7 ms·

Dear YouTube, It’s not so much that I don’t want to see ads - nobody does, but very very often the ad breaks the vibe of what I am watching and it displeases m

by dkga 1y ago

Dear YouTube, It’s not so much that I don’t want to see ads - nobody does, but very very often the ad breaks the vibe of what I am watching and it displeases me to the point I will invest my soul and energy to block ads. Some real-life examples: - watching a video about coding where the creator has a monotonic, calm voice that keeps me engaged, and VS Code in dark mode which is easy on my eyes in my dark room at 2am, then suddenly comes an ad with bright lights, incredibly high sound and a high-energy backtrack. - watching a meditation video, the exact same ad appears. You get the idea. At the very least, please ensure the ad is in the same volume as the original video. That alone wouldn’t be too hard. In addition, please at least try to match the background overall brightness or color, and the vibe. All this would create value because people would actually watch much more ads.

commandersaki 1y ago
And please, no 30 minute ads.
danparsonson 1y ago
I'll add another one: - music mixes, good lord - three minutes into some great mix and suddenly I'm hearing from Uber Eats yet again I want to support the creators, but thank goodness for yt-dlp
AlienRobot 1y ago
>All this would create value because people would actually watch much more ads. I'm very skeptical about this statement. There is a simple way to stop watching ads: pay for premium. It's 100% effective and works right now. What you are saying is that you want Google to make your ad experience better because you don't want to pay money to use their service. You somehow use it enough for ads to bother you but not enough to pay for it. This paradoxal type of user is too common and makes no sense to me.
- vprcic 1y ago
  > There is a simple way to stop watching ads: pay for premium. It's 100% effective and works right now. For now. With the ever increasing number of "premium" services that promised no ads, but slowly start introducing them, it is just a matter of time before YouTube does the same.
  - dxdm 1y ago
    At which point, if it ever gets to that, you're free to stop paying them. I do not understand what point you're making here.
    - chongli 1y ago
      Yeah the problem for YouTube is that they bundle a bunch of other services with the premium package. They occasionally conduct surveys to gauge user awareness of these features. I myself don’t use any of them, just the ad-free experience. Thus trying to reintroduce ads to the premium users will remove the only reason I’m paying for it in the first place.
    - ptero 1y ago
      Not the poster, but the point I think that Google is engaging in a clear-cut bait and switch. First, "free email, good UX", "free video hosting, minimal ads". Then, once the dependency sets in, use a standard playbook of degrading the lower tiers and charging for removing the inconveniences. I am not claiming that Google is the only company doing that; it is not. But there is a reason that bait and switch is illegal in most places. My 2c.
      - harvey9 1y ago
        This is not bait and switch, going by the definition on the Wikipedia page. It's closer to 'dumping' where goods or services are supplied below cost to drive out competitors.
- commandersaki 1y ago
  There is a simple way to stop watching ads Requires getting out a credit card. Even simpler is an ad blocker. As for the ethics of ad blocking, I'll consider unblocking ads when Google stops with the unethical (think Tai Lopez) and downright malicious ads (deepfakes of Elon suggesting to invest in crap like "Quantum AI"), and only then will I reconsider removing the blocker and maybe even paying. Put simply, ad blockers provide a safer browsing experience.
  - dxdm 1y ago
    Of course it's nicer to get stuff for free. Leeching is leeching, though, no matter how you try to justify it. Maybe you can find some alternative way to support the creators of the content you seem to be enjoying.
- NoLinkToMe 1y ago
  Agreed. I've probably got a few thousand hours on youtube, more than just about everything else. It's immensely valuable, yet I refuse to pay for Youtube. Not quite sure why. I'm perfectly happy paying for two $5 coffees a month that I hardly remember consuming, just because I was perched and a bit tired while on a walk in the city. I pay $25 for a more comfy seat for a 3 hour flight. I pay $15 for a single movie ticket, and another $15 for $3 worth of snacks. I pay $30 for a 30 minute cutting of my hair. I pay $20 for a 3 minute slingshot at the fair. I pay $30 for a 20min taxi. Yet I refuse to pay $14 for Youtube that I use 30 hours a month, because with adblockers I don't have to. And if Youtube makes adblocking awful enough, I simply will pay. As annoying as youtube ads are, I'd never think to complain about them because it has an easy solution.
- latexr 1y ago
  > There is a simple way to stop watching ads: pay for premium. It's 100% effective and works right now. It may be effective at not showing you ads on YouTube specifically, but then you’re helping Google build a more accurate profile on you (from your watch habits) to exploit further. Personally, I’m not comfortable with that because Google has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. I would pay for Nebula.tv if it had a few other specific creators.
- derangedHorse 1y ago
  Using YouTube enough for ads to bother someone does not imply it’s “enough” to pay for. There’s nothing paradoxical about it. Humans don’t value things as a binary decision between it either being worth it as free or equal to the cost it’s being sold at. Everyone has a price point for a service they think is fair, for which they’ll start seeking alternatives when exceeded. This is how markets work. Time spent does not correlate with cost-independent value. This is doubly true with social media platforms.
NewEntryHN 1y ago
Any business model where ads can be paid off has no incentive to make good ads. Ads are meant to be annoying enough so that people prefer paying. Hence the war on ad-blockers.
- sltkr 1y ago
  This is too simplistic. Youtube started as an ad-supported service and today ads still generate the lion share of Youtube's revenue. Youtube ads are some of the most expensive to buy; Google has no incentive to push viewers off the ad-supported tier. Google wants you to watch ads OR pay for a subscription, but it doesn't necessarily care which; they make money off you either way. The reason Youtube offers a premium tier at all is to cater to the minority market of time-poor money-rich users who would rather pay than watch ads, which is just a smart move to broaden their audience and diversify their revenue streams. But it's not the primary way Youtube makes money and likely never will be.
  - chii 1y ago
    depending on what they watch and how much time watching, youtube might actually lose money on a premium user. I imagine it's not easy to watch enough be worth $12 dollars worth of ads in one month tho...
    - 4gotunameagain 1y ago
      I don't think so. Using a $20 CPM [1] (Cost Per Mille, the money advertisers pay per 1000 views), $12 turns out to be 12/20 * 1000 / 30 = 20 ads per day. I would argue that the average youtube premium user watches less than that. And I would argue that youtube really knows the numbers, and google would not lose money. Don't forget they've turned evil ;) [1] source is the most recent Big Time video
      - sltkr 1y ago
        The main problem with this analysis is that not all Youtube viewers are of equal value to advertisers. Premium subscribers are the people who have demonstrated that they are willing and able to spend money on luxuries. These are also the primary audience of advertisers (compared with, say, the elderly living off welfare, minors without a credit card, people living in poor countries). Every premium subscription Youtube accepts reduces the value of its ad-supported audience, not just in an absolute sense (i.e. this user won't watch ads anymore), but in the sense that it lowers the CPM advertisers are willing to pay for the remaining “cheapskates”. The premium subscription price has to account for that, which is why the price should be significantly higher than the average ad revenue per user.
a2128 1y ago
And videos like this one really shouldn't ever have ads, they shouldn't try to block playback for having an adblocker installed, and they shouldn't tell you to "sign in to confirm you're not a bot"[0], and it feels like YouTube should be liable for negligent manslaughter when they do all of the above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtYSTrjKonU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtYSTrjKonU [0] https://i.imgur.com/8SDKRkZ.png https://i.imgur.com/8SDKRkZ.png
- malfist 1y ago
  I'm anti ads as much as the next person, but negligent manslaughter for showing ads? That isn't reasonable.
  - a2128 1y ago
    They've captured the online video provider market by price dumping in a way nobody but Google could afford, and have become THE video website. Now they're implementing restrictive measures in a negligent manner that affect first-aid videos that people have come to rely on. Google clearly has the AI know-how to label when videos are important medical videos. They could skip ads and skip forced sign-in, but they don't care enough. There was a viral tweet once about somebody's grandma choking on a fishbone where YouTube responded telling them to buy YouTube Premium, so they're probably aware, but don't care enough. And they're implementing more measures like the forced sign-in for scraping prevention that happen to disproportionately affect public networks at restaurants and hotels. That's negligence. Why's it so unreasonable?
    - malfist 1y ago
      There's a big difference between being a monopoly and negligent manslaughter.
    - adamgordonbell 1y ago
      Uploader choose to monetize vid, not Google. It's a per video option.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Cthulhu_ 1y ago
There's laws dictacting ads for TV, one of them was raising the volume for ads, the other was banning increasing the loudness of the ad to have the same effect as raising the volume without raising the volume. I presume these all apply - or should apply - to YT and co as well. It's not enough of course. Anyway, ads being annoying and disruptive is the point, they want to sell premium subscriptions because a steady $10 a month on a subscription often forgotten about for years is more valuable and profitable to them than showing ads. (I presume)
peenoise 1y ago
[flagged]
miyuru 1y ago
I don't think YT will implement any of these. annoying people with ads is feature not a bug.
dandanua 1y ago
But you have remembered those ads, YouTube's main objective has been achieved.
mensetmanusman 1y ago
I will raise you an ad about politicians loudly accusing each other of rape while watching a black and white Christmas cartoon with the family around a fireplace.
- reaperducer 1y ago
  And I'll raise you a string of six ads in a row for various less-than-legal products and services interrupting the Christmas mass stream from Saint Patrick's Cathedral. I haven't watched YouTube since.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

by dkga 1y ago

commandersaki 1y ago

And please, no 30 minute ads.

danparsonson 1y ago

I'll add another one: - music mixes, good lord - three minutes into some great mix and suddenly I'm hearing from Uber Eats yet again I want to support the creators, but thank goodness for yt-dlp

AlienRobot 1y ago

>All this would create value because people would actually watch much more ads. I'm very skeptical about this statement. There is a simple way to stop watching ads: pay for premium. It's 100% effective and works right now. What you are saying is that you want Google to make your ad experience better because you don't want to pay money to use their service. You somehow use it enough for ads to bother you but not enough to pay for it. This paradoxal type of user is too common and makes no sense to me.

vprcic 1y ago
> There is a simple way to stop watching ads: pay for premium. It's 100% effective and works right now. For now. With the ever increasing number of "premium" services that promised no ads, but slowly start introducing them, it is just a matter of time before YouTube does the same.
- dxdm 1y ago
  At which point, if it ever gets to that, you're free to stop paying them. I do not understand what point you're making here.
  - chongli 1y ago
    Yeah the problem for YouTube is that they bundle a bunch of other services with the premium package. They occasionally conduct surveys to gauge user awareness of these features. I myself don’t use any of them, just the ad-free experience. Thus trying to reintroduce ads to the premium users will remove the only reason I’m paying for it in the first place.
  - ptero 1y ago
    Not the poster, but the point I think that Google is engaging in a clear-cut bait and switch. First, "free email, good UX", "free video hosting, minimal ads". Then, once the dependency sets in, use a standard playbook of degrading the lower tiers and charging for removing the inconveniences. I am not claiming that Google is the only company doing that; it is not. But there is a reason that bait and switch is illegal in most places. My 2c.
    - harvey9 1y ago
      This is not bait and switch, going by the definition on the Wikipedia page. It's closer to 'dumping' where goods or services are supplied below cost to drive out competitors.
commandersaki 1y ago
There is a simple way to stop watching ads Requires getting out a credit card. Even simpler is an ad blocker. As for the ethics of ad blocking, I'll consider unblocking ads when Google stops with the unethical (think Tai Lopez) and downright malicious ads (deepfakes of Elon suggesting to invest in crap like "Quantum AI"), and only then will I reconsider removing the blocker and maybe even paying. Put simply, ad blockers provide a safer browsing experience.
- dxdm 1y ago
  Of course it's nicer to get stuff for free. Leeching is leeching, though, no matter how you try to justify it. Maybe you can find some alternative way to support the creators of the content you seem to be enjoying.
NoLinkToMe 1y ago
Agreed. I've probably got a few thousand hours on youtube, more than just about everything else. It's immensely valuable, yet I refuse to pay for Youtube. Not quite sure why. I'm perfectly happy paying for two $5 coffees a month that I hardly remember consuming, just because I was perched and a bit tired while on a walk in the city. I pay $25 for a more comfy seat for a 3 hour flight. I pay $15 for a single movie ticket, and another $15 for $3 worth of snacks. I pay $30 for a 30 minute cutting of my hair. I pay $20 for a 3 minute slingshot at the fair. I pay $30 for a 20min taxi. Yet I refuse to pay $14 for Youtube that I use 30 hours a month, because with adblockers I don't have to. And if Youtube makes adblocking awful enough, I simply will pay. As annoying as youtube ads are, I'd never think to complain about them because it has an easy solution.
latexr 1y ago
> There is a simple way to stop watching ads: pay for premium. It's 100% effective and works right now. It may be effective at not showing you ads on YouTube specifically, but then you’re helping Google build a more accurate profile on you (from your watch habits) to exploit further. Personally, I’m not comfortable with that because Google has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. I would pay for Nebula.tv if it had a few other specific creators.
derangedHorse 1y ago
Using YouTube enough for ads to bother someone does not imply it’s “enough” to pay for. There’s nothing paradoxical about it. Humans don’t value things as a binary decision between it either being worth it as free or equal to the cost it’s being sold at. Everyone has a price point for a service they think is fair, for which they’ll start seeking alternatives when exceeded. This is how markets work. Time spent does not correlate with cost-independent value. This is doubly true with social media platforms.

NewEntryHN 1y ago

Any business model where ads can be paid off has no incentive to make good ads. Ads are meant to be annoying enough so that people prefer paying. Hence the war on ad-blockers.

sltkr 1y ago
This is too simplistic. Youtube started as an ad-supported service and today ads still generate the lion share of Youtube's revenue. Youtube ads are some of the most expensive to buy; Google has no incentive to push viewers off the ad-supported tier. Google wants you to watch ads OR pay for a subscription, but it doesn't necessarily care which; they make money off you either way. The reason Youtube offers a premium tier at all is to cater to the minority market of time-poor money-rich users who would rather pay than watch ads, which is just a smart move to broaden their audience and diversify their revenue streams. But it's not the primary way Youtube makes money and likely never will be.
- chii 1y ago
  depending on what they watch and how much time watching, youtube might actually lose money on a premium user. I imagine it's not easy to watch enough be worth $12 dollars worth of ads in one month tho...
  - 4gotunameagain 1y ago
    I don't think so. Using a $20 CPM [1] (Cost Per Mille, the money advertisers pay per 1000 views), $12 turns out to be 12/20 * 1000 / 30 = 20 ads per day. I would argue that the average youtube premium user watches less than that. And I would argue that youtube really knows the numbers, and google would not lose money. Don't forget they've turned evil ;) [1] source is the most recent Big Time video
    - sltkr 1y ago
      The main problem with this analysis is that not all Youtube viewers are of equal value to advertisers. Premium subscribers are the people who have demonstrated that they are willing and able to spend money on luxuries. These are also the primary audience of advertisers (compared with, say, the elderly living off welfare, minors without a credit card, people living in poor countries). Every premium subscription Youtube accepts reduces the value of its ad-supported audience, not just in an absolute sense (i.e. this user won't watch ads anymore), but in the sense that it lowers the CPM advertisers are willing to pay for the remaining “cheapskates”. The premium subscription price has to account for that, which is why the price should be significantly higher than the average ad revenue per user.

a2128 1y ago

And videos like this one really shouldn't ever have ads, they shouldn't try to block playback for having an adblocker installed, and they shouldn't tell you to "sign in to confirm you're not a bot"[0], and it feels like YouTube should be liable for negligent manslaughter when they do all of the above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtYSTrjKonU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtYSTrjKonU [0] https://i.imgur.com/8SDKRkZ.png https://i.imgur.com/8SDKRkZ.png

malfist 1y ago
I'm anti ads as much as the next person, but negligent manslaughter for showing ads? That isn't reasonable.
- a2128 1y ago
  They've captured the online video provider market by price dumping in a way nobody but Google could afford, and have become THE video website. Now they're implementing restrictive measures in a negligent manner that affect first-aid videos that people have come to rely on. Google clearly has the AI know-how to label when videos are important medical videos. They could skip ads and skip forced sign-in, but they don't care enough. There was a viral tweet once about somebody's grandma choking on a fishbone where YouTube responded telling them to buy YouTube Premium, so they're probably aware, but don't care enough. And they're implementing more measures like the forced sign-in for scraping prevention that happen to disproportionately affect public networks at restaurants and hotels. That's negligence. Why's it so unreasonable?
  - malfist 1y ago
    There's a big difference between being a monopoly and negligent manslaughter.
  - adamgordonbell 1y ago
    Uploader choose to monetize vid, not Google. It's a per video option.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Cthulhu_ 1y ago

There's laws dictacting ads for TV, one of them was raising the volume for ads, the other was banning increasing the loudness of the ad to have the same effect as raising the volume without raising the volume. I presume these all apply - or should apply - to YT and co as well. It's not enough of course. Anyway, ads being annoying and disruptive is the point, they want to sell premium subscriptions because a steady $10 a month on a subscription often forgotten about for years is more valuable and profitable to them than showing ads. (I presume)

peenoise 1y ago

[flagged]

miyuru 1y ago

I don't think YT will implement any of these. annoying people with ads is feature not a bug.

dandanua 1y ago

But you have remembered those ads, YouTube's main objective has been achieved.

mensetmanusman 1y ago

I will raise you an ad about politicians loudly accusing each other of rape while watching a black and white Christmas cartoon with the family around a fireplace.

reaperducer 1y ago
And I'll raise you a string of six ads in a row for various less-than-legal products and services interrupting the Christmas mass stream from Saint Patrick's Cathedral. I haven't watched YouTube since.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]