[flagged]
Because ads are a parasite on society. Because their lying and psychological manipulation should be illegal. Because most of this tracking and privacy invasion mania is the ad industry's fault.
If there's a new product useful for me that I should know about, I'll find out here, in review sites, or when I visit a store, thank you very much.
When those are the worst ads left on the internet, I'll be a happy man.
As for me, I'm happy to pay for Netflix, Nebula, my VPN, and other services. I still pay, but I'm disappointed in Spotify, who is pushing more and more soft ads even on supposed ad-free plans.
But a YouTube Premium subscription would be financing this ad machine and the decisions that come with it. Have you watched Shorts? No thanks.
Defending YouTube because we're afraid it will "go away" is the same Stockholm Syndrome that paralyzed people on Twitter for so long. I welcome a change that forces people onto more P2P-oriented services, the status-quo is obnoxious and unsustainable.
Would you also be fine with your favorite newspaper going out of business because you have all of their issues of the last 20 years in your basement?
If you subscribe to YouTube premium you’re making yourself even more identifiable.
You end up seeing more creepy ads elsewhere on the web using your viewing history to target you.
Versus an adblocker which will help hide you from Google everywhere.
Like "Linus Tech Tips".
I think YouTube should force streamers to tag the timecode of their in-stream ads, and auto-skip them for Premium users.
It's like if you play a game and you purchase the In-App upgrade to remove the ads, and at the end there are still ads.
You've saved people from 10,945 segments ( 2d 17h 9.6 minutes of their lives )
You've skipped 4,006 segments ( 1d 9h 11.8 minutes )I do appreciate that a lot of creators have been putting the “progress bar” during the sponsored segment that make them easier to skip
I'd rather want a filter that filters all videos that have '...reacts to...' in the title or certain channels such as LTT that get pushed to my front page, even though I really, really don't want to see them.
YouTube legal basically told me to kick rocks.
Most prominently you'll see the flag under "privacy settings" something like "don't show me relevant ads"; this is obviously a manipulative placebo. Ads are not the problem. That creepy feeling is the awareness that "they know everything about you", or literally how your vivisected intellect is presented in a marketplace for all bidders to insert their ideas.
They will continue surveillance and attention assault whether you let them show you a hint or not. They will continue to sell your identity, behavioral patterns, associates, interests, finances, grades, location, moods, biometrics, and anything else they can monetize. They will continue to attempt to alter your mental state and force you into doing things you wouldn't ordinarily do.
However you set that "relevant ads" button, you can be sure the trillion dollar corporation will not lose a penny when you check that box; they'll show you a different, equally profitable, ad, and your data firehose is still for sale.
It does seem weird though that the surveillance firms would go to the lengths of using dark patterns and persistent nagging to get users to allow targeted ads if it didn’t matter to them.
The greatest trick Google ever pulled was getting people to rationalize their ad campaign like this. They place the independent creators in front of themselves, so that blocking ads doesn't hurt the largest advertising company on the planet, it hurts the little creator who you're personally invested in. The honest truth is that if I had my way, all advertising would be gone from the internet. Yes, I understand the repercussions of that, but I view advertising and the implications of advertising to be a huge net negative, and I have no interest in being forced to watch any.
How much does YouTube/Google/Alphabet get from each ad view and how much of that goes to the actual uploader of the video? If the ratio is less than ~50%, I wouldn't feel too bad about it.
Secondly, not every could afford the $10 price, but still doesn't want to view ads. These people wouldn't pay the $10 price regardless.
Thirdly, if you follow this procedure and strip the ads from the stream, does that make it so YouTube doesn't count the ad impression?
It seems to me that YouTube would serve ads on any channel, not just those part of the YouTube Partner Program, but the % revenue share isn't published for non-partners it seems.
It's all there, no need for rumors and hearsay.
[1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2475463
[2] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7101720
[3] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/13429240?sjid=1824...
From the first link:
> I'm not a YouTube partner, so why am I seeing ads on my videos?
> YouTube may also place ads on videos in channels not in the YouTube Partner Program.
Doesn't this mean that YouTube is earning money from ads placed on videos where people don't get anything from the revenue?
I don’t use Spotify.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the ads either.
Because he might not give a * about the creator or their way to monetization, but want to watch the content? And even then, the content itself doesn't seem to be that important either, seeing that they said "a couple times a month".
Probably it even falls under the category of "I watch it because it is there anyway, but I wouldn't miss it too much if the content hadn't been created to begin with".
I myself watch quite a bunch of YT with ads blocked and SponsorBlock to skip inserted product placements, because absolutely all of my consumption falls into that category. I wouldn't miss if tomorrow none of it was made any more. Well, maybe Smarter Every Day. But even then there are much better ways to support that channel. Most creators found out that real money doesn't come from YT but from sponsorships and side channels outside of the platform, anyway.
I use YouTube primarily as a diy reference manual. It’s infrequent enough that I don’t want to pay for a subscription. I will however exchange a small bit of time in order to get the content, because it has value to me at that moment.
Otherwise the same once it's done.
Because it's there and I can.
Secondarily, because I already run an ad blocker for the rest of the web, and I'm not ever going to turn it off on principle. I view ads as a malicious tax on my attention and a threat to my computer's security. They simply don't get to run on my machines. Monetize your content some other way, I'm happy to pay for it once you've earned my respect. (You do that by making good content.)
(This is also why I stopped watching regular TV; too many damn ads.)
Notably, I don't really "browse" YouTube. I have a small fixed set of subscriptions whose videos I watch. I use my content blocker to remove the "recommendations" sidebar and the end-of-video grid, because I find them distracting. So, yes, I run my "ad"-blocker even on my YT Premium devices because I gain other UX benefits from doing so.
I hope Google is going to wake up on this.
If possible, I would happily pay a reasonable amount every month to get rid of all ads everywhere even though I would essentially be paying twice, ones with the monthly payment and I would still pay for part of the ad budget with everything I buy. But this is currently not possible anyway and getting individual subscription everywhere - if even possible - will cost you an unreasonable amount and make deal with countless subscriptions unless you are a person only using a hand full of different sites.
We should only post stuff that is pro ads as ads support individuals!
You're really picking sides with the whole, no to Youtube, yes to Hulu. At the end of the day they are all corporations. If one corporation passes along some of the profits. It doesn't make it a good corporation. It just means their business model is that. If Google could not pay people it 100% would. They are not paying people because they are super kind, they are doing it as it attracts people to make videos. Which attracts people to watch ads...
And that’s on top of the in-content sponsorships and merchandise most creators are selling.
Nah, happy to steal from Google, the creators are fine.
Did you know there were half an hour long advertisement blocks on YouTube? I saw them in long playing videos I turned on for kids. If that doesn't bother you, I don't think it's in my power to explain to you "why people block ads on YouTube".
Not to mention that no one has the right to force me to consume information I do not want to consume. If you voluntarily choose to serve me some content, and I choose to ignore parts of it, who the frak are you to criticize me. You don't get to choose on my behalf what content I consume.
I think it’s because we as humans are extremely selfish creatures…
It’s the same reason that software developers wouldn’t support the guy that built Sublime Text even though they used the app for their jobs and to build personal projects. It was undoubtedly the most popular text editor until Visual Studio Code.
It’s the same reason that the majority of successful startups don’t go back and support the maintainers of the FOSS they used to get rich.
It’s the same reason fans “pirated” their favorite bands music on Kazaa and Limewire without paying for it.
It’s the same reason we won’t ban assault rifles in the US, even though there were more than 400 mass shootings this year because we would prefer to have our guns then save a life.
We may even have an “evil nature” but I’ll leave that to theologians and philosophers to figure out.
Altruism does not come natural to us without obvious direct benefits unfortunately which is why we’ve developed governments, laws and weapons.
e.g., visited the Heineken Brewery in Amsterdam when I was a late teenager which was basically an advertising museum of all their advertisements going back to the 1950s. Before that day I had never drank Heineken but after that I found myself drinking it regularly for years. If you asked me if I was influenced by advertising I would have said no way. Now I'm more open minded to that possibility hence I use adblock to shield my poor defenceless brain.
That argument works the other way around too: I'd pay for Youtube Premium if it didn't force me to also pay for Youtube Music in the process.
YT premium doesn't actually block the ads that creators put in their videos, SponsorBlock+AdBlock does. Give me the same functionality for 10$ in YT Premium and I will pay.
The sponsor segments can be longer than any native YouTube ad so it makes YouTube premium a bit useless.
Because it's trivial to block youtube ads. There are no decent free Spotify alternatives or ways to get it for free, that I know of.
Suffering corporate brainwashing via ads is not some moral imperative, and I wish people would stop trying to pretend otherwise, especially on Hacker News, of all places.
There are many in the industry that would argue that it is, as would be "switching the channel" on a television.
That's why you see a patent every couple of years for things like automatically pausing ads when they detect that a user's gaze is not on the ad, or pausing the ad and content altogether until the user confirms that they saw the ad by saying a keyword from it.
There are a variety of reasons why these kinds of ad affirmation tools have not been employed yet, but it is just a matter of time until they are. There is simply too much money left on the table.
Else, I'll block the ads.
I agree it's not fair to anyone involved to break the monetisation strategy.
Simply put, fuck advertisements. And especially fuck loud, obnoxious, malware-laden, adver-shit. I will block anything that looks like an advert, malware, or otherwise against my purposes.
And do not forget that I'm simply preventing them on my computer, with software I control.
And "robbing"?? What a bloody joke. I never took anything, and I especially didn't use violence in doing so.