Hacker News Reader

Comment by adrr | Hacker News Reader

People don't care. Youtube has an option to watch it without ads, most people don't. I refuse to watch ads and pay for the ad-free versions of the streamers. Lots people won't pay. Would the average person pay $10/m for ad free social media? Or pay for add free search? Pretty sure there are search engines that you can pay that are ad free.

What needs to be regulated is ads that you can't avoid. You can avoid online ads by paying ad free versions or not browsing certain sites(eg: instagram, FB). Billboards need to go away, and some cities have outlawed them.

View on HN

I am often frustrated by ads/sponsored content on YouTube that I cannot buy. Youtuber present me nice product targeted for US audience. I am in Europe. No way I can use it or buy it. I would do it sometimes, but I cannot. Still I have to watch such ads.

I dont think there is a practical way to prevent this case.

That's the funny part, ads would be less annoying if they were hyper-targeted, which means there was more supply of ads and worse privacy. There's been a number of times I've found useful stuff from ads, but it's rare and almost never on Youtube.

Youtube is the one site worth paying for not to see ads and sponsorblock extension skips the live reads.

>Would the average person pay $10/m for ad free social media? Or pay for add free search?

At some point, yes. But by that point they switch to the next service with ads and the cycle repeats.

Its also important to note that many can't pay for such services. I.e. minors. So they don't get a choice unless their parents sympathize. That helps indoctrinate the next gen into accepting ads. I think that late Millenial/early Gen Z was a unique group that grew up with minimal ads (or easy ways to block ads) before smartphone hoisted most control from them.

Yeah but people also get addicted to things like cigarettes and gambling. Sometimes people need a little help to avoid harmful things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com