this the way that makes it impossible for them to scrutinize what they’re broadcasting to the world, because it makes line go up-and-right slightly better than doing it the other way, so long as they aren’t forced to take responsibility for what they’re promoting.

holoduke 3y ago

time to go back to BBS. text only. New protocol. Completely outside of www.

alexjm 3y ago
BBS, Gopher, Usenet, and friends are all still there - no need to invent a new protocol.
squarefoot 3y ago
Usenet was the solution: ads were not accepted there precisely not to turn it into the crap that web has become much later, but some big names decided to destroy it, and as of 2023 they mostly succeeded. The protocol is free, although it would likely need a significant overhaul to make it more robust, secure and censorship proof, possibly by introducing delivery through distributed encrypted p2p.

memish 3y ago

Twitter/X has a productive approach with Community Notes. Scam ads get noted.

evan_ 3y ago
I think they're already adapting to that- posting lots and logs of slightly different ads from different accounts, probably all going to the same place.
Arrath 3y ago
I'm afraid Community Notes is on borrowed time, considering Musk's incensed reactions to getting noted lately.
- bdcravens 3y ago
  Perhaps but surely it's a small change for them to "whitelist" accounts for exemption from community notes.

edf13 3y ago

Tried reading a local newspaper website recently? It’s a mess of ads, pop ups, scams leaving a small 2-3 line window of text to read and scroll!

josefresco 3y ago
In my region there are two kinds of newspapers: Corporate owned, and locally owned. The locally owned newspaper has none of this garbage whereas the "corporate owned" newspaper has ALL of it.
strangattractor 3y ago
The names of all the channels on youtube are starting to remind of all those stupid company names (LYRXXX, COOFANDY etc) you see on Amazon. The true destructive contribution of AI will simply be the exponential shitification of the Internet experience.
colpabar 3y ago
The cause of both of these problems is that society at large is completely hooked on free content. Nobody wants to pay for anything on a screen, and why would they if they can get it for free? So content producers are forced to sell adspace, and now "user engagement" is their top priority, and the quality of their content drops and they adopt user-hostile patterns to "force" engagement. None of these problems will get better until 1) consumers pay for things they want, and waaaaaaay more importantly, 2) producers produce content that consumers are willing to pay for. So, it may just never happen.
goles 3y ago
Having changed a lot of my media habits post-2020 reading a newspaper (including digital versions[1]) has become my favorite way to consume news for a few fairly-obvious sounding reasons when said aloud in the current landscape. - Newspapers end. Any news site, or social media peddling news in disguise, will never stop showing you content. Even if that content is something you won't like, and they know you won't like it, but they must retain you at all costs. They simply let you scroll forever. When I'm done with the paper I move on with my day. - Newspapers are never written 'for you'. The paper clearly writes for an audience but not me as an individual. Not everything I see will be because an Algorithm or someone in product believes this will drive N% more clicks or revenue from me. I can better understand my own biases. - Ads are obvious, clearly labeled, distinctly different from content, and often includes who paid for them. Ads are also not animated or obtrusive (if sometimes large), which if you turn off ad-block and go to any site these days is a jarring experience. Even sometimes with ad-block on. [1]https://www.barnesandnoble.com/b/nook-newsstand/newsstand/newspapers/_/N-8raZ8qeZ1gzr https://www.barnesandnoble.com/b/nook-newsstand/newsstand/ne...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Beijinger 3y ago

"And 100% of my YouTube ads are scams" Dude, I dream of my YouTube ads are being scams. I get greeted every time by a game ad. Some kind of dwarf dies on an apple being offered or something, and dying sounds like someone is throwing up. Please give me your scam ads.

araes 3y ago
Agreed. I only get polygonal underwear (fetish?) images and women cut off at the neck. Can't even read about a TB hard drive without it being some Temu clever boob window shot with "cunting season" or similar written nearby [1]. Not a prude, but this is just dumb. When did ads stop even attempting to sell me anything? They don't even try anymore. Now they just show me thinly disguised images of dildos. [1] Typical Example: https://i.imgur.com/sRu8s0I.png https://i.imgur.com/sRu8s0I.png

brnt 3y ago

What ads?

tim333 3y ago
I was kind of thinking that having got the adblock going again. I mean I know ads are out there somewhere.

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

"This whole side of the Web needs to be put down." It's Meta/Facebook's and Alphabet/Google's "business model".