Hacker News Reader

Comment by Havoc | Hacker News Reader

They have an Ad-lite option. Literally give us money monthly and we’ll still show you ads (just not personalised)

Quite possibly the most obnoxious route to take

True. Give us money and we will show you less ads (which is what they literally say for the supporter plan) is really annoying. There doesn't seem to be a truly adfree option.

For me this is very counterproductive. If I still need to use my adblocker why bother to sign up?

I have the same thing with YouTube. Even if I pay for premium I'll still need to mess around with the sponsorblock plugin to get a truly adfree experience. In that case I'll just go the full way and just block everything. Especially on the TV as it means I'll still need to use smarttubenext. Because the official YouTube app doesn't support sponsorblock.

If they offered sponsor free videos to premium subscribers I probably would subscribe.

> I have the same thing with YouTube. Even if I pay for premium I'll still need to mess around with the sponsorblock plugin to get a truly adfree experience.

I wouldn't say this is the same thing at all. The sponsors are something that the individual video creator chose to do, and which youtube doesn't really have power over. If you pay for premium and you don't get ads injected by youtube, then they are holding up their end of the bargain in a way which "ad-lite" deals aren't.

They do have power over it. They can force the creators to make sponsor-free versions for premium users. It can simply be part of their T & Cs just like they don't allow porn etc.

Don't forget the creators already get a lot more money for a premium view than an adsponsored one. And nothing for an adblocked view.

Besides, I deal with YouTube. Not the creators.

While I agree overall, for me it's not as clear cut with sponsors as I do genuinely find some sponsored content very interesting and informative.

A creator might not have the means to buy the equipment, so not being sponsored would mean not making that content, which would be a net loss in these cases in my view.

That said, sponsored segments for BetterHelp, NordVPN and similar can f right off.

> and which youtube doesn't really have power over.

I can’t be certain but I remember sponsorships and other monetization methods being against the rules from 2005 to around 2010. Everything had to be done through the official affiliate program (YouTube Partners, I think they called it), which required an application and a large number of views and subscribers. I don’t remember seeing sponsored segments regularly until well after 2013. Sponsorblock already crowdsources this information. It wouldn’t be a technical hurdle to require uploaders to demarcate sponsored segments.

Sponsorships (unless demarcated "includes paid promotion") and IRs are still against the rules today.

> Sponsorships (unless demarcated "includes paid promotion")

I believe this policy came about due to FTC legislation that came into effect some time in the late 2010s or early 2020s. There was definitely a period in the 2010s when YouTube allowed sponsorships without the need to disclose them, or at least wasn't enforcing any policies they had against it.

> IRs are still against the rules today.

What does IR stand for?

interaction reminder

Ahh but literally everone does that? Even ethical youtubers do it "Ring the bell, subscribe and like".

The people that are most likely to pay are (in most cases) the most loyal users, who visit the site regularly. If those loyal users who push up ad views then move to an "ad free" plan, ad views go down, ad sales team gets sad.

Don't get me wrong, everything about this model sucks -- it's just not as straight forward as it might seem.

So what if the ad sales team gets sad? The subscription sales team would be very happy. You just got a regular recurring income stream. You could even shift employees from one to the other team.

And by being unethical and double dipping you're setting a great example for your customers who won't feel bad about being unethical themselves and just blocking and bypassing all your monetisation. If a site is being honest and fair I'm also much more motivated to play fair with them. I used to with Amazon and Netflix and paid my subscription until they started charging extra to remove ads. Now I pirate again.

Ps by 'you' I mean the companies that choose to do this, not you the poster.

> And by being unethical and double dipping you're setting a great example for your customers who won't feel bad about being unethical themselves and just blocking and bypassing all your monetisation.

I don’t disagree with the message wholesale, but blocking ads is not unethical. It’s a vital defense mechanism against outright malicious actors or the excesses of the attention economy. There is no opt-out or alternative, and there is no consent.

> There doesn't seem to be a truly adfree option.

We're still talking about The Guardian?

They advertise a $20 (AUD) per month "All Access Digital" plan here - https://support.theguardian.com/au/contribute?pre-auth-ref=h... - which they say gives you access to "Ad-free reading on all your devices"

But that might be through their app rather than the browser. Hard to tell.

Oops. You're right.

I was confused with the "far fewer asks for support" that put me off. I mean if you're already supporting them, why?

> If I still need to use my adblocker why bother to sign up?

Personally I don’t disable my ad blocker, ever. Regardless of whether I subscribe or not, or whether the website is ad free with a subscription. I give them (a bit of) money because I support them, not to avoid ads. The ad infestation is a battle we lost a while ago, now we can only make do.

> I have the same thing with YouTube.

Same, except that I am not giving (willingly) a cent to Google, ever. They mine me enough already.

So, like a traditional print newspaper then.

That seems to be the approach most UK newspapers are taking. Consent or pay.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re...

> “Consent or pay” models differ from a “take it or leave it” model, as the presence of a “pay” option means that accessing the service is not solely conditional on people providing consent.

I feel like this is ... slimy.

I suppose it does at least make things explicit - your data is very obviously a form of payment at that point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com