←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: 0.874s | source | bottom
Show context
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF ◴[21 Jun 25 04:54 UTC] No.44334626[source]▶
The primary thing that makes advertisements disagreeable is their irrelevance. That’s not to say whether or not the advertisement is for a product or service for which the viewer is interested in purchasing but how it relates to the context in which it is viewed.

People complain about billboards next to a countryside highway because it is entirely irrelevant to driving through the countryside. Actual complaints may be about how the billboards block a scenic view but that also seems like another way of complaining about the irrelevance. Similarly, if I am watching a Youtube video, I am never thinking that a disruptive message from a commercial business is relevant to my current activities (uh, passivities?). No advertisement is relevant, not even in-video direct sponsorships, hence SponsorBlock.

If I go to Costco and see an advertisement for tires... well, I’m at Costco, where I buy stuff. Things are sold at Costco and people go there to have things sold to them. I might need tires and realize I can get that taken care of while I’m at Costco. Nearly every advertisement I see at Costco is relevant because it’s selling something I can buy in the same building, indeed usually something juxtaposed close to the advertisement.

I don’t complain about advertisements at Costco because that would be insane. I complain about the advertisements on Youtube because they’re irrelevant and weird but somehow normalized.

replies(56): >>44334670 #>>44334685 #>>44334694 #>>44334952 #>>44334957 #>>44334987 #>>44334991 #>>44335199 #>>44335364 #>>44335395 #>>44335516 #>>44335533 #>>44335619 #>>44335751 #>>44335761 #>>44335769 #>>44335918 #>>44335948 #>>44335981 #>>44336024 #>>44336035 #>>44336038 #>>44336099 #>>44336105 #>>44336411 #>>44336425 #>>44336575 #>>44337172 #>>44337482 #>>44337484 #>>44337658 #>>44338009 #>>44338035 #>>44338037 #>>44338155 #>>44338219 #>>44338274 #>>44338480 #>>44338508 #>>44338542 #>>44338654 #>>44338786 #>>44339608 #>>44340005 #>>44340171 #>>44340603 #>>44341020 #>>44342922 #>>44343098 #>>44344128 #>>44344304 #>>44345024 #>>44350462 #>>44351143 #>>44361807 #>>44367427 #
scoofy ◴[21 Jun 25 05:06 UTC] No.44334685[source]▶
You can also pay for YouTube. I do. It’s nice, not crazy expensive. No ads. Creators get paid. Everyone wins.
replies(14): >>44334700 #>>44334775 #>>44334838 #>>44335064 #>>44335088 #>>44335102 #>>44335217 #>>44335273 #>>44335275 #>>44335720 #>>44335728 #>>44335927 #>>44336308 #>>44339625 #
1. matwood ◴[21 Jun 25 06:28 UTC] No.44335064[source]▶
Agreed. This isn’t a situation where you can’t pay. YT has a clear, reasonably priced solution for no ads. It also comes with YT music.

If people don’t think there’s enough value in YT, then don’t pay and don’t use it.

Reminds me of the early justification of Napster where people would complain the latest B. Spears song was garbage and not worth paying for, yet it was the most downloaded song.

replies(2): >>44335178 #>>44344970 #
2. PurestGuava ◴[21 Jun 25 06:50 UTC] No.44335178[source]▶
> If people don’t think there’s enough value in YT, then don’t pay and don’t use it.

The most common throughline of all pro-piracy discourse is that there's a lot of people who feel completely entitled to free entertainment, and they will come up with all sorts of bizarre mental gymnastics to justify that as something other than "I want free entertainment and don't want to see ads."

I don't think anyone could articulate a coherent logical argument as to why they feel they should get YouTube's services, and the entertainment produced by the creators who are on YouTube, while not paying either of them through any means, other than pure selfishness.

replies(3): >>44336395 #>>44338893 #>>44358355 #
3. Workaccount2 ◴[21 Jun 25 10:42 UTC] No.44336395[source]▶
Even worse, it's come to the point where it is actively destroying the internet. Everything from every news site being paywalled to click bait mania to brain rot content focused on the bottom suckers who can't ad block.
4. dimator ◴[21 Jun 25 16:43 UTC] No.44338893[source]▶
You'll notice that it's always YouTube that is the target, though. People feel entitled to free YouTube as though by birthright. If someone doesn't like Netflix, they cancel and move on, they don't usually claim they deserve it free.

Maybe because it was not monetized originally, and so those who were around back then argue it must remain that way?

replies(1): >>44344989 #
5. wkat4242 ◴[22 Jun 25 08:12 UTC] No.44344970[source]▶
> It also comes with YT music.

This is a big part of it. It drives the price up a lot but I don't want it so I pay for nothing,

> If people don’t think there’s enough value in YT, then don’t pay and don’t use it.

I don't pay and I use adblock and sponsorblock. I don't watch enough to make it worth it and with ads YT is literally unwatchable now. I watched a mentour pilot video the other day without the blockers and every 2-3 minutes there was an ad interruption, every time for the same stupid car. Not even relevant because I don't buy or use cars.

And there is no competition for YT right now.

Also, I really don't care about the ethics. I don't care if you think it's wrong. I'm just saying why I do it, not trying to justify it ethically. Because I have no ethics when it comes to big corporations. Just like they don't towards their customers.

6. wkat4242 ◴[22 Jun 25 08:14 UTC] No.44344989{3}[source]▶
> If someone doesn't like Netflix, they cancel and move on, they don't usually claim they deserve it free.

Not really. I cancelled netflix and I went back to torrents. And I'm sure there were many like me.

I don't think I deserve it free, but by doubling the price for the adfree option they just got to the point where I didn't care anymore.

I just get it free because I can, not because I think I deserve it. I don't have ethics when it comes to megacorps. Just like they screw us over whenever they can.

Previously I subscribed because watching on netflix is less hassle than downloading. But now the price is too much of an annoyance to bother with downloading. I used to be on the 720p plan which is enough for me, and when they dropped that and included ads on the cheaper 1080p plan, I would have had to move to the ad-free 1080p and that was just too much. Literally double the price.

7. godshatter ◴[23 Jun 25 17:58 UTC] No.44358355[source]▶
YouTube is providing these videos through the standard html ports with no authentication necessary, like most websites on the planet. This is how you give away information away for free on the web. I don't feel entitled to free stuff, but if someone is giving it away, why not take it?

And since I'm taking what they are giving me for free, then whether or not I decide to watch the parts they try to force on me to try to entice me to buy something I have no intention of buying is none of their business.

If they didn't leave this door wide open then I would be forced to decide if it's worth enough for me to pay to use it. But since they do I do what I want. It's not up to me to make sure that YT's and creator's business models are making them money.