3 ms·

The sponsored content thing is not really a YouTube problem, unless you're of the opinion they should offer circumvention for it and/or ban it altogether. It's

The sponsored content thing is not really a YouTube problem, unless you're of the opinion they should offer circumvention for it and/or ban it altogether. It's on the individual creator. You can install Sponsorblock to get rid of them (in the browser). Works like a charm, is reliable, YT isn't interested in fighting it, trivial to set up.

j1elo 1y ago
The way I see it, it's 100% crystal clear that YouTube should be asking creators to register the timestamp ranges of their sponsored blocks when uploading a new video, in order to make their Premium subscribers to automatically skip them, as part of the premium they are paying.
temporallobe 1y ago
I’m a YouTube premium subscriber. It is absolutely a YouTube problem because content creators are blatantly bypassing the entire “ad-free” experience with impunity. And nobody can convince me with any clever wordsmithing that “sponsored content” is not an advertisement. It would be the same as saying those happy-ending massage parlors are not prostitution or that OF is not porn. And by the way, YouTube’s own TOS and other related literature make no distinction between these two types of ads; in fact the language is pretty broad because it says “ad-free experience” and makes no distinction between non-skippable ads and so-called sponsored content. Content creators reap the benefits by essentially double-dipping while YouTube looks the other way, because, I would assume, it has no legal or financial impact on them. I put up with some of it because I really enjoy certain channels, but in other cases I have simply unsubscribed and have stopped engaging. I have nothing against ads or making money in principle, but I detest being deceived and gaslighted, especially when I am paying for something.
spacedcowboy 1y ago
Yes, I am of that opinion. An ad is an ad is an ad. If I pay for "no adverts" (as, unfortunately, advertised), it ought to be "no adverts". Calling an advert "sponsorship" is not a solution, it's lying. I will not be continuing my "free trial" of premium YouTube at the end of it, it's not worth the money to pay for something it singularly fails to do.
- perching_aix 1y ago
  Maybe my perspective on this is different because of my experiences, but I won't deny it, content creator ads are annoying, and if I didn't have Sponsorblock, I'd be banging on the desk for it to become a proper Premium feature too. In my location, the ads served up by YouTube were a whole lot worse than what you'd see in videos. Think unapologetically ragebait local political propaganda. Passing through adblocking, even multiple layers of it. And since YouTube is actually interested in serving you those ads, they'll engage in an increasing amount of technological efforts as time goes on to ensure you see them. That's when I decided I'll rather pay up, than to see any of those ads even just one more time. Compared to that, being yapped to about some water bottle merch some creator is selling is almost like heaven. But yeah, if I didn't need to go the extra mile, would be happy about it too.

j1elo 1y ago

The way I see it, it's 100% crystal clear that YouTube should be asking creators to register the timestamp ranges of their sponsored blocks when uploading a new video, in order to make their Premium subscribers to automatically skip them, as part of the premium they are paying.

temporallobe 1y ago

I’m a YouTube premium subscriber. It is absolutely a YouTube problem because content creators are blatantly bypassing the entire “ad-free” experience with impunity. And nobody can convince me with any clever wordsmithing that “sponsored content” is not an advertisement. It would be the same as saying those happy-ending massage parlors are not prostitution or that OF is not porn. And by the way, YouTube’s own TOS and other related literature make no distinction between these two types of ads; in fact the language is pretty broad because it says “ad-free experience” and makes no distinction between non-skippable ads and so-called sponsored content. Content creators reap the benefits by essentially double-dipping while YouTube looks the other way, because, I would assume, it has no legal or financial impact on them. I put up with some of it because I really enjoy certain channels, but in other cases I have simply unsubscribed and have stopped engaging. I have nothing against ads or making money in principle, but I detest being deceived and gaslighted, especially when I am paying for something.

spacedcowboy 1y ago

Yes, I am of that opinion. An ad is an ad is an ad. If I pay for "no adverts" (as, unfortunately, advertised), it ought to be "no adverts". Calling an advert "sponsorship" is not a solution, it's lying. I will not be continuing my "free trial" of premium YouTube at the end of it, it's not worth the money to pay for something it singularly fails to do.

perching_aix 1y ago
Maybe my perspective on this is different because of my experiences, but I won't deny it, content creator ads are annoying, and if I didn't have Sponsorblock, I'd be banging on the desk for it to become a proper Premium feature too. In my location, the ads served up by YouTube were a whole lot worse than what you'd see in videos. Think unapologetically ragebait local political propaganda. Passing through adblocking, even multiple layers of it. And since YouTube is actually interested in serving you those ads, they'll engage in an increasing amount of technological efforts as time goes on to ensure you see them. That's when I decided I'll rather pay up, than to see any of those ads even just one more time. Compared to that, being yapped to about some water bottle merch some creator is selling is almost like heaven. But yeah, if I didn't need to go the extra mile, would be happy about it too.