Youtube now complaining about use of ad stoppers

Forums › Online streaming services › Youtube now complaining about use of ad stoppers

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

Awrrr
18610 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3166536 30-Nov-2023 19:32

Your argument makes a lot of false assumptions. The first is that everyone who accesses the content values it equally. The second is that everyone who bypasses the advertising wants something for nothing. The third is that the advertising actually has any value.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

floydbloke

3506 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#3166543 30-Nov-2023 19:46

networkn:

..

There is an implied contract that those who consume the content free of charge, are covering their share of costs by consuming advertising. One would reasonably argue that if you value the content or the platform on which it is delivered, ...

Is there a value for money(or my time) in this contract? I detest having to sit through ads for x minutes only to be presented with some shite that is poorly produced or is of no interest, even if the Google algorithm has somehow determined that I should like it.

I've mentioned in another thread somewhere (or maybe it was this one) that I'm OK with ads where I can have reasonable confidence that the content will be of value to me, like here on GZ or 'crackingthecryptic' channel on YT, but I'd like the opportunity to get a reasonable taste of what I'm going to get first. Then there's the awkward timing of them on YT for the in-clip ones, they are sudden and random. At least on network TV they come on in a 'natural' break and even Facebook tells you when one is coming. Youtube ads are completely viewer unfriendly.

Edit: What Rikkitic said above while I was typing this rant expresses my sentiments much more simply.

Thanks for explaining "plethora".

It means a lot.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3166561 30-Nov-2023 20:40

If folks do not like YouTubes rules for their house don't watch YouTube there are other services eg Nebula.

cddt

1509 posts

Uber Geek

#3166640 1-Dec-2023 07:17

networkn:

There is an implied contract that those who consume the content free of charge, are covering their share of costs by consuming advertising.

The bus I catch partly covers their costs by having advertising in the bus stops. I ignore the advertising and don't read it. Should I be blocked from getting on a bus until I've read the advertising in the bus stop?

cddt

1509 posts

Uber Geek

#3166689 1-Dec-2023 07:20

networkn:

Now you are suggesting, that one subscribe to individual content providers? Sounds like it will go swimmingly :)

I think it would work quite well. When I want to read a book, I purchase that book.

cddt

1509 posts

Uber Geek

#3166694 1-Dec-2023 07:33

I've also been turned off ads as a viable revenue source for "creators" after seeing Google Ads serve malware. This isn't some hypothetical or an article I'm regurgitating, I saw it with my own eyes. I'm ok with seeing traditional ads - but that doesn't cover having unvetted advertisers execute arbitrary code in my browser.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3166717 1-Dec-2023 09:03

cddt:

The bus I catch partly covers their costs by having advertising in the bus stops. I ignore the advertising and don't read it. Should I be blocked from getting on a bus until I've read the advertising in the bus stop?

That sounds like mummy mummy but I want to keep my cake and eat it.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

vexxxboy

4239 posts

Uber Geek

#3166718 1-Dec-2023 09:03

They dont seem to be very consistent about the use of ad stoppers . i was blocked which didnt worry me as i just watched the videos in a private window but then they stopped blocking me and it is back to normal, So who knows what the policy is.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3166719 1-Dec-2023 09:04

cddt:

I've also been turned off ads as a viable revenue source for "creators" after seeing Google Ads serve malware. This isn't some hypothetical or an article I'm regurgitating, I saw it with my own eyes. I'm ok with seeing traditional ads - but that doesn't cover having unvetted advertisers execute arbitrary code in my browser.

Simple answer don't watch you tube.

networkn

Networkn
32255 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3166739 1-Dec-2023 10:15

cddt:

The bus I catch partly covers their costs by having advertising in the bus stops. I ignore the advertising and don't read it. Should I be blocked from getting on a bus until I've read the advertising in the bus stop?

That is a ridiculous argument to put forward. Unlike content creators, advertising isn't the ONLY way bus operators earn money.

networkn

Networkn
32255 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3166740 1-Dec-2023 10:16

cddt:

I think it would work quite well. When I want to read a book, I purchase that book.

You are the exception, hardly the rule. Most people would hate this.

Considering the constant complaining I see about how many subscriptions people need to pay already for the content they consume, I don't see having to subscribe to individual content providers on youtube flying. Considering it's $20 a month for no ads...

networkn

Networkn
32255 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3166742 1-Dec-2023 10:21

floydbloke:

Is there a value for money(or my time) in this contract? I detest having to sit through ads for x minutes only to be presented with some shite that is poorly produced or is of no interest, even if the Google algorithm has somehow determined that I should like it.

I've mentioned in another thread somewhere (or maybe it was this one) that I'm OK with ads where I can have reasonable confidence that the content will be of value to me, like here on GZ or 'crackingthecryptic' channel on YT, but I'd like the opportunity to get a reasonable taste of what I'm going to get first. Then there's the awkward timing of them on YT for the in-clip ones, they are sudden and random. At least on network TV they come on in a 'natural' break and even Facebook tells you when one is coming. Youtube ads are completely viewer unfriendly.

Edit: What Rikkitic said above while I was typing this rant expresses my sentiments much more simply.

The product is the content, the payment is your time. Simple.

You are overstating the number and length of ads for content. About 80% of the ads I see, I can skip within 10 seconds, if I have no interest in the ads themselves. I've never seen an ad for more than 30 seconds that wasn't skippable, most are 7-11 seconds long.

networkn

Networkn
32255 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3166743 1-Dec-2023 10:30

Rikkitic:

Your argument makes a lot of false assumptions. The first is that everyone who accesses the content values it equally. The second is that everyone who bypasses the advertising wants something for nothing. The third is that the advertising actually has any value.

There are exactly zero false assumptions in my comments.

It's irrelevant if you value things equally to me. You don't get to decide what you pay. You don't get to pay $100,000 for a Ferrari that is worth $500,000 just because you aren't enamored by the brand or model, as I am. You either pay what is asked, or you don't drive said Ferrari.

It's irrelevant if the advertising has value to you. You don't get to decide what ads you see on TV, on a bus, nor a billboard. No one consults you personally. Nor should they.

As for your second comment, that is patently wrong. Content providers get paid by advertisers. If advertisers don't get a return on that investment, they stop advertising, content creator doesn't get paid, content creator stops creating content. You blocking ads is the definition of wanting something for nothing.

That isn't to say you don't value anything and expect *everything* for free, but if the creator gets paid soley from advertising, you are denying them payment for their work. I'd assume you'd be upset if someone did the same to you?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18610 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3166749 1-Dec-2023 11:16

networkn:

Rikkitic:

Your argument makes a lot of false assumptions. The first is that everyone who accesses the content values it equally. The second is that everyone who bypasses the advertising wants something for nothing. The third is that the advertising actually has any value.

There are exactly zero false assumptions in my comments.

It's irrelevant if you value things equally to me. You don't get to decide what you pay. You don't get to pay $100,000 for a Ferrari that is worth $500,000 just because you aren't enamored by the brand or model, as I am. You either pay what is asked, or you don't drive said Ferrari.

It's irrelevant if the advertising has value to you. You don't get to decide what ads you see on TV, on a bus, nor a billboard. No one consults you personally. Nor should they.

As for your second comment, that is patently wrong. Content providers get paid by advertisers. If advertisers don't get a return on that investment, they stop advertising, content creator doesn't get paid, content creator stops creating content. You blocking ads is the definition of wanting something for nothing.

That isn't to say you don't value anything and expect *everything* for free, but if the creator gets paid soley from advertising, you are denying them payment for their work. I'd assume you'd be upset if someone did the same to you?

I stand by my comments but I feel there is also a larger issue at play here. We are surrounded by advertising. We are saturated with it. There is practically no activity any longer that does not include being bombarded by ads. Many people (I would guess most people, but I don’t have a statistic for that) dislike the constant advertising barrage. People block ads because they are irritated by them. Ads are like mosquitoes. They are everywhere and they are annoying. There is a reason why many people don’t like them.

I dispute the assumption that ads have a right to exist. They are a dumbed down brain-eating invasion of privacy that we would all be better off without. If creators want to build a following, they should give samples away to make their content known. This is a tried and tested marketing mechanism. Porn sites use it to great effect.

Ad blockers are a great freedom tool. People who don’t mind the ads won’t block them. People who do won’t have to see them. Everyone wins.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32255 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3166750 1-Dec-2023 11:25

Rikkitic:

I stand by my comments but I feel there is also a larger issue at play here. We are surrounded by advertising. We are saturated with it. There is practically no activity any longer that does not include being bombarded by ads. Many people (I would guess most people, but I don’t have a statistic for that) dislike the constant advertising barrage. People block ads because they are irritated by them. Ads are like mosquitoes. They are everywhere and they are annoying. There is a reason why many people don’t like them.

I dispute the assumption that ads have a right to exist. They are a dumbed down brain-eating invasion of privacy that we would all be better off without. If creators want to build a following, they should give samples away to make their content known. This is a tried and tested marketing mechanism. Porn sites use it to great effect.

Ad blockers are a great freedom tool. People who don’t mind the ads won’t block them. People who do won’t have to see them. Everyone wins.

ROFL at your porn comparison, what percentage of people who consume porn do you think pay for porn?

If it were true that giving a taster via youtube worked better than ads, then why do ads exist? Why do content creators have sponsors? Given the prevalence of ads, it's clearly and obviously a valid source of income.

Don't even get me started on how flawed the argument for teasers are.. You understand those are Adverts too, right?

For someone as passionate about art and culture as you appear to be, it seems very strange to me, that you would even consider depriving a creator of their primary source of income. You can try and kid yourself, all you like, but you are 100% depriving someone of income.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8