7 ms·

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 pr

by 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.)

by 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.)