Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikece | Hacker News Reader

If YouTube blocks me from watching videos because I use an ad blocker then I'll stop watching videos on YouTube. I don't care if this doesn't hurt YouTube... it will help me stop spending so much time on YouTube.

View on HN

100% this, I'm not watching ads. I haven't really seen any advertising on my electronic devices in a decade (edit: actually closer to two decades) and that's the way it will continue to be. My time is valuable, my mental space is valuable, my computer is mine. You will not make it do things I don't want it to do. Advertising is a plague on society.

(I speak from experience, I worked for 3 years at an ad agency.)

…you can purchase ad free YouTube.

Which I will absolutely never be doing.

Why should they care about your indignation then? You're literally just costing them money in resources.

Honest question - why not? I am paying for Youtube Premium, it's not different to me than paying for Netflix or Spotify. I'm using a service which I like so I don't mind supporting it. If it helps me get rid of ads, so much the better.

it's certainly different than Netflix given that they actually make content. On Youtube you're just paying a tax to the fiefdom. Given that a lot of creators have patreon which takes a miniscule cut I'd rather pay creators as directly as possible.

Paying a company with a market dominating position 150 bucks per year to not hold me hostage with blocked UI functions is kind of ridiculous.

While I wouldn't pay for YT either, they do have serious infrastructure costs so it's not quite as you describe.

While I agree with your comment there is something seriously wrong with the fact that Google can use its infinite funds so that a serious competitor for YT never has any chances of appearing. If YT were a standalone company and would compete on fair terms in others, we might see some reasonable business models appear.

We know how much Netflix spends on content. In 2022, it was 52% of their revenue ($16.7B content budget, $32B revenue). We also know how much YouTube pays for the content, since their ad revenue split has been public for like a decade. It's 55% to the creators for the content, 45% to YouTube for the technical and social infrastructure.

Huh. Looks like YouTube pays more for their content than Netflix does! Given the only stated basis for your opinion turned out to be incorrect, are you changing your mind?

No, that napkin math doesn't check out unless you think Youtube is a non-profit. They pocket half of what creators make, and that has no relationship to their infrastructure cost, it's a function of their market power. They could change that revenue split tomorrow to 70/30 while they cut infrastructure costs for all you or I know.

You somehow turned my argument on its head. I don't care how much Netflix or YT pay for content, I only care that I pay directly for content, and because Netflix is a media company, not a platform, I don't need to guess how much they're squeezing creators or consumers. I transparently pay for a movie catalog, and that is the service provided.

Any money i could give to google is a drop in their ocean of ad revenue, that's why. Google is being disingenuous af, nothing new. Also Youtube has become so important it should be much more regulated.

Google would be one of the last companies I would shove money into, voluntarily.

All the ads that YT shows are paid by us when we buy products of companies that pay Google to show ads. This is how Google is getting all their billions, from you (wether or not you personally watch ads, as long companies believe it's worth giving money for showing ads).

It's such a parasitic business model that I am glad I can be a parasite to Google

The money flow looks like this:

Ad -> YT -> Content Creators

You prevent YT and Content Creators from making money when you block an ad.

Blocking ads of these products, means when you purchase a product (shampoo, razors, etc) more of your money goes into these companies that created these products.

And, in your case, who pays the content creator for the content you enjoy? and who pays for the engineering and infrastructure that delivered the content?

And, since you never saw the ad, you likely didn't buy any product either.

> And, since you never saw the ad, you likely didn't buy any product either.

That's the big con behind ads, especially online ads. If there was research showing that ads don't make any difference at all for the vast majority of purchases ...

https://marketinginsidergroup.com/marketing-strategy/digital...

Secondly, ads are a more insidious version of the old visa scam. They're a tax on everyone, whether they viewed the ad or not. I avoid ads, and where I can't I actively avoid the product. It's not even about being cheap, I am actively disgusted at ads these days, and that transfers to the product being advertised. I doubt I'm the only one.

Thirdly, already Youtube ads don't allow "normal" content creators to survive. Not enough money. So youtube is a con. Content creators won't keep creating ... and it doesn't matter what you do. Youtube is a pyramid scheme, in that it's making the promise of jobs, even richess if you just "produce content", and it's dependent on a constant flow of fresh suckers taking that bet. Nearly all of them will lose big.

Just about every one of "my favorite creators" have a video complaining about it (those videos are really becoming boring), yet the vast majority of their views are monetized, so even "fixing" ad blocking 100% won't help them.

sounds like you're avoiding paying creators and just making up 'rationales' for continuing to not support them. if you're unwilling to support creators and unwilling to participate in creator economy and creator platforms by watching ads - then don't participate in all parts of that creator ecosystem - don't watch their content. creators participate in it by putting their content out there. but you're selectively picking what's most beneficial to you, and watch the content while refusing to compensate creators for it in those ways, intended by the platforms, and by creators themselves, who intentionally enable monetization of their content. good for you, but the 'virtuousness' of 'not participating in platform racket' isn't checking out.

Paying or not paying into an unsustainable system is not moral, or immoral, it is only stupid. Youtube, just like Uber, Amazon and Alibaba are temporary things that cannot survive. They won't survive the influx of new "creators", and the quality is already racing to the bottom, as is the money paid out to Youtubers. I enjoy them, aware that certain events are RACING towards us.

Currently on this same site:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35901889

So here's my attitude: if I'm falling to my death out of a plane, the end result completely out of my control, I hope I'll spend the time fantasizing about elaborate ways to save myself and generally enjoy the way down. Same with Youtube and other gig economy "let's underpay everyone!" attitude ... I'm not convincing myself nothing's going wrong. I'm aware fantasy doesn't change a thing. I'm aware I don't change a thing and the only thing that can keep this system going is investors hoping for profit (or a greater fool). And so I enjoy the fall.

"And wow! Hey! What’s this thing suddenly coming towards me very fast? Very very fast. So big and flat and round, it needs a big wide sounding name like … ow … ound … round … ground! That’s it! That’s a good name – ground!

I wonder if it will be friends with me?"

I pay the content creator, if I don't want him to go away: liberapay or Patreon

Otherwise I am already paying a fee for public broadcasters of my country.

I probably bought a product, because almost every company does ads. This means I pay for YouTube, I pay for GMail, I pay for Android, I pay for GDocs, etc. although I don't even want to use it.

I'd rather had Android died in favor of Windows Phone

> Honest question - why not?

YT Premium only makes the problem worse by requiring you to log in using an account that is tied to your real world identity and was used for payment processing. You just end up giving more data points to Google to track you, cross-reference with other sources and shove more ads in other platforms, still get native ads, and Google can just add their own ads later (as it is happening step by step with streaming companies).

One thing for me is that the youtube app stops the audio when the phone locks. I want to listen to a video while I'm driving, I'll even put up with the ads, but I actually can't do it unless I use an alternative front-end app - which is how I've solved the problem.

Restricting background-play is an active choice on Youtube's part to prevent what I would consider a basic function and hold it hostage behind their paywall.

That behaviour fucks me off such that I refuse to sponsor it.

Highly recommend newpipe, an alternate youtube client that doesn't do this bullshit. (ofc not available on iOS because apple hates you having choices)

Vanced still works for me, but I've got newpipe, libretube, skytube as alternatives ;)

Because it’s giving money to Google? Plus half the problem is the tracking, they’re not going to stop tracking me if I pay them, and then I have to use it logged in which just makes the tracking easier.

That's kind for the video makers you're actively not supporting.

If you want to help video makers get Youtube to be transparent about its payout structure.

I'm not going to be extorted lol. If you're showing me something I have a right to ignore the parts I don't care about, and I have a right to have a computer do the ignoring for me so I don't waste my time/mental effort.

You're not being extorted, you have no right to access to YouTube's content unconditionally.

Youtube has a monopoly on online video content. It is extortion

Before they had the total monopoly, they had very few ads. Now they have the monopoly, so they are extorting us because of it

Oh man, let me help you find other content platforms! What are you interested in?!

I use these non cable/network platforms:

* https://dropout.tv <- comedy produced shows, hilarious

* https://curiositystream.com/ <- full to the brim with documentaries and educational content

* https://www.pbs.org/explore/ <- it's PBS, but online!

* https://www.britbox.com/us/ <- British TV shows! So many good ones...

And then there are the obvious platforms that aren't YT:

* HBO Max

* Peacock

* Netflix

* Paramount+

* Hulu

* Amazon Prime Video

* Apple TV+

So no, I don't really agree that YouTube has a monopoly. Too many alternatives that kick ass!

Extremely obvious case of apples not being oranges, in the sense of user-generated content not being the same as studio/production company generated content.

Just a passerby, but content isn't fungible; no one is replacing Technology Connections with House of the Dragon or vice versa. The diversity of YouTube's content, the back catalog, its default status, network effects, integration with devices and services, and so much more make it hard to replace.

And we shouldn't forget, rando users can upload whatever for sharing, which none of your alternatives do. Kind of the core idea there.

I love Technology Connections FWIW, completely changed how I use my dishwasher!

And I would disagree re: content isn't fungible. Nothing on YouTube is both necessary to specifically consume and entirely unavailable elsewhere. It's entertainment, and whatever "category" of entertainment you prefer, you can find content not on YouTube for that thing.

"Random users uploading content" has not been the primary use case of YouTube for many years now. It's mostly run by content creators now, with entire companies dedicated to creating content, just the same as the platforms I've listed.

> So no, I don't really agree that YouTube has a monopoly. Too many alternatives that kick ass!

None of those are YouTube alternatives. They are not even remotely similar. You haven't got a clue what YouTube is about.

Here's a list of YouTube alternatives:

* Rumble

* Odysee

* Vimeo

* Twitch

* BitChute

But the alternatives are niche platforms with nowhere near the level of content that YouTube provides.

except ad free youtube still has ads (in the form of sponsored content). and your data on youtube is still mined to serve you more ads elsewhere.

this isnt about ads. it's just another tactic for forcing users to log in.

I must confess I still don't understand why ads are not a CFAA violation. I mean, what are the website operators going to argue? That you voluntarily configured your user agent to display them? That argument is far too dangerous to the advertisers.

I have observed a more insidious problem - the Youtubers that used to be genuine and down to earth are now themselves compromised by being sent products to give their honest opinion. The other day I was watching a video about this nice couple who wanted to start their bulldozer that was frozen in the forest and suddenly they pull out this "powerbank 1300" (name deliberately changed) and started a sales spiel ! About how they have all these gopros and iphones and look how many ports this thing has, and how it can charge the dead dozer battery blah blah.

Matthias Wandel today released a video about a Ecobank 1300 - I am shocked at how the content creators themselves have become a poisoned well !

These 1300WH banks are waaay overpriced for the amount it would cost to buy the individual 18650 cells (probably $100 worth of cells being sold for $999), so these content creators are shills and sellouts to these marketing tactics.

I'm hoping a large part of the cost is in safety. It would be grossly irresponsible to just string together a bunch of budget 18650 cells to try and make a bigger battery. It's junk like this that has caused entities like the NYCHA to straight up ban ebikes (cheap conversion kits for ebikes seem to be giant fire hazards).

You can always watch on one of the Invidious mirrors if YouTube proper becomes unusable.

Or download it locally with yt-dlp and watch in a video player.

I just cannot wrap my head around folks who demand content for free. How do you think the people who create this content would survive if they couldn't do it for money???

Some of us are from a time before the web was commercialized. The answer to your question is we couldn't care less. If these people who make "content" as a means of making money go bankrupt, it's no skin off our backs. It will make more room for people who host genuine works on the web.

Then I have no sympathy for you. You want to live in a world that does not exist, and your desire to do that harms the very people you claim to support, the content creators.

Except for decades, and even still, this world exists. I don't think anyone asked for sympathy.

How can you actually justify consuming content that took time and money to make, without yourself providing any value to the content creators?

If there’s a logic I’m missing, I’d love to hear it.

I'm not who you were talking to as a heads up, but as someone who blocks ads, I frankly just don't care. I view ads as a security risk and as psychological warfare. If Google thinks it worthwhile to invest resources and manages to successfully stop my blocking, fair enough, but otherwise I'm going to continue to optimize for my own well being. Google will go on continuing to be one of the richest and most powerful / influential companies on earth, and the small fraction of ad revenue that the content creator would miss out on from my ad-blocking, well, cost of doing business.

I've stopped visiting Twitch because their ad's are annoying to block. I'll stop visiting youtube if the same happens. I refuse to engage with ads if I have a choice. I've given money to a handful of people on Patreon that I want to support, but otherwise I have greater problems to deal with than the small fractions of a cent that these creators lose by me blocking.

I won't mind if this change drives fundamentalists away from the platform.

"I don't care" is a logic, but it's not... sustainable, right? The current dynamic of some people being of your mind but most people being not that way works, but let me introduce you to the Tragedy of the Commons [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Or it will just lead to more sponsored segments and product placement in "free" videos. Every semi-popular youtuber already has segments where they stop the actual content and talk about NordVPN or HelloFresh or Manscaped.

It's hard for me to find good reviews of Synthesizers because almost every video about a new one is a sponsored video where the instrument was given to the youtuber for free.

I can get stuck in a bit of a loop watching videos, but on the whole I think YouTube is an incredible resource. I've learnt so many things from it, I think it's worth working out how to use it in moderation rather than just cutting it out

> it will help me stop spending so much time

Oh gosh, really? Don't you think you'll come back after a few weeks?

I think the bigger impact is that it'll impede new user adoption. I use an adblocker (but pay for YouTube,) and I never use sites that block me for using an adblocker.

You state you never use sites that block adblockers, right after disagreeing (questioning? Exclaiming??) with the parent for for expressing the exact same point?

Yeah, this could be great for productivity.

same, i think that will save me a lot of time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com