←back to thread

YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

(iter.ca)
990 points smitop | 1 comments | 20 Jun 25 17:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.279s | source
Show context
ge96 ◴[20 Jun 25 23:38 UTC] No.44333140[source]▶
If adblock stopped working I would leave, which is interesting to me as I wonder what I'd do with my new time.

Funny I make YT videos too trying to build an audience, I'd like to not put ads on it but not my choice

I don't understand how people can just accept ads it drives me insane when some random shit starts playing

I already lost money with YT, I bought so many UHD movies on their platform ($20 ea) and they won't stream it in HD unless you're on a supported device or ad-ridden tv

edit: alright, aftrer seeing it's $13 I will get it, I have been converted

replies(1): >>44333159 #
arccy ◴[20 Jun 25 23:40 UTC] No.44333159[source]▶
"I want free hosting and an audience but I don't want to pay for it"
replies(2): >>44333162 #>>44333202 #
markus_zhang ◴[20 Jun 25 23:49 UTC] No.44333202[source]▶
Well, no one pushes YouTube to give free services right? Come on, make us pay for it! See what happens.
replies(4): >>44333209 #>>44333235 #>>44333245 #>>44333251 #
kllrnohj ◴[20 Jun 25 23:56 UTC] No.44333251[source]▶
YouTube Premium has existed for years now... You're absolutely able to pay for an ad-free experience, and it provides more financial support to creators than ads do
replies(3): >>44333424 #>>44333628 #>>44334853 #
1. appreciatorBus ◴[21 Jun 25 01:05 UTC] No.44333628[source]▶
The existence of premium is not the same as parent poster’s, “make us pay for it” idea, aka a paywall.

If YouTube and its content actually has value, then presumably a paywall would have no effect of revenues of YouTube or creators. On the other hand if the content is actually nearly worthless, the vast majority of people would find something better to do with their time.

I know which outcome I’d be betting on!