6 ms·

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.

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.