←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: 0.695s | source
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 #
yugioh3 ◴[21 Jun 25 01:22 UTC] No.44333722[source]▶
people deserve to get paid for the work they put into creating content and building platforms, no? books, movies, tv shows, news, etc, are all distributed in some way or another that costs the consumer either money or their time viewing advertising. if you don't want to watch ads, pay YouTube for a subscription.
replies(8): >>44333777 #>>44333915 #>>44334574 #>>44334637 #>>44336354 #>>44338465 #>>44344814 #>>44347536 #
cvoss ◴[21 Jun 25 02:12 UTC] No.44333915[source]▶
If I can actually pay someone for content, then, if I don't pay, I should expect not to be granted access to content.

But that's not how YT works. YT doesn't charge you for good stuff. It charges you for not delivering crap. That's not legitimate business, that's a racket. I have no qualm punishing YT for that. Content creators are free to find other ways to monetize their labor, if their labor is actually valuable. (And so many of the good ones do, quite successfully.)

replies(2): >>44334463 #>>44334776 #
Uehreka ◴[21 Jun 25 04:19 UTC] No.44334463[source]▶
YouTube gives you two (2!) ways to pay for content. You can choose to pay with money, or you can choose to pay with your time and attention. If you don’t like paying with your time and attention, then either pay with money, or don’t use the service.

This “It charges you for not delivering crap.” line is bullshit. Serving video content costs money, they’ve given you the choice of how to pay for it, and you don’t like the choices but want to keep getting the content.

replies(1): >>44334983 #
gausswho ◴[21 Jun 25 06:10 UTC] No.44334983[source]▶
Worse. It charges you by building a profile about you.

21st century nation states can better solve video scale delivery without middle parasites like Google.

replies(2): >>44335247 #>>44341636 #
PurestGuava ◴[21 Jun 25 07:00 UTC] No.44335247[source]▶
> 21st century nation states can better solve video scale delivery without middle parasites like Google.

If it's that easy, why has nobody done it?

(Hint: governments don't want to run YouTube, probably shouldn't run YouTube, and nobody else wants or can afford the immense costs that come with running YouTube.)

replies(1): >>44335308 #
gausswho ◴[21 Jun 25 07:08 UTC] No.44335308[source]▶
I'm unconvinced. I suggest that YT's outlay is a sneeze among the budget of the US. In my estimation, all nations are lagging in the definition of what constitutes a public utility. In a decade we will be facepalming why advertisements were even needed for this common infrastructure.
replies(2): >>44335389 #>>44337857 #
PurestGuava ◴[21 Jun 25 07:18 UTC] No.44335389[source]▶
Most things are a sneeze compared to the budget of the federal government of the US, that doesn't mean that's a reasonable expectation for the US government (or any government) to run them.
replies(3): >>44335427 #>>44335987 #>>44336026 #
gausswho ◴[21 Jun 25 07:23 UTC] No.44335427[source]▶
I challenge the idea that private enterprise could solve the scaling component better than a government could. We've reached this comedy of ads and surveillance capitalism because private strategies are flailing.
replies(1): >>44335963 #
agent327 ◴[21 Jun 25 09:12 UTC] No.44335963[source]▶
As a thought experiment, is it realistic to get every tax payer to pay for funny cat videos? Because that will be a reality in your non-capitalist utopia.

Or maybe there just won't be any cat videos, because the state has decreed them unnecessary or even harmful? How about political messages, is the state going to allow those to be posted on its platform? There are bound to be a few that go against state policy...

You could argue that the same is true for broadcast TV, and I would 100% agree. The state has no business running or even funding public television.

replies(2): >>44336052 #>>44337851 #
1. fc417fc802 ◴[21 Jun 25 09:30 UTC] No.44336052[source]▶
If it followed the USPS model there would be a retention fee for the uploader and a transfer fee for the downloader, both based on size. There would also likely be a stipulation that fees not dip below the actual costs incurred which would protect private entities that might wish to compete. (Such fee minimums can be seen with some municipal internet service regulations.)
replies(2): >>44336174 #>>44336598 #
2. PurestGuava ◴[21 Jun 25 09:55 UTC] No.44336174[source]▶
> If it followed the USPS model there would be a retention fee for the uploader and a transfer fee for the downloader, both based on size.

The problem here is that we're already only having this debate because people refuse to pay, even when what they're paying with is functionally intangible (i.e. their letting an ad play on their PC for 30 seconds.

So any model which relies on people physically paying real actual money* is doomed to fail to begin with because you're not solving the issue.

replies(1): >>44336561 #
3. fc417fc802 ◴[21 Jun 25 11:12 UTC] No.44336561[source]▶
I kind of but kind of don't agree. Arguably BigTech dumping free product is the only reason we ended up here. Of course the average consumer isn't going to pay if someone else offers the full featured product fee of charge.

There's also an issue with the payment model. Creating an account, sharing a bunch of personal info, and subscribing on a recurring basis is entirely different from the USPS model where I walk into the post office and pay a one time fee in cash to get my letter where it needs to go. I suppose an analogous service might charge $/gb/mo paid up front without requiring an account. Like catbox.moe except paid.

4. ◴[21 Jun 25 11:17 UTC] No.44336598[source]▶