←back to thread

YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

(iter.ca)
990 points smitop | 9 comments | 20 Jun 25 17:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
akersten ◴[21 Jun 25 01:03 UTC] No.44333609[source]▶
Thank you for your important work fighting this battle, it must be exhausting.

The more Google insists on forcing advertising on us, the more we should look closely at the wildly inappropriate and downright scammy ads they are hosting. If they can't leave well enough alone and look the other way on ad blocking, (which is the only way to avoid exposing myself and family to these dangerous ads), they need to be under a lot more scrutiny for the ads they choose to run.

replies(14): >>44333634 #>>44333715 #>>44333722 #>>44333741 #>>44333772 #>>44333866 #>>44333880 #>>44334127 #>>44334295 #>>44334478 #>>44334895 #>>44336346 #>>44336472 #>>44339901 #
yugioh3 ◴[21 Jun 25 01:22 UTC] No.44333722[source]▶
people deserve to get paid for the work they put into creating content and building platforms, no? books, movies, tv shows, news, etc, are all distributed in some way or another that costs the consumer either money or their time viewing advertising. if you don't want to watch ads, pay YouTube for a subscription.
replies(8): >>44333777 #>>44333915 #>>44334574 #>>44334637 #>>44336354 #>>44338465 #>>44344814 #>>44347536 #
mitthrowaway2 ◴[21 Jun 25 01:38 UTC] No.44333777[source]▶
YouTube spent about a decade and a half running unintrusive banner ads. Until they secured enough of the market that network effects locked content creators and consumers together in a two-sided market where it's hard for either group to leave unilaterally. Then they ramped up the length and intrusiveness of their ads while flouting content regulations on what they're even allowed to advertise.

Why should I reward that by paying them?

replies(3): >>44333833 #>>44333907 #>>44338011 #
hombre_fatal ◴[21 Jun 25 02:11 UTC] No.44333907[source]▶
You can keep bringing up Google, but you're still glossing over the part where you're not paying the people creating the content you're watching.

Seems awfully convenient.

replies(4): >>44333957 #>>44333961 #>>44334001 #>>44335672 #
1. BriggyDwiggs42 ◴[21 Jun 25 02:26 UTC] No.44334001{3}[source]▶
I give my favorite creators money through the ubiquitous patreons.
replies(3): >>44334570 #>>44336488 #>>44338730 #
2. hirvi74 ◴[21 Jun 25 04:42 UTC] No.44334570[source]▶
Perhaps controversial, but I rather just have ads. Not that I do not think this is a preferable model, but rather, donates cost real money and ads cost nothing except time.

While time is finite and valuable, if I am already on YouTube, then I have already committed to choice of wasting that nebulous amount of time in the first place.

replies(1): >>44334755 #
3. BriggyDwiggs42 ◴[21 Jun 25 05:25 UTC] No.44334755[source]▶
I’d absolutely rather give money. For me there’s a lot less friction in that even if technically it costs time all the same. With a job I have control over how I convert time into money; not so with watching ads.

As much as youtube can waste time, I also feel like I’ve been given genuine value by certain people on the site, so I wouldn’t say it’s simply wasting time.

replies(1): >>44334899 #
4. hirvi74 ◴[21 Jun 25 05:52 UTC] No.44334899{3}[source]▶
I watch quite a large array of channels. I am not sure I could feasibly afford to donate a meaningful amount to all them. So then, I am forced into the dilemma of deciding which ones are more worthy than others, and that is not something I am particularly willing to do.

If one's patreon did have perks associated with it, then I would be more inclined to 'donate', as well.

replies(1): >>44337179 #
5. al_borland ◴[21 Jun 25 10:58 UTC] No.44336488[source]▶
I just subscribe to YouTube Premium. From what I hear, views from Premium viewers are worth more to the creators than ad funded views, and I don’t need to deal with deciding which patreons to back, and spend 10x (or more) trying to pay for each individual.
replies(1): >>44339467 #
6. BriggyDwiggs42 ◴[21 Jun 25 12:50 UTC] No.44337179{4}[source]▶
I feel perfectly able to decide where to allocate money. For instance, one channel has functionally introduced me to modern philosophy and inspired me to start reading a ton. I took a class and read a bunch of books I otherwise wouldn’t have. Another channel makes funny ten minute joke videos once a month. I feel totally okay giving the former way more money; they’ve provided me more value by a long shot.
7. cma ◴[21 Jun 25 16:21 UTC] No.44338730[source]▶
Patreon is also getting enshittified, grandfathering rates for the legacy people who give it a network effect, and then jacking them up on new creators to take advantage of their moat.
replies(1): >>44351529 #
8. BriggyDwiggs42 ◴[21 Jun 25 18:05 UTC] No.44339467[source]▶
Sure, if that works better for you.
9. BriggyDwiggs42 ◴[23 Jun 25 00:48 UTC] No.44351529[source]▶
Unsurprising. I sort of feel this is just the natural cycle of the company structure, and that we have to hope any enshittifying service eventually gets bad enough to drive a large group to another platform earlier in its lifecycle. I’d support creators on any other platform if they offered to take money on it, but there’s only so much I can do as the person giving the money.