←back to thread

YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

(iter.ca)
990 points smitop | 8 comments | 20 Jun 25 17:01 UTC | HN request time: 1.48s | source | bottom
Show context
ddtaylor ◴[21 Jun 25 00:02 UTC] No.44333279[source]▶
I don't care when YouTube does a buffer thing because blocking ads for me is about distractions and context switching. My cognitive load is already very high and it's extremely frustrating to have to filter out more garbage.
replies(2): >>44333459 #>>44333794 #
paulcole ◴[21 Jun 25 00:34 UTC] No.44333459[source]▶
You could just pay the $13/month? Would save the worries about context switching further taxing your already high cognitive load? And I would expect your high cognitive load helps you earn well above $13/month?
replies(6): >>44333465 #>>44333493 #>>44333502 #>>44333507 #>>44333541 #>>44334409 #
1. mindslight ◴[21 Jun 25 00:44 UTC] No.44333507[source]▶
Giving them money rewards them for pulling a bait and switch where they set the price of hosting plus watching video at free, but are now trying to extort the ecosystem after so many people spent effort uploading. Don't encourage hostile behavior.
replies(2): >>44333555 #>>44333966 #
2. frollogaston ◴[21 Jun 25 00:53 UTC] No.44333555[source]▶
What did you want them to do instead, put ads or charge money per view starting in 2005?
replies(1): >>44333617 #
3. mindslight ◴[21 Jun 25 01:04 UTC] No.44333617[source]▶
Sure, that would have been one honest option. Dumping an artificially free option into the market crowded out other options from being adopted or even developed.
replies(1): >>44340126 #
4. paulcole ◴[21 Jun 25 02:21 UTC] No.44333966[source]▶
How did you expect them to pay for the cost of the service?

The cost of hosting still seems to be free. Isn’t it the watching that comes with a cost?

5. frollogaston ◴[21 Jun 25 19:33 UTC] No.44340126{3}[source]▶
This is how all tech companies got funded, and still do. YouTube doesn't even have much of a network effect, it's just that nobody made anything comparable that was actually better.
replies(1): >>44340381 #
6. mindslight ◴[21 Jun 25 20:08 UTC] No.44340381{4}[source]▶
> This is how all tech companies got funded, and still do

This isn't really germane to what's right. We all know how the surveillance industry operates - subsidizing investment, lock in, and then enshittification. And sure, it seems to work for it in a pragmatic sense. But that doesn't mean we should find virtue in rewarding it, which was what the original argument is about.

> YouTube doesn't even have much of a network effect

I'm not interested in arguing with goalposts being moved, especially by ignorance.

replies(1): >>44346389 #
7. paulcole ◴[22 Jun 25 12:32 UTC] No.44346389{5}[source]▶
Is it more right for you to expect something for nothing?
replies(1): >>44349873 #
8. mindslight ◴[22 Jun 25 20:08 UTC] No.44349873{6}[source]▶
Youtube themselves created that expectation, so yes.