• Queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think YouTubers make fractional pennies from Ads, and mostly only if its fully watched and sometimes clicked to go to the website. So if you get a 15 second ad, and skip to the content, you didn’t give the creators any money.

      Also, shout out to those ads being horrible. My first time ever installing an adblocker was during a rapid anti-smoking campaign, that had body horror. 15 year old me didn’t want to smoke, nor wanted to after, but it was so disturbing that I learned how to avoid them.

      Not even going into the disturbing or weird ads. One time I got an ad for a “Ching Chong Fing Fong shirt company” as a way of mocking Chinese people because their government sucks. Another time, I got a full 12 hour video by a Vietnamese couple just grilling in their backyard. No subtitles, not even sure if they were aware they enabled their videos to do that, or didn’t fully understand the process of uploading videos.

      Anytime I see actual ads on the internet, not just YouTube, it just makes me go “I am perfectly justified in not seeing these weird ads.” I don’t give them any money no matter what I do, so why not have my eyes saved from bright flashing colors and scam artists?

      • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        My first time ever installing an adblocker was during a rapid anti-smoking campaign

        Those ads made me want to take up smoking out of spite.

      • dustyData@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If I recall correctly, ever since videos could be called up as ads you can just pay for any video to be an ad, as long as it’s on YouTube, and it doesn’t have to be yours. I don’t know if this has changed, but an essays channel figured out that that’s the fastests way someone could target a competitor’s channel. Paying to have someone else’s videobat an ad tanks that video ad revenue and discoverability instantly. Ad views count as views to the video and skipping an ad counts as a skip on the video which signals the algorithm to think that nobody wants or likes to see that video. Do it to enough new videos and you can entirely kill a previously profitable channel in a couple of months.

    • Maeve@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      They could probably retain users simply by running ads every 10 minutes, rather than every 3 minutes.

      • Dojan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh but they don’t care about anything but short form content. If they could ditch supporting long form content today they would.

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nah they want lots of short form and also like 10 hour long videos that can play 200 ads in it that you forget is on in the background. They want tiktok and broadcast TV.

          They really just want to show you ads.

  • kadu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    YouTube’s argument is the same as Linus’ from LTT: if you watch a video without ads, you’re failing to comply with your side of the transaction, thus essentially pirating that content and stealing the revenue source.

    Regardless if we agree or not with that statement, I’ll absolutely side with adblockers always for a deeper issue: it’s my screen, so I get the ultimate say on what content gets rendered. Quite literally. It’s my network, my cable, my screen, my graphics card, my web browser running JavaScript on my CPU - you do not, ever, get to overreach and decide what pixels show up or not. If I don’t want your obnoxious ad for an AI girlfriend to show up, there’s no moral argument to be had here.

    EDIT: I think some of you are missing the point of this comment. There’s no reason to reply to me countering the argument in the first paragraph, as it is not my comment, in fact, I specifically mentioned how it’s YouTube (and Linus’) argument.

    • warm@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I was happy with an ad at the side of the video. Then they started popping up over my video, then they started appearing before my video, then they started appearing throughout my video. Companies shot themselves in the foot with online advertising, banner ads and such weren’t much of a problem, but once ads start disrupting the content we visit a site for, then we look to block them ads. More people blocking ads is less revenue, so they make the ads more aggressive… and the cycle continues.

      And on a side note, Linus can fuck off.

      • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That and the large ad networks even on sites like YouTube and Facebook literally are advertising scams. Every time I browse shorts on either I get ads that are obvious scams of the “There’s a new $6400 monthly health credit see if you qualify.” variety. On one of Meta’s apps I got an ad that was for male enhancement that was straight up clips of uncensored hardcore porn. Not just nudity but full on PIV sex. If they can’t even do the work to properly screen their ads they can get fucked, I’m blocking all of it that I can.

      • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        And you see digital tv providers trying to implement fast forward blockers without chasing away their customers too much

      • StrawberryPigtails@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        That argument was in fact made when VCRs first came out. I don’t remember how exactly it played out but in the end the courts here in the US said that VCRs were fine.

      • Chozo@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The agreement isn’t that you watch the ad, but that you allow the ad to play on your device. That’s it. Whether or not you see it or hear it doesn’t matter; the “cost” for this type of content is a few moment of your device’s time, not your attention.

    • Aeri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      TBH I’m just so fucking tired of ads overstepping, back in the day there’s be a little banner on the side of a page advertising a truck or whatever, I’m sick of seeing like, enormous length ads.

      One day I had a 3 hour minecraft let’s play uploaded as an ad, you think I should have to watch all of that youtube?

      And the frequency is getting crazy.

      • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        When YouTube Red first dropped they were putting hour-long pilot episodes of their shows as pre-roll ads. Now I notice ads on shorts are full of obvious scams related to “new monthly health credits”. Still better than getting an ad on Facebook reels that was uncensored hardcore porn.

    • Kid_Thunder@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The problem is that there is that ad networks and ad placements are just bad actors in the consumer space. Not only has malware been passed time and time again with ads but also false ads to malware. When that happens suddenly the content creator/website/whatever ‘isn’t responsible’ for it. Then there’s the issue of ads being placed everywhere slowing down websites but even worse, getting in the way with auto play audio and video, videos autoscrolling over the content you’re trying to read or whatever, etc.

      As a consumer, I should not and ethically do not need to worry about another’s business model. If the business model fails simply because I don’t allow something that model depends on to traverse my network then it is on them to figure it out. If the ads get in the way of the content, then I just want consume the content anyway.

      Some news websites use Ad Admiral or whatever it is called and I haven’t bothered trying to bypass the adblock wall for them. I just simply consume the content elsewhere.

      If ads were ever responsibly used or perhaps could be argued that there is compromise where consumers wouldn’t mind, then there’d probably be a lot less ad blocker usage. It’s like anything else. When it takes less effort to install an adblocker to have an OK experience, then ad blockers will be popular.

      I was around before ad blockers were very popular and even before pop-up blockers were around. Ads kept getting worse which is why ad blockers became more popular and more sophisticated. The Internet had ads for years before ad blockers were the norm.

    • Midnight Wolf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, the argument falls short when YT (or LTT) spew literal garbage. I might have a hint of sympathy if it wasn’t a dumpster fire of decaying babies.

      The few people I sub do and do yt as a monitory source, I support elsewhere. Fuck YouTube acting as a sleezy middle-man and simultaneously playing the victim.

    • MakePorkGreatAgain@lemmy.basedcount.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      if a content creator doesnt want people to be able to skip the ads/demonetize the content, then they should post on a platform that makes ads mandatory.

      problem is that no one will watch crap on that sort of platform

      • metaStatic@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        exactly, it would be trivial to have a whitelist server side and now only ad friendly apps can access the videos. they only still work because it’s worth keeping those viewers in the system for the time being.

        • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Technically NewPipe simply parses the website and is seen as a web browser from YouTube’s point of view.

          That how they bypass the API’s TOS, they don’t use it.

        • Feyd@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Trivial? What information does this whitelist hold that can’t be spoofed? It’s not like apps have to tell the truth about what they are.

          • passepartout@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is what current implementations like Revanced do. The endgame will be fullblown DRM. Until then, it will be a cat and mouse game.

          • Midnight Wolf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            People do that? Just have their code go on the internet and tell lies?! This is a Christian internet!

            (yes it’s /s)

  • HexesofVexes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Somewhere out there a CEO thought this was a good idea. All it seems to be doing is pushing people to other platforms (the younger gen moving over to tiktok and the older gens moving 3rd party or just offline).

    • dinckel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      While I agree, the amount of people who’d do this is negligibly small, compared to their total userbase. Obviously a bunch of people use ad blockers, but only a tiny amount of them have modified apps, followed by an even tinier amount of those people with fully custom frontends. For YT it might work out as a net positive, because the annoying blocks and reminders will just pressure people into paying for Premium.

      At the end of the day, I could just stop watching youtube entirely, if this trend continues. I have nothing to gain there

      • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I guess what there really winning is all those non tech-savvy people who currently have an adblocker installed because their friend helped.

      • Maeve@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, been thinking I’ve just been substituting YT für TV, and while the consumption can still be customized, it’s still a habit that can be kicked. I bet I’ll get more sleep and productivity.

  • RonSijm@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    YouTube is bringing its ad blocker fight to mobile. In an update on Monday, YouTube writes that users accessing videos through a third-party ad blocking app may encounter buffering issues or see an error message that reads, “The following content is not available on this app.”

    Yea, noticed that last week. Is already fixed again in latest revanced.

  • someguywithacomputer@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I kind of already hoarded so many videos from youtubes last failed adblock crusade that I barely even use the real youtube anymore. Guess I’ll show my disapproval by improving my offline video caching system even more.

    My search system doesn’t autosuggest results based on which videos have more boobs in the thumbnail but I’ll get over it.

  • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    I haven’t seen an anti adblocker popup on youtube for a couple months now, I though they gave up. It looks like the uBlock developers and block list maintainers are just doing an excellent job staying ahead of whatever youtube is doing.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    YouTube is bringing its ad blocker fight to mobile.

    In an update on Monday, YouTube writes that users accessing videos through a third-party ad blocking app may encounter buffering issues or see an error message that reads, “The following content is not available on this app.”

    It also began disabling videos for users with an ad blocking extension enabled.

    But now, YouTube says its policies don’t allow “third-party apps to turn off ads because that prevents the creator from being rewarded for viewership.” This appears to target mobile ad blockers like AdGuard, which lets you open YouTube within the ad blocking app, where you’ll get to view videos interruption-free.

    “When we find an app that violates these terms, we will take appropriate action to protect our platform, creators, and viewers.”

    This likely won’t come as pleasant news to all the users who watch YouTube through ad blocking apps, but it doesn’t look like YouTube is backing down in its battle against ad blockers anytime soon.


    The original article contains 220 words, the summary contains 165 words. Saved 25%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • shortwavesurfer@monero.town
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    If they fully manage to block applications from viewing YouTube, then I will just stop viewing YouTube entirely. And I will figure out channels to watch on Odyssey and peertube. That will also be my last Google service since that is the only one I use frequently since I deleted my Google account two years ago.

    • misk@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Making you leave is their point since you cost them money.

      • shortwavesurfer@monero.town
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        True, but if enough people leave, then creators will start leaving as well, and that is something they do not want.

        • warm@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sounds great in theory, but won’t happen. The internet is too consolidated now for the majority of people to give a shit, there’s people buying YouTube Premium because of all this. Look at reddit, barely a dent in it after all the fiascos, twitter is holding on too. People don’t care.

  • nl4real@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Lmao, I keep hearing about this but my Ublock Origin & Firefox keeps chugging along fine on both desktop and mobile. Eat my ass, Neal Mohan.

  • Icalasari@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    And yet it still can’t figure out how to get past two adblockers at once

    It’s stupid that it works, but it works