←back to thread

990 points smitop | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.421s | source
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 #
zwnow ◴[] No.44335273[source]
Why would you pay though its really simple to block ads and youtube is already rich enough. Why bow down to consumerism and enrichment of the already rich?
replies(3): >>44338170 #>>44338856 #>>44340180 #
PaulDavisThe1st ◴[] No.44338170[source]
> youtube is already rich enough

maybe, hard to say. but the people who make videos, and get 55% of the revenue (give or take a bit), frequently are not (unless you insist on watching mega channels only).

replies(2): >>44339023 #>>44345030 #
zwnow ◴[] No.44339023[source]
Well it should be a hobby to be a youtuber not a job. Monetizing it destroyed the whole platform.
replies(2): >>44339165 #>>44345001 #
PaulDavisThe1st ◴[] No.44339165[source]
While I think there is certainly a lot of questionable content because of monetization, some of my favorite YT channels exist because of it.

For example, there's a guy who rebuilt a early-1900's sailing boat from scratch, funded almost entirely by revenue from his channel. The videos are crazy high quality hand-construction porn and would never exist without the monetization aspect. Oh, and I had no prior and no current interest in boat building.

Most of the channels I follow (via RSS, rather than YT itself) are like this, and YT generally does an excellent job at putting new channels in front of me from time to time that marry my interests (even one's I didn't know I had) with phenomenally great story telling via video.

replies(2): >>44340344 #>>44345018 #
1. zwnow ◴[] No.44340344[source]
I know that it creates opportunities for people. The question is, could that guy have done it without the monetization part? Certainly, would've just taken a lot longer...
replies(1): >>44340467 #
2. PaulDavisThe1st ◴[] No.44340467[source]
He would have given up the project. It was a full time thing for him, not a side project.