←back to thread

SponsorBlock – Skip over sponsorship segments on YouTube

(sponsor.ajay.app)
192 points bgstry | 3 comments | 21 Apr 21 07:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.622s | source
Show context
rPlayer6554 ◴[21 Apr 21 08:43 UTC] No.26886888[source]▶
I understand people don't like ads, but at some point doesn't someone have to pay creators for content? This feels just like stealing: I don't know how you can justify it: sponsor spots don't track you and they don't slow down your computer. Yes they are a minor inconvenience but they make the content you watch possible.
replies(14): >>26886974 #>>26886985 #>>26886988 #>>26887184 #>>26887197 #>>26887247 #>>26887269 #>>26887319 #>>26887341 #>>26890430 #>>26893033 #>>26895051 #>>26895827 #>>26896138 #
1. Cthulhu_ ◴[21 Apr 21 09:25 UTC] No.26887184[source]▶
It's not stealing because the creators will get paid anyway. Second, said creators have minimal expenses because YT pays for the hosting. Third, ad and sponsorship blocking represents only a small fraction of users. It's a fraction to, say, people sharing their netflix account.
replies(1): >>26887401 #
2. jasode ◴[21 Apr 21 09:52 UTC] No.26887401[source]▶
>It's not stealing because the creators will get paid anyway.

This isn't always true. As several sibling comments already mentioned, this "native advertising" of embedded sponsor spot via the Youtube personality as spokesperson -- is often "paid based on performance" which means the affiliate url links mentioned in the ad are measured for clicks resulting in new customers.

I'm not commenting on morals of using a plugin but just correcting a misconception about arrangements of payment for content creators.

replies(1): >>26888170 #
3. Raed667 ◴[21 Apr 21 11:30 UTC] No.26888170[source]▶
I would have never clicked on an affiliate link. So no harm done by that logic.