←back to thread

YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

(iter.ca)
990 points smitop | 4 comments | 20 Jun 25 17:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.619s | source
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 #
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 #
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 #
1. 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 #
2. nofunsir ◴[21 Jun 25 07:07 UTC] No.44335296[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 #
3. malwrar ◴[21 Jun 25 11:00 UTC] No.44336500[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.

4. _Algernon_ ◴[21 Jun 25 16:24 UTC] No.44338749[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/