←back to thread

YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

(iter.ca)
990 points smitop | 6 comments | 20 Jun 25 17:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.942s | 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 #
okdood64 ◴[21 Jun 25 02:54 UTC] No.44334127[source]▶
Or just pay for Premium... No one's forcing you to do anything.
replies(2): >>44334199 #>>44334582 #
inetknght ◴[21 Jun 25 03:14 UTC] No.44334199[source]▶
Wait until Google shows ads in premium too. Paid-for cable TV did the same rugpull decades ago.
replies(4): >>44334528 #>>44335048 #>>44335303 #>>44336599 #
1. jfoster ◴[21 Jun 25 04:32 UTC] No.44334528[source]▶
So what's your argument? That YouTube shouldn't exist, or that it should be a charity? Something else?
replies(3): >>44335043 #>>44335045 #>>44338442 #
2. morsch ◴[21 Jun 25 06:24 UTC] No.44335043[source]▶
Both sound like good options to me. Split it up or turn it into a nonprofit. Although I suppose the former would man paying 15 bucks to each baby YouTube, so maybe not.
3. Freak_NL ◴[21 Jun 25 06:24 UTC] No.44335045[source]▶
How about advertising without the tracking? Advertising not shown specifically to me because of any attributes Google thinks apply to me? Advertising limited to a 5s lead in at the start of the video (today, this video is sponsored by …) and a static banner hidden when going full-screen. Advertising held to high standards, and advertising which can be vetoed by the video's uploader. In short, ethical advertising.

Google can surely figure this out and still turn a profit on Youtube. Greed stops them from doing this.

replies(1): >>44335163 #
4. Mindwipe ◴[21 Jun 25 06:47 UTC] No.44335163[source]▶
Google almost certainly doesn't turn a profit on YouTube now. It would unquestionably lose billions of dollars a year with the advertising you want.
replies(1): >>44336985 #
5. Lio ◴[21 Jun 25 12:15 UTC] No.44336985{3}[source]▶
Why? Surely knowing the content of the video gives them enough context to serve advertising relevant to the viewer without tracking.

At the very least they could guarentee that YouTube Premium tracking doesn't get used for profiling later. I think that would be a very acceptable solution but they don't offer it.

You pay but you're still snooped on.

6. inetknght ◴[21 Jun 25 15:48 UTC] No.44338442[source]▶
> So what's your argument? That YouTube shouldn't exist, or that it should be a charity? Something else?

I've been thinking about it for a long time (years). I don't really have the right words for my thoughts, and I think charity is probably closest.

But yes, at this point, I think that many "free" services should be charities to prevent them from being corrupted by rugpulls.