4 ms·

> They slow everything down. AdBlock and Ghostery make web browsing faster. Not to mention waiting 30s to watch a youtube video, or worse yet to realize that yo

> They slow everything down. AdBlock and Ghostery make web browsing faster. Not to mention waiting 30s to watch a youtube video, or worse yet to realize that you didn't actually want to watch it. Understandable, but um, if you didn't have those ads, you wouldn't have YouTube. Oh pay for it? Who's gonna pay to watch stupid videos online? Nobody. Ads are important. Without them, you'll be paying a membership fee to every site you visit regularly.

ItendToDisagree 13y ago
Youtube ads have gotten more and more obnoxious and intrusive as time has gone on. I remember even before adblock was a thing using Youtube and not having to wait 30+ seconds to decide if I want to watch the video or not. This is not necessarily a reason to block all ads. But if they would make the ads less obnoxious I'd be much more likely to not worry about blocking them.
- deletes 13y ago
  I haven't seen a youtube ad in years. And I only use Noscript which is partially disabled on youtube, because you need scripts for flash. So I should see ads. If you could link me a video with an ad it would be awesome, I want to determine the cause.
spindritf 13y ago
Oh, yeah. I realize I'm freeloading here and it may not be sustainable. Although, maybe if it wasn't for centralized video repos, we could host them in some p2p fashion? Torrent has certainly become less popular since the advent of streaming. As an added benefit, such networks would be more resistant to censorship.
weland 13y ago
> Without them, you'll be paying a membership fee to every site you visit regularly. I, for one, would be happy to. I'd honestly pay a monthly fee to watch Youtube. I don't use it only for cat videos, I also use it to find new music from artists I've never heard of, watch recordings of concerts I've been to just to relive the moments and so on. If Youtube would let me pay to make those ads go away, I'd do so without thinking twice. In the absence of the said option, though, yes, I block their ads.
- falcolas 13y ago
  Agreed. Since I'm given the option, I pay $5 a month to support a caster on Twitch sans ads, and I can certainly see paying some amount up to $10 a month to watch YouTube without ads. However, I'm not given the choice, which just seems silly to me.
- Killswitch 13y ago
  Judging by the huge bitchfest by users complaining because they have to pay $5 a month for Xbox Live Gold just to pay $9 a month to watch Netflix on it, people won't want to pay for their internet connection, and membership fee to the hundreds of sites on line. Yeah the internet would be better, because nobody but the people who can afford to pay for it would be on... You'd have to have a full time job just to pay the fees to your handful of favorite sites you visit.
  - sentenza 13y ago
    You'd not be paying for every site you want to watch. Only those that are most important to you. Also, not everybody using the site would be paying. If content is supposed to be available to paying and non-paying users, then maybe (in the case of youtube)the payout to content creators would be determined by the upvotes of the paying customers only.
Kim_Bruning 13y ago
This is not true, sites did just fine before the advent of ads, and were actually useful. Some kinds of advertising online aren't even obnoxious, and that's fine too. For the obnoxious stuff? We can mostly do without. If we drive them to bankruptcy even faster with adblocking, all the better! ;-)
- Killswitch 13y ago
  Have you ever wondered what YouTube's bill is monthly just to give you that content for free? I come from a group of people who run some of the biggest video based sites online, yes people want to watch these stupid videos for free, hundreds of thousands of daily visitors... One guy I know pays $1500/mo just to give stupid 30 second clips to his visitors with nothing but a few ads on the site to support it. No ads? Say bye to these sites, because nobody is gonna work a full time job to give you 30 second cat videos with no compensation at all.
  - greenyoda 13y ago
    If all the cat videos were to disappear tomorrow, I suspect that most of the 7 billion inhabitants of this planet would somehow manage to fill the gaping voids in their lives with other stupid things.
mariusz79 13y ago
>Who's gonna pay to watch stupid videos online? Nobody. what a great way to get rid of all that junk! >Ads are important. Without them, you'll be paying a membership fee to every site you visit regularly. And that's bad because?
bliker 13y ago
> Ads are important. Without them, you'll be paying a membership fee to every site you visit regularly. Hacker News, Github, Dribbble ... I disagree
e12e 13y ago
If we go by some guesstimates and youtube's numbers[1], if youtube were to target 6 billion in gross revenue (slightly up from 2013 gross ad revenue) each of it's one billion monthly unique visitors would have to pay 50 cents a month for youtube access. That's not accounting for the simplification of the hosting platform sans ads (but that might even out, or be eclipsed by taking payment). So, if 1 in 100 signed up for 5 USD/month access, youtube would still make more (gross) than on ads. 1 in 100 might of course be a far too optimistic conversion rate. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/12/googles-youtube-ad-revenues-may-hit-5-6-billion-in-2013/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/12/googles-y... http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html
- sentenza 13y ago
  Maybe they should also make micro-donations to the authors of videos possible? They'd get a cut of the payment as profit and it would also "incentivize the content creators" (I feel dirty now.).

ItendToDisagree 13y ago

Youtube ads have gotten more and more obnoxious and intrusive as time has gone on. I remember even before adblock was a thing using Youtube and not having to wait 30+ seconds to decide if I want to watch the video or not. This is not necessarily a reason to block all ads. But if they would make the ads less obnoxious I'd be much more likely to not worry about blocking them.

deletes 13y ago
I haven't seen a youtube ad in years. And I only use Noscript which is partially disabled on youtube, because you need scripts for flash. So I should see ads. If you could link me a video with an ad it would be awesome, I want to determine the cause.

spindritf 13y ago

Oh, yeah. I realize I'm freeloading here and it may not be sustainable. Although, maybe if it wasn't for centralized video repos, we could host them in some p2p fashion? Torrent has certainly become less popular since the advent of streaming. As an added benefit, such networks would be more resistant to censorship.

weland 13y ago

> Without them, you'll be paying a membership fee to every site you visit regularly. I, for one, would be happy to. I'd honestly pay a monthly fee to watch Youtube. I don't use it only for cat videos, I also use it to find new music from artists I've never heard of, watch recordings of concerts I've been to just to relive the moments and so on. If Youtube would let me pay to make those ads go away, I'd do so without thinking twice. In the absence of the said option, though, yes, I block their ads.

falcolas 13y ago
Agreed. Since I'm given the option, I pay $5 a month to support a caster on Twitch sans ads, and I can certainly see paying some amount up to $10 a month to watch YouTube without ads. However, I'm not given the choice, which just seems silly to me.
Killswitch 13y ago
Judging by the huge bitchfest by users complaining because they have to pay $5 a month for Xbox Live Gold just to pay $9 a month to watch Netflix on it, people won't want to pay for their internet connection, and membership fee to the hundreds of sites on line. Yeah the internet would be better, because nobody but the people who can afford to pay for it would be on... You'd have to have a full time job just to pay the fees to your handful of favorite sites you visit.
- sentenza 13y ago
  You'd not be paying for every site you want to watch. Only those that are most important to you. Also, not everybody using the site would be paying. If content is supposed to be available to paying and non-paying users, then maybe (in the case of youtube)the payout to content creators would be determined by the upvotes of the paying customers only.

Kim_Bruning 13y ago

This is not true, sites did just fine before the advent of ads, and were actually useful. Some kinds of advertising online aren't even obnoxious, and that's fine too. For the obnoxious stuff? We can mostly do without. If we drive them to bankruptcy even faster with adblocking, all the better! ;-)

Killswitch 13y ago
Have you ever wondered what YouTube's bill is monthly just to give you that content for free? I come from a group of people who run some of the biggest video based sites online, yes people want to watch these stupid videos for free, hundreds of thousands of daily visitors... One guy I know pays $1500/mo just to give stupid 30 second clips to his visitors with nothing but a few ads on the site to support it. No ads? Say bye to these sites, because nobody is gonna work a full time job to give you 30 second cat videos with no compensation at all.
- greenyoda 13y ago
  If all the cat videos were to disappear tomorrow, I suspect that most of the 7 billion inhabitants of this planet would somehow manage to fill the gaping voids in their lives with other stupid things.

mariusz79 13y ago

>Who's gonna pay to watch stupid videos online? Nobody. what a great way to get rid of all that junk! >Ads are important. Without them, you'll be paying a membership fee to every site you visit regularly. And that's bad because?

bliker 13y ago

> Ads are important. Without them, you'll be paying a membership fee to every site you visit regularly. Hacker News, Github, Dribbble ... I disagree

e12e 13y ago

If we go by some guesstimates and youtube's numbers[1], if youtube were to target 6 billion in gross revenue (slightly up from 2013 gross ad revenue) each of it's one billion monthly unique visitors would have to pay 50 cents a month for youtube access. That's not accounting for the simplification of the hosting platform sans ads (but that might even out, or be eclipsed by taking payment). So, if 1 in 100 signed up for 5 USD/month access, youtube would still make more (gross) than on ads. 1 in 100 might of course be a far too optimistic conversion rate. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/12/googles-youtube-ad-revenues-may-hit-5-6-billion-in-2013/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/12/googles-y... http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html

sentenza 13y ago
Maybe they should also make micro-donations to the authors of videos possible? They'd get a cut of the payment as profit and it would also "incentivize the content creators" (I feel dirty now.).