7 ms·

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 c

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.
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    If you had a lemonade stand, and I came and drank one, told you it was bad and didn't pay, that's one thing. I'd probably not come back. If I kept coming everyday, multiple times a day, and never paid "because its bad", it's extremely unlikely that I don't like the lemonade, and extremely likely that I just like that it's free as long as I complain.
    - mhuffman 1y ago
      I am not sure that this example really works. Youtube is happy to give you all the "free lemonade" you want (from videos that aren't really monetizable) but the ones that are, they make onerous to use. I get 20+ ads per day right now from an Internet service that I already use, and get untold ads from products that I would never use. Some of the ads are up to 1 hour in duration. Granted, they mercifully offer a skip button, but it seems to me that the ad is being forced on you, not offered to you. That is the big difference. A funny, engaging ad is not a problem for nearly anyone.
      - Workaccount2 1y ago
        No, the ad is not being forced on you. It's your choice to go to youtube and watch the video. No one is forcing that on you. Youtube is a service that is offered. If you don't like youtube or the ads, you can not use the service. Just like no one is forcing you to go to the lemonade stand.
        NewsaHackO 1y ago
        Or he can just use it and block ads :)
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - Telaneo 1y ago
      If I drink your lemonade, you no longer have it. If I watch your video, you still have it.
- baseballdork 1y ago
  Correct by what metric? Why do I care if I send the message that I'm leeching?
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  No more than going to the bathroom or getting a drink during a TV commercial break is leeching. Watching ads is not and has never been obligatory for the viewer.
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    You are free to go to the bathroom or get a drink when a youtube ad is playing.
    - pessimizer 1y ago
      And also free to block it. What was your point again?
    - Telaneo 1y ago
      I'm also free to automatically skip ads on both TV and youtube. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Broadcasting_Co._v._Dish_Network,_LLC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Broadcasting_Co._v._Dish_N...
- autoexec 1y ago
  Ad blocking and using the service only sends the message that the service with ads is bad, but the service without ads is acceptable. Often this means "the way you've implemented ads is terrible enough that I went out of my way to block them" and sometimes it means "any and all ads are terrible and I don't want them" There's nothing at all wrong with ad blocking. Someone who puts their content on the public internet has zero right to require me to view that content, or to control how much of it I see or how I choose to view it. If I want to block ads, or only watch the last 20 seconds, or watch the whole thing played backwards that's my business. This is equally true for websites where I'm free to decide what to download and how to display it in my browser.
- paxys 1y ago
  YouTube and every other site on the internet can trivially block all users with an ad blocker but choose not to. Why is that?
  - whatevertrevor 1y ago
    Well they want you to pay obviously, they don't want you to disappear. Setting an expectation that things should be free on the internet is what killed the internet. We all want good things until we have to pay up.
    - paxys 1y ago
      > Setting an expectation that things should be free on the internet is what killed the internet You must be very young if you actually think that. In reality the internet was infinitely better when there was no commercialization at all.
      - barnabee 1y ago
        I’d love to go back to a completely non-commercial internet that only contains things people put there with no expectation or possibility of profit.
      - whatevertrevor 1y ago
        I may or may not be younger than you, that is of no relevance other than a vague appeal to defer to your experience about it. I find plenty of valuable things on the current internet that wouldn't exist without commercialization, the possibility of a career as an individual YouTuber or streamer, for example. And I'd like to see them continue and be actually paid for their efforts in a sustainable way instead of pining for a return to "all content is just passion side projects". Because absolutely nothing about the current internet stops people from posting passionately as a side project.
      - Workaccount2 1y ago
        The Internet was infinitely more fun but also infinitely less useful. I have the rosey glasses too. The reality is that it was just a bunch of edgy kids messing around with no adults in the room.
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.

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.
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  If you had a lemonade stand, and I came and drank one, told you it was bad and didn't pay, that's one thing. I'd probably not come back. If I kept coming everyday, multiple times a day, and never paid "because its bad", it's extremely unlikely that I don't like the lemonade, and extremely likely that I just like that it's free as long as I complain.
  - mhuffman 1y ago
    I am not sure that this example really works. Youtube is happy to give you all the "free lemonade" you want (from videos that aren't really monetizable) but the ones that are, they make onerous to use. I get 20+ ads per day right now from an Internet service that I already use, and get untold ads from products that I would never use. Some of the ads are up to 1 hour in duration. Granted, they mercifully offer a skip button, but it seems to me that the ad is being forced on you, not offered to you. That is the big difference. A funny, engaging ad is not a problem for nearly anyone.
    - Workaccount2 1y ago
      No, the ad is not being forced on you. It's your choice to go to youtube and watch the video. No one is forcing that on you. Youtube is a service that is offered. If you don't like youtube or the ads, you can not use the service. Just like no one is forcing you to go to the lemonade stand.
      - NewsaHackO 1y ago
        Or he can just use it and block ads :)
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  - Telaneo 1y ago
    If I drink your lemonade, you no longer have it. If I watch your video, you still have it.
baseballdork 1y ago
Correct by what metric? Why do I care if I send the message that I'm leeching?
SoftTalker 1y ago
No more than going to the bathroom or getting a drink during a TV commercial break is leeching. Watching ads is not and has never been obligatory for the viewer.
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  You are free to go to the bathroom or get a drink when a youtube ad is playing.
  - pessimizer 1y ago
    And also free to block it. What was your point again?
  - Telaneo 1y ago
    I'm also free to automatically skip ads on both TV and youtube. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Broadcasting_Co._v._Dish_Network,_LLC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Broadcasting_Co._v._Dish_N...
autoexec 1y ago
Ad blocking and using the service only sends the message that the service with ads is bad, but the service without ads is acceptable. Often this means "the way you've implemented ads is terrible enough that I went out of my way to block them" and sometimes it means "any and all ads are terrible and I don't want them" There's nothing at all wrong with ad blocking. Someone who puts their content on the public internet has zero right to require me to view that content, or to control how much of it I see or how I choose to view it. If I want to block ads, or only watch the last 20 seconds, or watch the whole thing played backwards that's my business. This is equally true for websites where I'm free to decide what to download and how to display it in my browser.
paxys 1y ago
YouTube and every other site on the internet can trivially block all users with an ad blocker but choose not to. Why is that?
- whatevertrevor 1y ago
  Well they want you to pay obviously, they don't want you to disappear. Setting an expectation that things should be free on the internet is what killed the internet. We all want good things until we have to pay up.
  - paxys 1y ago
    > Setting an expectation that things should be free on the internet is what killed the internet You must be very young if you actually think that. In reality the internet was infinitely better when there was no commercialization at all.
    - barnabee 1y ago
      I’d love to go back to a completely non-commercial internet that only contains things people put there with no expectation or possibility of profit.
    - whatevertrevor 1y ago
      I may or may not be younger than you, that is of no relevance other than a vague appeal to defer to your experience about it. I find plenty of valuable things on the current internet that wouldn't exist without commercialization, the possibility of a career as an individual YouTuber or streamer, for example. And I'd like to see them continue and be actually paid for their efforts in a sustainable way instead of pining for a return to "all content is just passion side projects". Because absolutely nothing about the current internet stops people from posting passionately as a side project.
    - Workaccount2 1y ago
      The Internet was infinitely more fun but also infinitely less useful. I have the rosey glasses too. The reality is that it was just a bunch of edgy kids messing around with no adults in the room.

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.