Comment by bad_user | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bad_user | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Because they allowed it until now and it's been years since.

Changing their policies now hurts non-profit organizations like the Blender Foundation and is in effect a bait and switch. Google is using at this point its monopoly to coerce their partners and users into accepting whatever the heck they want. Personally I don't understand them. This is clearly about a very popular channel that is bringing them eyeballs.

I also have no sympathy for their need to monetize — several years back we had a protest in my country against a gold mining company and the YouTube videos made by protesters where preceded by ads of the mining company, ads which were lying and that couldn't be reported for that.

Ads on YouTube are dangerous as they aren't just about products or services, but about social and political issues too and whomever has the bucks to pay wins more attention. As an author, having the ability to disable ads for certain videos is common sense.

---

Also, Google, I would have registered for YouTube Red to pay cash for an ad free experience, but you haven't made it available in my country yet and I've been waiting for a long time.

>Also, Google, I would have registered for YouTube Red to pay cash for an ad free experience, but you haven't made it available in my country yet and I've been waiting for a long time.

Pay them for no ads? Nope, that's why I have Disconnect, Ghostery, uBlock Origin, and some userscripts enabled along with a fairly extensive HOSTS file.

Well, people like you are the reason for why we can't have nice things.

You make it look like they are starving to death there when in fact it's about generating MORE revenue every year despite the costs because this is what Wallstreet expects you to do.

That they aren’t “starving” or the amount of revenue they generate is irrelevant. What wallstreet expects or not is also irrelevant.

If users refuse to pay for subscriptions and keep blocking ads for reasons that have nothing to do with privacy or security, pretty soon as-blockers will become illegal.

It happened before with DRM, it can always happen again. At which point people will cry out in support of privacy or security, but it will be too late, because the truth is the vast majority don’t care about privacy or security.

So yeah, keep sticking it to the man.

No it's not irrevant what Wallstreet expects. Please don't be ignorant. This is not some church or club we're talking about.

> If users refuse to pay for subscriptions and keep blocking ads for reasons that have nothing to do with privacy or security, pretty soon as-blockers will become illegal.

We Ad-Blocking software users laughed about that already in the 90s. Think about it. Same goes for DRM. A giant waste of money.

The net grew from then on and it still is while computing power, web design, etc. got cheaper. So how do you explain it to yourself? Just think about it for a moment.

There is no other justification then the need to generate MORE revenue. This is why you get less for more.

The more google rapes here those who make the content for them, the essence of their existence, the more they threaten this part of their business because with every step away from centralized businesses like YouTube, they'll lose revenue or good. It won't come back. Nobody is coming back to Myspace or Facebook. In the end they just need to not be popular anymore and that doesn't take much or long those days.

> "If users refuse to pay for subscriptions and keep blocking ads for reasons that have nothing to do with privacy or security, pretty soon as-blockers will become illegal."

When an embattled government tries to kill a single insurgent sniper by leveling an entire city block using artillery, which side gains from that? Provoking responses that are perceived as wildly disproportionate is an intermediate objective of insurgents.

People who reward companies like Alphabet are the reason we don't have nice things.

You need a lesson in economy. By using an ad-blocker and not paying for a subscription you’re telling them that they should be continuing to serve ads and track users, while at the same time you’re not encouraging their competition, which ensures their continued monopoly on the market.

Out of all possibilities, not paying for a subscription while at the same time blocking their ads, is the worst path you can take.

You need a lesson in common sense. Throwing more of your money at Alphabet is not going to make them a nicer company. You're deluding yourself if you honestly think that. You're in a wildly asymmetric relationship with a multi-billion dollar international corporation and you think you can win their favor by sucking up to them; it isn't hyperbole to compare this to Stockholm Syndrome.

Teach the general public to use adblockers, mpv/vlc, etc to encourage increasingly desperate responses from Alphabet. Teach people to use youtube-dl to exfiltrate data they care about, to eliminate leverage the corporation has over them. As Alphabet responds with increasing harshness, use that as further justification to get more people on your side. Every time their hand is forced and they screw over content creators even more, they lose that much more control over the situation. This form of accelerationism is a standard modern guerilla warfare tactic with proven effectiveness. This is how you fight them. Not by signing up to give them more money. No matter how much money you give them, you will never be friends with them.

Low quality advertising is why we can't have nice things. Google and Facebook are Kings of that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com