Most active commenters
  • ndriscoll(6)

←back to thread

SponsorBlock – skip sponsor segments on YouTube

(sponsor.ajay.app)
661 points anotherhue | 11 comments | 12 Aug 24 09:10 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
noone_youknow ◴[13 Aug 24 02:41 UTC] No.41231674[source]▶
As a YouTuber, I’m conflicted about this. My main channel (non-tech) is small, but is monetised, and YouTube see fit to throw me a _very_ variable amount of money every month. CPMs are down right now so revenue has tanked along with it, it’ll pick back up at some point, but the variability is itself the pain point. My videos are relatively expensive and time consuming to make, but people seem to find them useful, and even enjoyable. The occasional (relevant) sponsor read or similar has been a huge help in providing some stability in the past, and I know for many channels it’s the main source of income since YPP revenue share can be so volatile.

I do worry that if this takes off it will just result in those sponsors pulling their budgets for this type of advertising, and it’ll be another nail in the coffin for creators. Sure many of us also do patreon etc but that’s never really sat right with me personally (and see also the post on HN just today about Apple coming for a revenue split there for another creator-hostile storm brewing).

On the other hand, I totally get the hatred of “the usual suspect” sponsors (VPNs, low-quality learning platforms etc) that get done to death because of their aggressive sponsor budgets and not-unreasonable deals. Those get shoehorned into a ton of videos and it’s a shame, but a blunt instrument like this is likely to kill off sponsorships as a whole, not just those bad ones.

replies(25): >>41232437 #>>41232581 #>>41232707 #>>41233038 #>>41234040 #>>41234084 #>>41234999 #>>41235001 #>>41236793 #>>41238030 #>>41238280 #>>41238298 #>>41238611 #>>41239066 #>>41239394 #>>41239637 #>>41239654 #>>41239960 #>>41240838 #>>41240845 #>>41241269 #>>41241757 #>>41243225 #>>41243783 #>>41247631 #
erklik ◴[13 Aug 24 05:37 UTC] No.41232581[source]▶
> blunt instrument like this is likely to kill off sponsorships as a whole

That's the dream. Ads are a poison and a blight.

Removing them is something many users, including me welcome. If one wants money for their videos, they're welcome to actually allow getting payments i.e. patreon, the "Youtube sponsorship"-thing.

replies(6): >>41233013 #>>41233478 #>>41233501 #>>41234540 #>>41238244 #>>41241740 #
0dayz ◴[13 Aug 24 11:54 UTC] No.41234540[source]▶
And I'll agree with you the day we all decide to pay a monthly fee that is big enough to support various websites and creators.
replies(1): >>41235558 #
ndriscoll ◴[13 Aug 24 14:01 UTC] No.41235558[source]▶
Why? As a HN-er/content creator, I don't see why it would be taken for granted that people need to be paid for their hobbies. In fact many people post online for enjoyment.
replies(2): >>41238217 #>>41238655 #
labcomputer ◴[13 Aug 24 19:16 UTC] No.41238655[source]▶
I’m sort of amazed this has to be explicitly stated:

Because most YouTube creators (even the hobbyists) are at least partially motivated by money, and if you take away all the money they will likely make less content or stop altogether. I understand that it’s fun to get things for free, but that’s usually not sustainable.

replies(4): >>41238947 #>>41239038 #>>41239755 #>>41242788 #
1. ndriscoll ◴[13 Aug 24 19:50 UTC] No.41239038[source]▶
The point is that's fine, and it is perfectly sustainable for people to do things they enjoy for free. It'd perhaps not be sustainable for someone to play video games as a full-time job, but maybe that's okay (or even desirable from a societal resource allocation standpoint)?
replies(1): >>41240091 #
2. xena ◴[13 Aug 24 21:33 UTC] No.41240091[source]▶
Simply make rent, housing, and food free. Then people need not make money for the majority of needs.
replies(2): >>41241772 #>>41241923 #
3. ◴[14 Aug 24 01:46 UTC] No.41241772[source]▶
4. ndriscoll ◴[14 Aug 24 02:15 UTC] No.41241923[source]▶
Indeed:

https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/what-is-gen-zs-no...

> According to a recent report by decision intelligence company Morning Consult, which surveyed over 2,000 adults in the U.S., 57% of Gen Zers said they'd be an influencer if given the opportunity, compared to 41% of adults from all age groups.

If true, possibly the most damning rebuttal of UBI proponents that there is.

replies(1): >>41241993 #
5. johnnyanmac ◴[14 Aug 24 02:29 UTC] No.41241993{3}[source]▶
I don't see how. They are young adults and of course they want to be [flashy job]. Some may do it out of passion, some will inevitably realize the platform exploits them and moves on so they can have stability, or pay rent. Trust me, I'm a game dev, the 2000's version of this, succeeded by the band musicians of the 90's/80's.

UBI would bring out more passionate people and not force the passionate but disheartened to drop out. meanwhile, the passionate who do stick it will optimize for money. So they can pay rent. Or worse, the unpassionate marketers take over and the discipline is reduced to slop (we've probably been here for ~10 years now).

replies(1): >>41242152 #
6. ndriscoll ◴[14 Aug 24 03:04 UTC] No.41242152{4}[source]▶
Because they're saying if they could sustain themselves, they'd have their job be to... eat at restaurants, play video games, travel, try on clothes, wear makeup, etc. Basically be an exact conservative caricature of socialists.
replies(1): >>41248202 #
7. kjkjadksj ◴[14 Aug 24 17:00 UTC] No.41248202{5}[source]▶
The irony is that its a caricature of rich nepo babies under consumer capitalism vs socialism. In a pure socialist society (good example of this is US government or military jobs) you still work and there wouldn’t be such striking wealth inequality on display.
replies(2): >>41259010 #>>41279552 #
8. ndriscoll ◴[15 Aug 24 18:30 UTC] No.41259010{6}[source]▶
Sure, but then you're either not providing UBI (e.g. it is conditioned on working), or requiring forced labor so actual jobs are still done.
replies(1): >>41268037 #
9. kjkjadksj ◴[16 Aug 24 16:46 UTC] No.41268037{7}[source]▶
Jobs can still pay on top of ubi which would be enough incentive to hold them. You may as well ask why any navy cook would strive to be general when peeling potatos is less stress. The answer is also higher pay.
replies(1): >>41271042 #
10. ndriscoll ◴[16 Aug 24 22:43 UTC] No.41271042{8}[source]▶
> A majority (53%) of Gen Zers surveyed considered influencing a respectable career choice, and a similar percentage would be willing to leave their current jobs if they could sustain their lifestyle as an influencer.

There's some wiggle-room on what "their lifestyle" means, but I doubt that the positive answer is biased toward e.g. HENRYs, and in fact it's likely biased in the other direction. If UBI can match whatever their current lifestyle is (or even exceed it, e.g. paying for a personal living space instead of roommates), then these people are essentially saying that they'd be happy not to work.

11. throw10920 ◴[18 Aug 24 01:53 UTC] No.41279552{6}[source]▶
Having previously worked for the US government and knowing multiple people in the US military, there's both significant wealth inequality, and significant downgrades in quality of life compared to the private industry.