←back to thread

YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

(iter.ca)
990 points smitop | 7 comments | 20 Jun 25 17:01 UTC | HN request time: 1.179s | source | bottom
Show context
pier25 ◴[21 Jun 25 00:53 UTC] No.44333561[source]▶
I'm more than happy to pay for Youtube Premium to remove ads for all the family and ensure content creators can monetize their work.
replies(7): >>44333596 #>>44333662 #>>44335342 #>>44335434 #>>44336489 #>>44338972 #>>44348128 #
vjulian ◴[21 Jun 25 01:11 UTC] No.44333662[source]▶
I find it hard to discern whether your post is sarcasm. Assuming it’s not, I’m surprised that someone is so cheerfully and voluntarily paying an extra fiat to the virtual landowner.
replies(2): >>44333677 #>>44333740 #
1. bobsmooth ◴[21 Jun 25 01:14 UTC] No.44333677[source]▶
Video hosting is expensive. Making videos is expensive. You're not noble for stealing from Youtube or its creators.
replies(4): >>44333892 #>>44334770 #>>44337142 #>>44338269 #
2. ◴[21 Jun 25 02:06 UTC] No.44333892[source]▶
3. asadotzler ◴[21 Jun 25 05:29 UTC] No.44334770[source]▶
It's not stealing. It's using. I have no obligation under any legal framework to use their content the way they wish I would. Trust me, or pay a lawyer to learn the same truth at considerably more cost.
replies(1): >>44337312 #
4. Lio ◴[21 Jun 25 12:43 UTC] No.44337142[source]▶
It's not stealing; no one is deprived of anything except rent.

If anything the cost of making the video is sunk by the creator just once and then rapidily payed off.

Once that happens it's just hosting costs and Moore's, Kryder's and Koomey's Laws are brining that down exponetially.

Funnily enough though you never see the amount of avertising shown getting shorter to represent the lower costs involved eh?

replies(1): >>44337318 #
5. bobsmooth ◴[21 Jun 25 13:07 UTC] No.44337312[source]▶
You're legally and morally in the wrong. Just accept this instead of getting defensive. I pirate literally all of the media I consume but I don't think I;m in the right for doing so.
replies(1): >>44427481 #
6. bobsmooth ◴[21 Jun 25 13:08 UTC] No.44337318[source]▶
It costs money to serve video. You're stealing from YouTube and by extension creators. No amount of mental gymnastics will change this.
replies(1): >>44427558 #
7. trinix912 ◴[21 Jun 25 15:24 UTC] No.44338269[source]▶
If it's costing YouTube so much, then they can freely switch to showing no videos to non-paying users at all. But they won't do that, because people watching without paying is what got them to where they are.

As for the creators, it's up to them to decide whether they want to publish under these terms and risk having their content viewed without being paid for, or not put it on YouTube.