At the end of the day, its pretty clear to me that Youtube is going to lose the war on adblocking. Either by hook or by crook those that want to use Adblockers are going to keep doing it no matter what.

And to be clear, I am not trying to equate Adblocking to video piracy. To me, the fact that I choose to go to the bathroom during a commercial of a tv show doesn’t constitute piracy and Adblocks just automate that process for me on Youtube. I would also never click on an ad purposefully, no matter what it is for.

With all that being said, I am a hopeless cause and I don’t think that anything will convince me to buy YouTube premium, but I also used to think that about MP3s.

My real question to anyone reading this is, as the devil’s advocate, what could YouTube do with ads or otherwise that would solve the “service problem” of “YouTube piracy”? And furthermore, is there any situaton where you would do anything other than block all Youtube Ads immdediately and with extreme prejudice?

This is an old article but this is Gabe Newell describing video game piracy as a service problem and why he believes that in case anyone is unfamiliar with it.

  • Nipah
    link
    fedilink
    71 year ago

    My real question to anyone reading this is, as the devil’s advocate, what could YouTube do with ads or otherwise that would solve the “service problem” of “YouTube piracy”? And furthermore, is there any situaton where you would do anything other than block all Youtube Ads immdediately and with extreme prejudice?

    My initial/gut reaction was “obviously relevant ads based on the content I’m watching”, but I don’t care how relevant the ad is when I’ve seen the same Raid Shadow Legend ad across multiple videos I’m gonna try to skip it (or as I did long, long ago: adblock it).

    I don’t even know what actual YT ads are now, only the integrated creator ones that they’re personally sponsored by… the hello fresh and world of tanks and manscape and debrand etc., which I’ve started auto-skipping on a channel by channel basis based on very few criteria: the entertainment value/effort they’ve put into the ad (so Drew Gooden is usually always funny and gets a pass, same for channels like Wulff Den or Th3Jez or Critical Role) but certain ones just get manually skipped regardless (no matter how funny you are, I don’t want to sit here and listen to you talk about Manscape for 3 minutes) and how often I end up seeing them (which in these instances, isn’t often because they’re channel specific usually)

    So I guess it mainly boils down to relevant ads that aren’t soulless and that I don’t see 3x every other video?

  • BaldProphet
    link
    fedilink
    631 year ago

    It may be too late to turn this ship around, but there are a few things that, at least for me, would make YouTube ads less of a problem:

    1. Vet all the ads. Do not allow links to malware sites, scams, or low-quality merchandise and services to be on the platform.
    2. Make the ads less annoying. Don’t stick them into weird spots on a video.
    3. Stop tracking me and trying to display targeted ads. I value my privacy, and like OP, I am never going to click an ad.
    • ares35
      link
      fedilink
      211 year ago

      they make too much money off of each of these for google to consider doing any of them, other than maybe improving insertion algorithms so placement is in ‘better’ spots… but ‘better’ for you and the viewing experience and ‘better’ for them and click-thru rates are likely different outcomes.

      • BaldProphet
        link
        fedilink
        131 year ago

        too much money

        That’s the rub. There’s a LOT of money on the table.

          • @ilinamorato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago
            1. More people than you think do

            2. They can correlate ad buys with sales pretty effectively, so even if you don’t click, if you make a purchase later, they can still see that the ad had an effect.

            • @Daft_ish@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              3
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The biggest thing for many ads is brand recognition. It helps the early stages of businesses just trying to get their name out there. It also helps larger businesses stay relevant vs all the competition.

              Like, I would never use mail chimp but I know mail chimp is a thing because of advertising. If someone asked me I would rep for them because it was funny for all of 2 seconds.

      • Captain Aggravated
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        I’m not removing my ad blocker until Youtubers start reporting that demonetizations and content strikes have gotten a lot more fair, with published rules they consistently maintain, and adopt some form of due process. While Youtube hardly acts in good faith, so they shall expect no good faith from me.

  • @Vlyn@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -71 year ago

    At the end of the day, its pretty clear to me that Youtube is going to lose the war on adblocking.

    Lol, no, they aren’t. If they wanted to they could just throw everyone with an adblocker out. The only reason they aren’t doing this right now is not wanting to piss off their users (and some vague EU data privacy laws).

    The absolute best you could accomplish against them as a user is hiding the ad, but you’d still have to wait instead of being able to skip.

    Besides that: I thought about getting YouTube premium (+ music), but now they’re already jacking the prices further up. So I’ll just keep using uBlock Origin and if that no longer works cut back on my video watching time.

    • @chakan2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year ago

      They’ll lose…they already forgot why they beat out yahoo for search.

      There’s other platforms salivating at YouTube imploding.

      • @Vlyn@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -11 year ago

        What I meant is that they have the technical capability to lock you out when using an adblocker. They already do in a few countries (you can watch 3 videos then get kicked out). It’s not a technical issue for YouTube.

        There’s not a single decent platform out there to replace YouTube. Even Vimeo is tiny and can barely keep up with demand.

        And why should someone sink a massive amount of money into infrastructure without a way to make profit? If you try to monetize it from the start you’ll never build a large enough userbase.

        • @Laticauda@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          61 year ago

          They already do in a few countries (you can watch 3 videos then get kicked out)

          And people already figured out a way around this. They can only ever kick out adblock users temporarily, not permanently.

          • @Vlyn@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -31 year ago

            They absolutely can, it’s not that difficult. The only thing they can’t really avoid is video sharing (like a download site where you can re-host the videos), besides throwing lawyers at them.

            But to block you watching on youtube.com? Easy as fuck.

            • @Laticauda@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              31 year ago

              Historically has never been “easy as fuck”. this isn’t their first attempt at stopping ad blockers. They can manage to do it temporarily, but ad blockers always figure out a way to get past any blocks put in place. We’ve seen this play out on the internet many many times in the past. Ad blockers have always won.

              • @Vlyn@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -31 year ago

                Of course it’s easy as fuck. YouTube knows when it’s serving you an ad. They know the ad is x seconds long minimum. So if they really wanted to they could just stop giving you video data for that time and you have to sit there twiddling your thumbs.

                A more elegant solution would be to block the video transmission until the browser returns a secret (which it only gets at the end of the ad break), no way to get around that.

                If ads are not served every single time you could still get around it by opening up several connections so you can buffer around the ad breaks… but that’s a hassle and you can’t use this with an account (so no age restricted videos). And at some point YouTube might force you to make an account to watch.

                If Google wanted to they could do it. Then in the absolute best case you’d have to sit there and watch a black screen for 5 seconds (you still load the ad, you just don’t display it).

      • @BURN@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        No there isn’t

        There hasn’t been a viable alternative to YouTube since the day it was released, and that’s no different today. No platform can handle to volume of data that google does. Google can barely handle that data and they own the datacenters.

  • Jo Miran
    link
    fedilink
    English
    81 year ago

    I get YouTube Premium because I pay for YouTube Music, but I’ve tried watching ad supported YouTube on a computer I wasn’t logged into as I was troubleshooting my main computer. I can tell you that I wouldn’t even bother with the ad blockers. If there was something on YouTube that I really wanted to watch, like an old concert or something, I would just download it with JDownloader and add it to my Jellyfin server. If that doesn’t work, if just move on. There’s a lot more entertainment available for free than I could ever possibly consume in three lifetimes.

    • nicetriangle
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      Yeah similar deal with me. J-Downloader > Plex is my go to now. It’s pretty great. Can stream the stuff on my phone at the gym super easy.

  • Dr. Moose
    link
    fedilink
    English
    55
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think its ad model problem as it’s only “sustainable” through shitty practices that lead to ad blocking. Most people who get adblock do it because they’re just tired of ads and it should be this way. Small fair ads are fine with almost everyone but greedy assholes would never give in for that - it has to be in your face, unvetted spam.

    • @MrOxiMoron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      251 year ago

      This, I don’t mind ads besides my content, I despise ads replacing the content, multiple times, with the same ad I already saw.

      I don’t mind paying for no ads, but not at those prices.

      • @xyguy@startrek.websiteOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 year ago

        I tend to agree. Especially with midroll ads. And I also see YouTube Red/Premium/Plus as too expensive especially compared to free.

        I wonder if it cost $1-$3 per month instead of $14 if they wouldn’t get so many more subscribers that they would still end up making more money.

        Of course they would still be incentivized to slowly raise prices over time but I could be talked into $2 a lot quicker than $15.

  • Neato
    link
    fedilink
    111 year ago

    My real question to anyone reading this is, as the devil’s advocate, what could YouTube do with ads or otherwise that would solve the “service problem” of “YouTube piracy”?

    Their goals is definitely not to convert everyone. This is just to make using adblockers annoying enough that they can convert a substantial amount of adblock users into Youtube Premium users. They will eventually stop the war and allow the small minority of successful adblockers to continue if they can’t find an easy way to eliminate the most popular extensions entirely.

    Their end goal is to make YT Premium more of a standard like it is for other streaming services so people consider it the default way to engage with Youtube and not as an extra service.

    • @xyguy@startrek.websiteOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      I guess it’s harder to do this after 13 years of default “free” content. It’s easier for someone like Spotify to do that because there has always been the option to pay for premium.

      I remember in the earlier days of Spotify there were a lot of ways to get half priced service just by finding xyz code or paying $5 for a code on eBay that got you a year of half priced Spotify. I don’t know where those came from or how those existed but it was definitely what finally convinced me to subscribe.

      (I’ve since cancelled in favor of buying CDs again but I realize I’m the oddball in that scenario)

  • @yuunikki@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    201 year ago

    Using ublock origin and sponsorblock is the right thing to do. I will never allow ads for as long as I live. And I will never pay/buy YouTube premium since I can get all the features for free through modded versions of apps/browser extensions.

    • @xts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 year ago

      Yep. They use and sell your data whether you block ads or not. So they’re still making money off of those of us who block ads. I don’t owe them anything lmao. It’s sad seeing so many people in other threads defending YouTube/Google while they’re increasing the price of premium and locking shit like background play and higher bitrates behind a paywall all while selling out data. Nah fuck em

  • @Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    Of course they’re going to lose. I’ve been saying they’re going to lose since the first day they started the war. They will always lose and continue to lose. Screw them.

  • @GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    131 year ago

    In podcasts, where I can’t block ads effectively, I will instantly skip any canned ads and even avoid podcasts that have too many canned ads. On the other hand, when podcast hosts do their own ad reads, it doesn’t bother me too much. In the best cases, they are funny enough that I feel like I’m missing out with the ad-free premium feeds (I subscribe to some podcast Patreons).

    I also don’t really mind sponsored segments from YouTube hosts, though it’s highly dependent on the content. Most of the channels I follow have ad reads that are reasonably well aligned with the content and tone. In some cases, they are actually useful. I still run SponsorBlock, but I do often read through the video descriptions of my favorite channels to see what they’re hocking.

    There is no imaginable scenario where I would tolerate hypercheerful actors talking about insurance or cars. Get outta town.

    • @Dasnap@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      I’m surprised there isn’t a SponsorBlock equivalent for podcasts yet. I mean, I’m sure it works if I watch a video podcast on YouTube, but I’d prefer a hook in Pocket Casts or something.

      • @ilinamorato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        The dynamic insertion of arbitrary-length ads into podcast files at download time makes SponsorBlock tricky (probably not impossible?) in podcasts that also have non-dynamic sponsor reads.

        If someone chapters a podcast, noting an ad (dynamically inserted) for an online casino at 4:33-4:54 and a sponsor break read by the host (baked in to the original file) at 10:12-11:43, those times are mostly invalidated when someone else downloads the file and hears an ad for a business credit card at 4:33-5:21. Now the sponsor break section is going to cut the actual content early and come back before the read is over.

        Multiply that problem by 3-4, depending on the episode, and you can start to see the issue.

        This is a similar problem to that of Twitch. They bake the ad into the main video stream, meaning you can’t block it without also blocking the content. If YouTube ever does it, it’s game over; but I have a feeling they can’t for some technical or scaling reason, or they would’ve done so first.

        • @Dasnap@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Hmm I guess I don’t listen to any podcasts with ‘automatically inserted’ ads, they’re all sponsor reads by the hosts.

          Also, Twitch ad blocking is totally possible. I do it on my desktop, phone, and TV fairly easily. No content lost.

  • ToRA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    41 year ago

    FYI your title has a typo. It says “abblock”

  • @AAA@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    12
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Just wait until YT makes high res video options premium only. :)

    Edit: I adblock, because fuck ads. But I also use yt less than ever before. I used to use it for entertainment, but nowadays I only use it when I specifically search for something.

  • lemmyvore
    link
    fedilink
    English
    21 year ago

    If Google is willing to eat the initial cost they can start superimposing ads over streams on the fly, on part of the screen, while the stream is running. You can’t skip it because you’d be skipping content. They can use AI to figure out areas of the screen where they won’t mess with visual content (eg. avoid slapping it over people’s faces) but also make it impossible to ignore (eg. not a bar at the bottom you can simply crop out).

    On the bright side these ads would probably be less obnoxious than full screen audio/video ads. If they make them tolerable enough we would see a marked decrease in attempts to fight them (especially since fighting against ads imprinted on the video would be pretty hard).

    The nuclear option would be to turn on DRM for the entire platform and make it mandatory to have an account to see any video. It would make ripping streams a lot harder but it would nuke the entire ecosystem of YT clients running on every possible device, which were built on the premise they can freely access non-DRM streams. They can probably upgrade the firmware on their latest Chromecasts and abandon the rest but all TVs and older devices would be screwed. They might still get away with it if they give ample advance warning (couple of years).

    Depends also on how they intend to reposition the service. They could steer it towards becoming yet another private streaming service, holding all the YouTube library hostage, Not sure to what extent stream authors would be willing, ready and able to move away, given the almost complete lack of competing platforms.

    • @xyguy@startrek.websiteOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      I think that’s the biggest thing standing in the way personally. There are 6 or 7 Spotify-like services and 10 or 11 Netflix-like services. Some people might lump YouTube in with Netflix but it really isn’t since all the content on YouTube is user generated. There’s nobody else doing the same thing YouTube is doing at that scale. The closest is Facebook and TikTok but the way they deliver ads seems to be a lot different as well.

  • @randomaside@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    101 year ago

    They need to stop rapidly changing the terms of the agreement. This is the problem endemic to the platform. It’s starting to lose shape because the ads are the problem.

    If this was an issue with the quality of content:

    ideally creators would get to choose their ad roll spots. This would make it less jarring to the watcher. It’s also terrible that you can get ads for something like BP on a video that’s basically surmised as “That time BP poisoned a lot of children”. (See climate town) l. Also, if the ad revenue split was better, creators wouldn’t then have to shoe horn in extra ad spots into the content of their videos.

    However, I don’t think it’s a problem with quality of the content, but the quality of the ads.

    I believe Adblocking is not piracy issue to the end user as much as it is protection measure from malicious content. It’s up to the user to qualify what is “malicious” or not in the end. Users who use adblock do not have a good relationship with online advertising not because it annoys them, it’s because it threatens them. This is less so just a YouTube problem and more of a entirety of Google’s business model problem.

    Becoming a better ad platform is a tough challenge when advertisers by practice operate in a manipulative bad faith space. We don’t trust ads.

    • @xyguy@startrek.websiteOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 year ago

      I agree. They do operate in bad faith. And not only do they throw ads into every possible crevice but the advertisers themselves may be bad faith actors. It’s easy for a local radio station to decide not to run ads for a shady local business but YouTube doesn’t really seem to have anything in place to vet advertisers or a robust system to report ads for malfeasance.

      I’m interested in the framing of advertising as a threat rather than just an annoyance. I think even ads for something like laundry soap being spammed over and over for hours on end can be harmful even without being directly malicious. As someone who has been blocking ads for 10 years, every time I am on someone else’s device the amount of garbage that just gets thrown into your face by default is just atrocious.