←back to thread

990 points smitop | 6 comments | | HN request time: 1.217s | source | bottom
Show context
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
stiray ◴[] No.44334775[source]
You lose on long run. In few years, you will pay more and still watch ads while YT will no longer be free. (let me remind you of video streaming services)

Managers want their rewards that are tied to earnings and stockholders want to earn more.

And once they both get their money, the next year reward will be tied to even more earnings. And stockholders will want to earn more.

replies(4): >>44334809 #>>44334852 #>>44335028 #>>44335785 #
scoofy ◴[] No.44334809[source]
I’ll switch to Nebula if that ever happens.

Content creators have no loyalty to YouTube and will share their content elsewhere when YouTube annoys their paying fans.

replies(2): >>44334828 #>>44335654 #
stiray ◴[] No.44334828[source]
There is no if. This is how corporate greed works.

What will happen is, that content creators will spread to different providers, that also have managers and stockholders/owners.

Look what Netflix was like and how many various payable video streaming providers you have now. More than you are prepared to pay for content.

In few years, you will be torrenting content that today you watch for free.

And only because people decided to pay, showing the world that there is money to be made in YT model.

replies(1): >>44334927 #
scoofy ◴[] No.44334927[source]
Yes, businesses want money. The point is that YouTube has no leverage on creators. they have to play nice because the barrier to entry is nil as competitors already exist in Twitch, Dailymotion, Nebula, Vimeo, Dropout, etc.

None of that helps you if you want it to be free, but for those of us willing to pay, we can happily ally with creators if YouTube gets shitty.

That’s how it’s supposed to work. It’s a good deal now and I’m happy to take it. None of that matters if you are comparing it to piracy… obviously.

replies(3): >>44334940 #>>44335299 #>>44349246 #
stiray ◴[] No.44334940[source]
We will see how prepared you will be to pay, where each of creators you watch will be on different network and you will have to pay for each network $10/month, while you watch 20 creators.

Again, this is nothing new. It already happened with video streaming, where Youtube now is Netflix then.

replies(1): >>44334988 #
scoofy ◴[] No.44334988[source]
This already happened with Dropout.tv when college humor left YouTube.

Yes, it ain’t perfect. The alternative is the creator literally stop making videos. YouTube is already not serving ads for demonetized videos. People doing it for the love of filmmaking can already do it for free.

replies(1): >>44335110 #
stiray ◴[] No.44335110[source]
No, the alternative is that you DONT pay. That you deliberately not do what is the easiest move(1) and on top of that even feel special for doing it. That you suffer a short time for better next. That you fight them with technical means. That you vote with your wallet, squeeze your teeth hard and show them you just wont pay and they will lose ad watcher if they show more ads.

And now you will tell, that people are not disciplined enough for that, that majority wont pass the marshmallow(2) experiment? That some Mike Judge movie was actually documentary?

Yes, I know.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booby_trap , A common trick is to provide victims with a simple solution to a problem, for example, leaving only one door open in an otherwise secure building, luring them straight toward the firing mechanism

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experimen...

replies(2): >>44335197 #>>44335232 #
1. lyu07282 ◴[] No.44335232[source]
"vote with your wallet" is like trickle down economics, it's like if only everyone used paper straws we could prevent climate catastrophy. Split up FANGM should be the bare minimum.
replies(1): >>44335288 #
2. stiray ◴[] No.44335288[source]
It is not, but discipline is needed instead consumerism. And every half intelligent marketing guy will make it harder than to just pay. Paper straws you mentioned are just paper straws.

Splitting should happen 10 years ago. I doubt it will have any special impact now.

replies(1): >>44335663 #
3. lyu07282 ◴[] No.44335663[source]
> Paper straws you mentioned are just paper straws

No they are the decipline you are talking about, the delusion is, if everyone used paper straws we would save the ecological destruction of the oceans. The structural problems of endless profit maximization machines can not be addressed by appealing to individual action.

> Splitting should happen 10 years ago. I doubt it will have any special impact now.

That depends on the amount of pieces, don't you think?

replies(1): >>44336034 #
4. stiray ◴[] No.44336034{3}[source]
Ok, I wanted to avoid it, but since you didnt understand, paper straws are just straw men. They have absolutely nothing with voting with wallet, it is just some lame scenario, comparable at nothing and kicked instead of the real thing.

Or said differently: plastic straws are only a minor part in ocean pollution, while people not voting with their wallet is the main reason for all corporate shenanigans we are experiencing.

And yes, I agree it depends on number of pieces, but I don't put any trust into USA as state, even without Trump, being able to persecute billion $ corporation.

replies(1): >>44336501 #
5. lyu07282 ◴[] No.44336501{4}[source]
> while people not voting with their wallet is the main reason for all corporate shenanigans we are experiencing

That's what I'm getting at is wrong. The paper straws are an analogy, if everyone stopped driving cars and lived in the woods we could reduce carbon emissions significantly, therefore the reason we can't stop climate change is people not voting with their wallets. Everything is people not voting with their wallets, it applies to everything, that's why it applies to nothing.

replies(1): >>44336994 #
6. stiray ◴[] No.44336994{5}[source]
If you are having troubles understanding, you can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man