Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

    (iter.ca)
    991 points smitop | 13 comments | 20 Jun 25 17:01 UTC | HN request time: 1.482s | source | bottom
    Show context
    tlogan ◴[21 Jun 25 01:25 UTC] No.44333733[source]▶
    Why do we justify blocking ads, even when we know the content we’re consuming isn’t free to create and even if the content is free, it still costs money to store and distribute?

    We often rationalize using ad blockers because ads can be intrusive or annoying. But let’s asking ourselves: Why do we feel entitled to get this for free?

    This isn’t a moral judgment. I genuinely want to understand the reasoning.

    replies(49): >>44333779 #>>44333788 #>>44333809 #>>44333847 #>>44333851 #>>44333917 #>>44333925 #>>44333935 #>>44333977 #>>44333979 #>>44334008 #>>44334026 #>>44334039 #>>44334057 #>>44334068 #>>44334120 #>>44334256 #>>44334258 #>>44334326 #>>44334366 #>>44334430 #>>44334456 #>>44334488 #>>44334625 #>>44334645 #>>44334677 #>>44334690 #>>44334714 #>>44334842 #>>44334900 #>>44334969 #>>44334990 #>>44335255 #>>44335327 #>>44335367 #>>44335440 #>>44335725 #>>44335854 #>>44336166 #>>44336167 #>>44336232 #>>44336588 #>>44336691 #>>44336977 #>>44337218 #>>44337527 #>>44339047 #>>44340657 #>>44374533 #
    whatshisface ◴[21 Jun 25 02:30 UTC] No.44334026[source]▶
    You're asking the question in a way that's unreflective of how people think. They can do it and want to do it and would need a reason to not do it. So the question is, what would make someone feel like they were ethically compelled to watch an advertisement? It sounds impossible to me, maybe someone with a very unique perspective could chime in about themselves.

    Here's an attempt at a double-negative answer: you can't be ethically compelled into an unethical contract, and since advertisements are manipulative, voyeuristic and seek to take advantage of the limitations of human attentional control, it's a priori impossible for watching an ad or downloading a tracker to ever be ethically compulsory.

    replies(3): >>44334053 #>>44334074 #>>44334457 #
    zdragnar ◴[21 Jun 25 02:42 UTC] No.44334074[source]▶
    There's a very simple answer.

    You want to watch some content. The content provider offers you two options: pay and get no ads, or watch for free and also sit through some ads.

    You are not obligated to watch ads. You are opting to watch them in exchange for the free content, then skipping out on a commitment you volunteered for while still taking the free content.

    The "unethical contact" argument is bullshit, because you made a choice but didn't live up to it. Instead of either paying or not watching, you watched anyway.

    replies(7): >>44334131 #>>44334135 #>>44334174 #>>44334263 #>>44334719 #>>44335421 #>>44335653 #
    1. usernamed7 ◴[21 Jun 25 02:56 UTC] No.44334135[source]▶
    this is ridiculous.

    The provider is welcome to serve ads, and i am welcome to not watch them. When there are Ads on TV and I get up to go to the kitchen, am i skipping out on a commitment? Am I now a freeloader? Should the TV have a camera to make sure I watch all the ads like a good little boy?

    People have been fastforwarding/skipping ads for decades. this is nothing new.

    replies(2): >>44334182 #>>44335281 #
    2. zdragnar ◴[21 Jun 25 03:09 UTC] No.44334182[source]▶
    Technically, the provider only really cares that the ads played, not that you were paying attention to them.

    Unlike DVR for TVs, you are not welcome to skip playing them entirely. They've been pretty clear that skipping them via the use of ad blockers is a violation of the terms of service.

    replies(2): >>44334227 #>>44334260 #
    3. tock ◴[21 Jun 25 03:25 UTC] No.44334227[source]▶
    > Technically, the provider only really cares that the ads played, not that you were paying attention to them.

    Advertisers do care about them. It's just that they don't have a way to track/measure it.

    replies(1): >>44334464 #
    4. malwrar ◴[21 Jun 25 03:33 UTC] No.44334260[source]▶
    So if ad blocking extensions could make YouTube think you watched the ad, then they’d be fine?
    replies(2): >>44335296 #>>44338749 #
    5. wussboy ◴[21 Jun 25 04:19 UTC] No.44334464{3}[source]▶
    And if they could find a way to make you pay attention you’d better believe they’d do it in a heartbeat
    replies(1): >>44335310 #
    6. PurestGuava ◴[21 Jun 25 07:04 UTC] No.44335281[source]▶
    There's a difference between letting an ad play and you simply ignoring it, and using technical means from preventing that ad playing at all.

    Principally - the latter actually affects the compensation given to the creator of whatever video you're watching. The former does not.

    replies(2): >>44335480 #>>44335671 #
    7. nofunsir ◴[21 Jun 25 07:07 UTC] No.44335296{3}[source]▶
    Ironically, they'd try to get you ... or someone... anyone! on fraud. Can you imagine the same argument made in the example of getting up and going to the kitchen?

    > Your honor, they agreed to our terms and conditions which stipulate you MUST stay in the recliner facing forward the whole time. By getting up to <do something important and not waste their life watching ads>, they've defrauded our advertisers! We demand to be repaid in the form of 43 lazyboy hours per year.

    replies(1): >>44336500 #
    8. nofunsir ◴[21 Jun 25 07:08 UTC] No.44335310{4}[source]▶
    When Apple first launched face ID, there was talk (I can't remember where) of developers being excited about the possibility of tracking where their users were looking.
    replies(1): >>44366473 #
    9. wiseowise ◴[21 Jun 25 07:31 UTC] No.44335480[source]▶
    Except TV and YouTube can offer similar, but not necessarily same, purpose.

    TV, speaking of cable, is exclusively for entertainment. YouTube is used for pretty much everything these days. Imagine being in a panic, looking for a video how perform CPR, and getting 30 seconds unskippable ad.

    10. blackbear_ ◴[21 Jun 25 08:13 UTC] No.44335671[source]▶
    Then it seems that blocking ads is the more honest thing to do! Otherwise the company placing the ad would be unfairly paying money for a service not actually delivered. This also makes the market more efficient, as blocking ads is a clear signal their products aren't desired.
    11. malwrar ◴[21 Jun 25 11:00 UTC] No.44336500{4}[source]▶
    Whenever I’m in a situation where I can’t skip an ad (e.g. TV, radio, on foreign computer, etc), I usually turn down the volume and look away. Am I, in some sense, stealing whenever when I am not thoroughly considering each of the generous offers that Brand and Company have paid money to have delivered personally to devices of people like me? Is this inconvenient time spent while avoiding their message my penance, and is trying to skip it altogether somehow what turns my actions into sin?

    Of course it’s all about everyone getting paid! I always just find it silly when my fellow plebeians try to echo some false obligation to abide by this system when people like us have been avoiding it for as long as it has existed.

    12. _Algernon_ ◴[21 Jun 25 16:24 UTC] No.44338749{3}[source]▶
    AdNauseum simulate ad clicks, which I've always found to be an interesting concept. Sadly it will never reach a critical mass of users for it to be effective.

    https://adnauseam.io/

    13. jama211 ◴[24 Jun 25 14:11 UTC] No.44366473{5}[source]▶
    And apple, being not terrible in this one specific regard (their privacy record tends to be decent for a tech giant), didn’t allow it fortunately. Not sure if the same is true on other phones.