←back to thread

990 points smitop | 9 comments | | HN request time: 2.937s | 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 #
scoofy ◴[] No.44335197[source]
How do creators get paid under your rubric?

They already get 55% of revenues at YouTube which is basically the highest percentage in any creator industry. How do we pay creators under your rubric and allow them to be discovered?

replies(1): >>44335267 #
stiray ◴[] No.44335267[source]
Looks like it worked and it works, without any changes, while the number of views is keeping their earnings to small group that will not increase as there is not infinite number of time to watch the movies. And dont "creators" me. It is about google earning more money for their stockholders and managment collecting their rewards, not about "think of the children".
replies(1): >>44335487 #
1. scoofy ◴[] No.44335487[source]
>And dont "creators" me. It is about google earning more money for their stockholders and managment collecting their rewards, not about "think of the children".

Classic consumer-only socialist. You have no model for production except business is bad. If you care about labor then you care about labor getting paid. So far you've demonstrated that you have no model of paying content creators. You would rather they go away then actually pay for their services. You pretend you should be able to get it for free. If you have no model of production, then you have no model.

replies(1): >>44336021 #
2. stiray ◴[] No.44336021[source]
No, it is much simpler. Success of a company is not limited on constant growth of profit but rather of providing to workers and owners a normal life.

And in our case, it is paid in current model (actually even in model with less ads). It doesn't need any growth of profit.

Everything else is pure greed. Now the question opens, are you paying for videos or greed?

replies(2): >>44338423 #>>44338804 #
3. vladvasiliu ◴[] No.44338423[source]
What's a "normal life"? And who gets to decide that?

> And in our case, it is paid in current model (actually even in model with less ads). It doesn't need any growth of profit.

Who are you to decide that?

replies(1): >>44340154 #
4. scoofy ◴[] No.44338804[source]
You have no model for how labor gets paid.
replies(1): >>44340102 #
5. stiray ◴[] No.44340102{3}[source]
Sure I do, by suckers watching ads, like it always was.

The whole thing about Google is that they are not software company (as people like to falsely believe), they are advertising company, financing everything else from ads. Including search, youtube, android, gmail and all other side projects.

And those side projects brings them data, to advertise more efficiently.

Now, seeing a trend to monetize their side toys is just pure greed, they don't really need that.

This is also the reason, why no one can compete with them. As competing with free products is impossible unless you have side financing.

By the way, did you (and everyone else) maybe read this study? https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/leave_my_br... It is very eye opening.

replies(1): >>44340577 #
6. stiray ◴[] No.44340154{3}[source]
Looks like the planet will. It has already started to sanitize flee infestation called humanity. And, contrary to what it was told to you, planet is fine. Nothing wrong with it. Scratching. And will joyfully survive for millions years to come. We wont.
7. scoofy ◴[] No.44340577{4}[source]
Your model for paying labor is "Other people should pay, but I shouldn't have to pay." That fails the basic categorical imperative.
replies(1): >>44340589 #
8. stiray ◴[] No.44340589{5}[source]
It worked until now for, what, 20 years? And it worked very well, check Google stock.

Don't be afraid, they have calculated people not paying into the strategy.

And it wont stop working because you wont pay Google extra money. But it will become worse for most of people, including you, if you set yourself into position of slave and pay, confirming their theory that they can exploit you so much more.

Btw, did you check the link? You should really learn from it.

replies(1): >>44341349 #
9. ◴[] No.44341349{6}[source]