4 ms·

It's a problem for the Creators. Their stats are lower than they should be, which could have negative effects on their business, like YouTubes recommendation-sy

It's a problem for the Creators. Their stats are lower than they should be, which could have negative effects on their business, like YouTubes recommendation-system not working as efficient as it should be. Similar, would they have a weaker selling-point for companies advertising on their channel. It should be noted that YouTube income is unaffected by this, as Ads are still shown and counted to people without AdBlockers. So this is only harmful to the creators, and not YouTube.

rapind 1y ago
> So this is only harmful to the creators, and not YouTube. Pretty sure this is harmful to youtube as well as it lowers the value (less personalization data) for advertisers. Also the knock-on effect of impacting creators, meaning less investment in creating content. That being said, I've always hated this business model. It's created so many other problems in our society. Resulting in a shift to authoritarian leadership in many countries.
- DoctorOW 1y ago
  Adblock users already have no value for advertisers.
ecshafer 1y ago
But why would I, as a user of Easy Privacy, care about this? It is protecting my own privacy. Someone trying to get more money on the internet isn't really my concern.
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  The correct approach is to not use these services. Ad-blocking and using the service just sends the message that you are leeching, not that the service is bad.
  - mhuffman 1y ago
    It seems to be sending the same message either way, no? Either not watching them or the ad-blocking reducing their count seems to be the same in the end.
    - philipallstar 1y ago
      It's not about sending a message. It's about making sure you use a service in the way it's being offered, or not using it at all.
      - mhuffman 1y ago
        Well that is not a law, and even bringing it up on a site called "Hacker News" makes me almost think you are making a joke that is going over my head.
      - nemomarx 1y ago
        YouTube is free to only serve videos to paying users if they don't like ad blockers. it would destroy the site, but they're technically able to do it.
        whatevertrevor 1y ago
        It would be really tough. I do think YouTube provides a lot of value by making its videos accessible to everyone. Plenty of closed ecosystem streaming services exist and they continue to be niche things where creators who had no audience before YouTube are trying to keep going. I'm not sure how long the likes of Nebula and Floatplane are going to last honestly, because they have fundamental discovery issues in both directions: The creators need a constant influx of new viewers to replace people growing out of their content, and the viewers need a platform where they can experiment with new content without a big paywall upfront.
        philipallstar 1y ago
        > YouTube is free to only serve videos to paying users if they don't like ad blockers. it would destroy the site, but they're technically able to do it. This is why enshittification exists.
- groby_b 1y ago
  Because you might have a perfectly selfish stance in the short term, but it turns out that creators not making enough money leads to creators not making content. Someone you care to watch not making enough money to make the things you like to watch is your concern, because making equivalent content yourself is out of your reach.
  - mbirth 1y ago
    I remember a time where people actually had to pay money to publish their videos (on their own server, using their own storage). And they still did it if they wanted to get something out into the world.
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    It's worse than creators not making content, they move their content to be lower rung click bait garbage to maximize ad-views. If "smart" people use ad-block, then all the content gravitates towards those who don't.
    - ndriscoll 1y ago
      The videos for smart people are things like: * University lectures * Conference talks * Random clips of homeowners doing some DIY repair i.e. things that were being done anyway, and someone decided to post it online because it's free and they wanted to be helpful. "Content creators" are already almost never making videos with high value information. The entire idea of "creating content" rather than "sharing information" is a bad framing to start from. When we recognize that "sharing information" is the high-value action, we're better able to see that it not only can be done by someone who isn't a full-time "creator", but may actually be done better by people who aren't devoted to it since their occupation is to be a practitioner of the field they're sharing information about. i.e. they are better informed.
      - pseudalopex 1y ago
        Smart people enjoy many different things.
- slightwinder 1y ago
  You don't have to care about it. But this is not about privacy, as this API likely does not impact your privacy. YouTube can track what you watch anyway. And if you watch videos, there is a chance you also enjoy them, so it would be in your own interest to support creators in making more of them. But that's a bit more complicated.
  - anon1395 1y ago
    If i am correct, YouTube is trying to say "If you don't watch the ads, you are harming the poor, small content creators!"
    - slightwinder 1y ago
      Maybe, but that doesn't matter for this case. This is specifically about the view count, not whether you see the ads. But I've seen this was in the meanwhile merged with another thread, which is about the statement(?) from YouTube.
  - stefan_ 1y ago
    Requests that have no benefit for the user need to be blocked on that premise alone. Do your tracking whatever nonsense on your own computing, thanks very much.
  - gkbrk 1y ago
    > YouTube can track what you watch anyway. If YouTube could track what you watch anyway, they would have no trouble incrementing their view counter. But apparently that's an unsolved problem of computer science, so they were using something ad blockers and privacy extensions could block.
- Wololooo 1y ago
  While I agree with you, not every channel is big and some of the smaller ones might rely partially on this in order to get materials/sponsorship in order to be able to have the parts to do some projects they make videos on because it is more a passion project and they might barely break even or even make losses on doing it. The context that I am thinking about is, for example, a small hobbyist that might rely on the added value for making some odd things, requiring exotic hardware, quantities of materials that could be prohibitively expensive or the lend of access to said hardware might be blocked behind viewership metrics, and there this might make some difference, and I personally enjoy those little odd channels and this is why I, as a viewer, might care about it. But again, I totally see where you are coming from.
  - 0xbadcafebee 1y ago
    For every one hobbyist making some kind of interesting video that they couldn't have made without ad money, there are 1,000 moronic influencers making the same video about the same thing, grasping at ad money or free products to shill. YouTube is 99% dreck now. Hooray for the hobbyist, poor us having to wade through the influencer swamp.
izzydata 1y ago
That still isn't an issue for the end-user. It is Youtube's problem to keep their content creators happy and not mine. Personally I would even prefer anything that allows for a Youtube alternative to do better.
falcor84 1y ago
Oh, really, are you sure? They still charge advertisers the full amount? My understanding was that they're only charged if there is evidence of an "ad impression" which there shouldn't be if the request was blocked
- slightwinder 1y ago
  Why would they charge for an ad which was not shown? This is not about the view count of the ad.
xhkkffbf 1y ago
Isn't it likely that Google charges the advertisers for each time an ad is shown? So lower view counts mean lower ad views which means lower revenues for both Google and the content creators. (And, if the advertisers are counting on the views to drive their own business, it could mean lower revenues for them to go with the smaller ad bills.)
- slightwinder 1y ago
  The ads are not shown anyway. This is about the video where the ad would be embedded. Those are two different view counts.
actionfromafar 1y ago
Eventually the whole system will rebalance. TV ads were shown to people even though you couldn't if any single person was watching or not. Where does line go? If a future "Adblocker 3000" don't let advertisers capture you eyemovements in realtime 30 times per second, would that be sad? Seems the ball is with Youtube. They can compensete and pay out more. Or not.
awaythrow999 1y ago
Aren't many channels funded by the companies they pretend to get sponsorship from? If you look at the OSINT and Natsec adjacent topics there are many who have had the same sponsor for years: ground.news ... many pretend that they are indie content creators when they are just the marketing / growth hacking arm of the sponsor. Examples: Caspian report, Warfronts, Geopolitics decoded, ... Many of them (the content creator) are even located in the same city.
- humpty-d 1y ago
  Any credible evidence that they get enough money from the sponsorships to be considered fully funded by them? Or that ground news uses influence over these channels? I can throw a dart and hit a random podcast that has been sponsored by blue chew for years, but that doesn't mean said podcast is funded by them or bends to their whims. IMO your comment is pure conspiracy theory.
  - awaythrow999 1y ago
    Why would thet be a conspiracy theory. The public facing guy who is behind Warfronts has 4 other channels that peddle content unrelated to natsec/warfare. If you follow "cappy army" and the drama he went through at "task and purpose" his former employer it becomes pretty clear that there are entire media companies behind what looks like "a single hobbyist content creator expat living in Prague" ...
- slightwinder 1y ago
  > many pretend that they are indie content creators when they are just the marketing / growth hacking arm of the sponsor. Just curious, but can't they be both? I don't know those channels. The one I regularly see are very diverse in their partners, and usually the content is unrelated to the promotions. But overall those promotions are negotiated based on viewer counts, and at a certain size, they are more valuable than earnings from ads.
  - awaythrow999 1y ago
    Absolutely can be both. And often they make it clear: like cappello army does. But then there are the more shady ones where it's less transparent
thomastjeffery 1y ago
That's a rule defined by YouTube and/or advertisers in their relationship with content creators. By defining that rule, YouTube and/or advertisers have chosen to drag my participation into that relationship. My participation does not belong in their relationship. The only thing I can do to communicate my opinion on the matter is to do precisely what this "bug" entails.
fleeting900 1y ago
Why do YouTube creators deserve special treatment compared to any other entity whose analytics are impacted by adblockers? Every publisher on the internet has been bleating for years about how adblockers negatively impact their business and their ability to provide [some value] to customers. If your ability to generate value is hitched to surveillance capitalism then that’s a choice, whether you’re a folksy mom and pop YouTube creator or a multinational publisher.
- whatevertrevor 1y ago
  I don't think the parent implies that. Advertising has destroyed a lot of value, YouTube or otherwise. But you can either push the equilibrium in a (imo) productive direction by paying your creators (via subscriptions) or continue to attack the symptom of the problem (ads) while everything shittifies further around you. That's the choice.

rapind 1y ago

> So this is only harmful to the creators, and not YouTube. Pretty sure this is harmful to youtube as well as it lowers the value (less personalization data) for advertisers. Also the knock-on effect of impacting creators, meaning less investment in creating content. That being said, I've always hated this business model. It's created so many other problems in our society. Resulting in a shift to authoritarian leadership in many countries.

DoctorOW 1y ago
Adblock users already have no value for advertisers.

ecshafer 1y ago

But why would I, as a user of Easy Privacy, care about this? It is protecting my own privacy. Someone trying to get more money on the internet isn't really my concern.

Workaccount2 1y ago
The correct approach is to not use these services. Ad-blocking and using the service just sends the message that you are leeching, not that the service is bad.
- mhuffman 1y ago
  It seems to be sending the same message either way, no? Either not watching them or the ad-blocking reducing their count seems to be the same in the end.
  - philipallstar 1y ago
    It's not about sending a message. It's about making sure you use a service in the way it's being offered, or not using it at all.
    - mhuffman 1y ago
      Well that is not a law, and even bringing it up on a site called "Hacker News" makes me almost think you are making a joke that is going over my head.
    - nemomarx 1y ago
      YouTube is free to only serve videos to paying users if they don't like ad blockers. it would destroy the site, but they're technically able to do it.
      - whatevertrevor 1y ago
        It would be really tough. I do think YouTube provides a lot of value by making its videos accessible to everyone. Plenty of closed ecosystem streaming services exist and they continue to be niche things where creators who had no audience before YouTube are trying to keep going. I'm not sure how long the likes of Nebula and Floatplane are going to last honestly, because they have fundamental discovery issues in both directions: The creators need a constant influx of new viewers to replace people growing out of their content, and the viewers need a platform where they can experiment with new content without a big paywall upfront.
      - philipallstar 1y ago
        > YouTube is free to only serve videos to paying users if they don't like ad blockers. it would destroy the site, but they're technically able to do it. This is why enshittification exists.
groby_b 1y ago
Because you might have a perfectly selfish stance in the short term, but it turns out that creators not making enough money leads to creators not making content. Someone you care to watch not making enough money to make the things you like to watch is your concern, because making equivalent content yourself is out of your reach.
- mbirth 1y ago
  I remember a time where people actually had to pay money to publish their videos (on their own server, using their own storage). And they still did it if they wanted to get something out into the world.
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  It's worse than creators not making content, they move their content to be lower rung click bait garbage to maximize ad-views. If "smart" people use ad-block, then all the content gravitates towards those who don't.
  - ndriscoll 1y ago
    The videos for smart people are things like: * University lectures * Conference talks * Random clips of homeowners doing some DIY repair i.e. things that were being done anyway, and someone decided to post it online because it's free and they wanted to be helpful. "Content creators" are already almost never making videos with high value information. The entire idea of "creating content" rather than "sharing information" is a bad framing to start from. When we recognize that "sharing information" is the high-value action, we're better able to see that it not only can be done by someone who isn't a full-time "creator", but may actually be done better by people who aren't devoted to it since their occupation is to be a practitioner of the field they're sharing information about. i.e. they are better informed.
    - pseudalopex 1y ago
      Smart people enjoy many different things.
slightwinder 1y ago
You don't have to care about it. But this is not about privacy, as this API likely does not impact your privacy. YouTube can track what you watch anyway. And if you watch videos, there is a chance you also enjoy them, so it would be in your own interest to support creators in making more of them. But that's a bit more complicated.
- anon1395 1y ago
  If i am correct, YouTube is trying to say "If you don't watch the ads, you are harming the poor, small content creators!"
  - slightwinder 1y ago
    Maybe, but that doesn't matter for this case. This is specifically about the view count, not whether you see the ads. But I've seen this was in the meanwhile merged with another thread, which is about the statement(?) from YouTube.
- stefan_ 1y ago
  Requests that have no benefit for the user need to be blocked on that premise alone. Do your tracking whatever nonsense on your own computing, thanks very much.
- gkbrk 1y ago
  > YouTube can track what you watch anyway. If YouTube could track what you watch anyway, they would have no trouble incrementing their view counter. But apparently that's an unsolved problem of computer science, so they were using something ad blockers and privacy extensions could block.
Wololooo 1y ago
While I agree with you, not every channel is big and some of the smaller ones might rely partially on this in order to get materials/sponsorship in order to be able to have the parts to do some projects they make videos on because it is more a passion project and they might barely break even or even make losses on doing it. The context that I am thinking about is, for example, a small hobbyist that might rely on the added value for making some odd things, requiring exotic hardware, quantities of materials that could be prohibitively expensive or the lend of access to said hardware might be blocked behind viewership metrics, and there this might make some difference, and I personally enjoy those little odd channels and this is why I, as a viewer, might care about it. But again, I totally see where you are coming from.
- 0xbadcafebee 1y ago
  For every one hobbyist making some kind of interesting video that they couldn't have made without ad money, there are 1,000 moronic influencers making the same video about the same thing, grasping at ad money or free products to shill. YouTube is 99% dreck now. Hooray for the hobbyist, poor us having to wade through the influencer swamp.

izzydata 1y ago

That still isn't an issue for the end-user. It is Youtube's problem to keep their content creators happy and not mine. Personally I would even prefer anything that allows for a Youtube alternative to do better.

falcor84 1y ago

Oh, really, are you sure? They still charge advertisers the full amount? My understanding was that they're only charged if there is evidence of an "ad impression" which there shouldn't be if the request was blocked

slightwinder 1y ago
Why would they charge for an ad which was not shown? This is not about the view count of the ad.

xhkkffbf 1y ago

Isn't it likely that Google charges the advertisers for each time an ad is shown? So lower view counts mean lower ad views which means lower revenues for both Google and the content creators. (And, if the advertisers are counting on the views to drive their own business, it could mean lower revenues for them to go with the smaller ad bills.)

slightwinder 1y ago
The ads are not shown anyway. This is about the video where the ad would be embedded. Those are two different view counts.

actionfromafar 1y ago

Eventually the whole system will rebalance. TV ads were shown to people even though you couldn't if any single person was watching or not. Where does line go? If a future "Adblocker 3000" don't let advertisers capture you eyemovements in realtime 30 times per second, would that be sad? Seems the ball is with Youtube. They can compensete and pay out more. Or not.

awaythrow999 1y ago

Aren't many channels funded by the companies they pretend to get sponsorship from? If you look at the OSINT and Natsec adjacent topics there are many who have had the same sponsor for years: ground.news ... many pretend that they are indie content creators when they are just the marketing / growth hacking arm of the sponsor. Examples: Caspian report, Warfronts, Geopolitics decoded, ... Many of them (the content creator) are even located in the same city.

humpty-d 1y ago
Any credible evidence that they get enough money from the sponsorships to be considered fully funded by them? Or that ground news uses influence over these channels? I can throw a dart and hit a random podcast that has been sponsored by blue chew for years, but that doesn't mean said podcast is funded by them or bends to their whims. IMO your comment is pure conspiracy theory.
- awaythrow999 1y ago
  Why would thet be a conspiracy theory. The public facing guy who is behind Warfronts has 4 other channels that peddle content unrelated to natsec/warfare. If you follow "cappy army" and the drama he went through at "task and purpose" his former employer it becomes pretty clear that there are entire media companies behind what looks like "a single hobbyist content creator expat living in Prague" ...
slightwinder 1y ago
> many pretend that they are indie content creators when they are just the marketing / growth hacking arm of the sponsor. Just curious, but can't they be both? I don't know those channels. The one I regularly see are very diverse in their partners, and usually the content is unrelated to the promotions. But overall those promotions are negotiated based on viewer counts, and at a certain size, they are more valuable than earnings from ads.
- awaythrow999 1y ago
  Absolutely can be both. And often they make it clear: like cappello army does. But then there are the more shady ones where it's less transparent

thomastjeffery 1y ago

That's a rule defined by YouTube and/or advertisers in their relationship with content creators. By defining that rule, YouTube and/or advertisers have chosen to drag my participation into that relationship. My participation does not belong in their relationship. The only thing I can do to communicate my opinion on the matter is to do precisely what this "bug" entails.

fleeting900 1y ago

Why do YouTube creators deserve special treatment compared to any other entity whose analytics are impacted by adblockers? Every publisher on the internet has been bleating for years about how adblockers negatively impact their business and their ability to provide [some value] to customers. If your ability to generate value is hitched to surveillance capitalism then that’s a choice, whether you’re a folksy mom and pop YouTube creator or a multinational publisher.

whatevertrevor 1y ago
I don't think the parent implies that. Advertising has destroyed a lot of value, YouTube or otherwise. But you can either push the equilibrium in a (imo) productive direction by paying your creators (via subscriptions) or continue to attack the symptom of the problem (ads) while everything shittifies further around you. That's the choice.