"About 11% of YouTube users openly say they use ad blockers.
Some communities report 40-60% of viewers use ad blockers.
Overall global ad blocker usage is around 42.7% for all internet users."
So, almost half of people online use adblockers. I know some use adblockers that have white lists. Everyone should use uBlock Origin as it does not have white lists to allow "some" ads and it is the best adblocker and protection to be online on every site.
First we have to close every company that depend on ads to survive. All of them.
If your business is ads, you need to close. That simple.
A company that depends on ads, lives by using you. Your data. Your information. Your privacy.
Remember that first thing to do before open any site is to install uBlock Origin and then spend some time learning how to install a Pi-Hole for a network block on network level.
> First we have to close every company that depend on ads to survive. All of them.
Spoken like someone who has never built anything of value in the world. Even Apple, who famously "hates advertising and adtech companies" makes ads to promote their products. Ads exist for a reason.
Your statement is no better than "if your company emits carbon, you need to close". Sounds nice. Doesn't work
“Depends on ads to survive” is wildly different from “uses ads to promote the product it depends on to survive”. Apple doesn’t generate revenue from running ads. Google does because you can pay google to promote your ads and google makes money even when your product doesn’t sell.
Apple doesn't report Ad business numbers in quarterly earnings report, so we have to rely on third party analyst reports.
> Last year, Apple’s U.S. ad business totaled $6.47 billion, but only accounted for 2.1% of total digital ad spending, according to eMarketer’s March 2025 forecast
What about uMatrix; some might argue it is even better than uBlock Origin, at least one can use both at the same time; if "security issues" are a concern, the so-called "modern" browser is a gigantic target that sources and runs Javascript from the internet automatically; there is also the choice of not using one (hence no need for uBlock or other extensions); Javascript isn't required for downloading or watching YouTube videos but YouTube of course wants everyone to use their "Javascript player" so they can monitor people's behaviour at the computer with telemetry and other unsolicited connections
"A company that depends on ads, lives by using you."
Ad services. The company acts as an intermediary (middleman), sitting between two parties, e.g., a video producer and a video consumer, conducting surveillance, collecting data, serving ads, relying on other people to produce and upload video, for free, then targeting the people consuming it with ads; parasitic
Mozilla is the company's business partner, sending data about www users to the company
As such, their software seems compromised; they continually promote an "internet advertising ecocsystem"
There are other ways to avoid ads that do not require a so-called "modern" browser that runs Javascript; usually the so-called "modern" browser are distributed by the company and its partners or competitors; optimised for serving ads
In fact, usually internet ads rely on Javascript, so the "ad blocker" solution is using Javascript to counter Javascript
Some users might prefer to just not choose the so-called "modern" browser as their client, and not run Javascript
Also, not sure whether it is still true but Pi-Hole used to suggest the company's DNS service as "upstream", provide it as a choice, maybe even set it as a default
Nothing hands the company more control than using its public DNS service; the company's DNS cache is filled with IP addresses of tracking and ad servers; users will actually pay third parties like NextDNS to filter these addresses out while the company's hardware products hardcode their public DNS service into the products to allow phoning home to the mothership and free flow of telemetry, tracking and advertising
Why should you have the right to dictate that no one is allowed to pay for their services by watching ads? You're suggesting cutting off services for the majority of the planet because you are in a financial position to pay for what you want.
Why should private corporations have unlimitied license to propagandize and intentionally psychologically manipulate the entire populace?
Why should private corporations with no oversight or meaningful consequences have the unlimited and unchallenged right to market drugs to kids? Why should they be allowed to post enormous flashing billboards on our roads? Why do these corporations have more right to common public spaces than the people do?
I haven't arguing they have a right to any of those things. When you resort to straw manning it's generally a good time to step back and reconsider your stance.
Those are just people who expect things for free. Free loaders will always exist and they will always try to come up with justifications for why their free loading is actually noble and not just selfish.
Some people just really like to believe and repeat anything a corporation tells them. It's so much easier than forming your own unique thoughts. Buy coke!
If the "price" to load a webpage were that you run a crypto miner or give a site access to upload whatever files it feels from your computer, would you do it? Or would blocking such malware make you a free loader?
So I presume you browse with a vulnerable webp library or something in case sites you do browse would like to use that functionality? You can't know whether they wanted to use it if your browser silently blocks their attempts.
Correct. Web adware/spyware is drive-by malware and a frequent funnel for scammers. Malware blockers are simply prudent. Intentionally allowing their programs to run would be insane. A normal person doesn't stop to consider whether blocking malware is somehow freeloading.
You will justify wanting things for nothing no matter what. Luckily for the rest of us, people like you are the minority so there are still enough resources for us to get the content we enjoy. But keep telling yourself that your not supporting the creators you enjoy is some moral victory.
They are providing a service to the people protecting their services with recaptcha and you're solving those issues because you value what's on the other side so no I wouldn't consider that free loading.
A service that's easily defeated by automation and thus mostly devoid of value outside of training Google's AI products. I think the technical term is "false sense of security".
Sorry, I should've just left it at trivially defeated. My preferred method is to just use a different browser and/or clear my cookies. Meanwhile I spent around 30 seconds on DDG and came up with 5 chrome store captcha solvers, 2 github projects, and 1 paid captcha solving service.
Right, it's not even good at anything save for using my CPU and my time to train Google's AI products. As a human if I get blocked (a.k.a. it refuses to acknowledge anything I've "solved" correctly) I can clear my cookies and bypass the block. Whatever benefit you think you're getting, you're not.
The benefit I'm getting is it stop almost all bots from submitting forms on my websites. It works basically flawlessly for that. I'm guessing you either don't run any websites with traffic or have never tried it if you think its worthless. I'm sure there are ways to bypass them but no one I care about has bothered so it doesn't matter. The lock on my front door doesn't have to stop a professional lock picker to be useful. The captcha on my website doesn't have to stop someone trying to get around it for it to be useful at stopping almost all the bots that don't even bother trying.
I literally am stopping bots though, it isn't hard to see the results or the differences between results into my systems with it on and off. It's weird that you're trying to argue against my actual experience.
Of course you do, you've managed to justify to yourself that your leeching is both giving it to Google and somehow supporting content creators. The internal inconsistency could only possibly lead to a good nights sleep.
Google has exploited network effects and the essentially free labor of millions of content creators to create a video platform no one can compete with. I don't find it the least immoral for me to block ads, while I watch someone play a game I like on a channel with less than 2k views/video.
It's like running a farm at a huge deficit until everyone else goes out of business and then jacking up prices.
Google has offered free hosting for millions of content creators and once they are profitable offers them a revenue source. It further helps those creators by trying to stop freeloaders. You talk about Google exploiting creators while at the same time talking about removing their income. Google offers an easy way to support creators and avoid as. If you were really concerned with creator well being you could go that route or Subscribe to the patron or similar of every creator you enjoy and bypass YouTube entirely.
Google has made untold thousands of dollars by spying on me and stealing my personal and private information to sell to other ad companies.
Why don't I have a right to that money? Why should I then have to pay google even more either directly with cash or indirectly through more advertising and spying?
Google has made FAR more than enough money by spying on me than it actually costs them for me to use adblock. Bonus, I don't have to watch AI generated ads for boner pills with a celebrity's fake face on it
Most content creators have no ad revenue at all and didn't create their videos with the intent to profit from them. Yet they help build YouTube's back catalogue and get nothing in return for it. They have no Patreon accounts or donation links. I am a "content creator" too. Not like I give a shit if people watch videos of me playing guitar with their ad blockers on.
You talk about Google exploiting creators while at the same time talking
about removing their income.
You talk about Google as if that's their primary source of income. Most of the folks I watch on Youtube hype up the other platforms e.g. Patreon they use for income. Judging by the outro credits it looks like there are plenty of people happy to throw money at these folks via other platform as well.
Clear your cookies and check out youtube sometime. Perhaps once they stop pushing vile right wing nonsense, anti-vax conspiracy theories, and assorted brain rot I'd consider tossing money at Google.
If you're small time Google won't pay out enough to make it your sole source of income so you'll probably seek out other ways of monetizing your videos (e.g. Patreon, merch). If you're large enough you're gonna seek out more stable source of income that won't threaten to demonetize you at the drop of a hat (e.g. Patreon, merch).
Me? I think it's immoral to run 30 minute ads hyping up hate churches and 15 minute ads hawking missile launchers.
Same reason they shouldn't be able to pay with gambling, scamming, prostitution or their organs. Advertisement industry is all a scam. It's a privately levied tax that lets sellers win competition with themselves and ultimately the customer pays, both in price of products and in their attention as well.
Retailers could always highlight high value products they are offering within their storefront (without being compensated by manufacturers to do so; that would be a scam ad).
How do retailers find new products? Why would they bother highlighting new products if there is no pull demand from community awareness. You'd just pick one vendor and agree to only sell their products for better rates
They publish contact information for vendors? They reach out to vendors through their published sales channels? Go to industry trade events or follow industry periodicals where that's the purpose?
They'd highlight new products because they believe they're good.
The solution to your last problem is to make exclusive dealing contracts always illegal and actually enforce antitrust law.
Contacting a sales department at their provided address for that purpose is responding to a request for you to do so. This is nothing at all like taking money to propagandize people.
Putting a product at a prominent part of your store because you think it's a good purchase for customers is also completely different from accepting money from a manufacturer to place it prominently.
Going to an event where everyone specifically went to meet and exchange information about what people in their industry are doing is also again entirely unlike paid promotion.
Right direct sales is not advertising. The rest still is.
You're missing a step though. There is no consumer pull for new products so there is no reason for stores to bother with them even if the owner thinks it's a great idea. The demand isn't there
Single, public, online product and service database provided by the market regulator. Since the country gets income from taxing commerce it's only fair that they also provide discovery service. If you want to sell something on the market you have to enter it into this database, with the up to date price and relevant documentation.
Consumers can access the database through provided UI or through 3rd party tools using this database API.
That sounds incredibly dystopian to me. If you want to see anything to the public you must register with the appropriate government officials and hope that someone notices you in the giant list of your competitors. Of course giving too much information about why you're different would be an ad so how do consumers decide?
You're also just going to end up with the phone book model. "AAAAAASearch, AAAAAACars"
I wonder what the end goal is for Youtube. I doubt they have one, and they're just doing this on instinct/reflex. Not to mention they probably wouldn't have seen a need to to this as much if they didn't go down the path of shoving more and more ads down people's throats.
If Youtube stops working with uBlock Origin, I'll just download the videos wholesale and watch them that way instead, and I doubt there's a realistic way to completely block that, and there will be/already is a large community of people who are willing to make that experience as smooth as it can be, if need be. I don't see an end that works out significantly worse for adblockers in the long run, so everything in the short term is just busywork.
Long term, a pipeline is needed to rip from YouTube and then torrent seed with magnet links per video ID (which your browser could then lookup and expose with an extension when surfing YouTube).
The end goal is probably some low level employee who is trying to justify their job or push for a promotion. The gain for them is a lot smaller than the negative for everyone else - but it is their own gain.
The goal is to increase revenue, and one way to do that is to make the experience worse for people blocking ads. Some, like you, will keep finding new ways to bypass them. Others will give up and allow the ads, or pay for ad-free. They don’t need to stop all the ad-blocking users, just more and more each time. And if you’re a die-hard who will never allow ads, they probably don’t care what you do at all. Why should they? It’s not personal - they just want to keep increasing revenue, and it’s not coming from you no matter what, so they don’t care what your experience is like.
I have a hard time imagining a world which Youtube ceases to work in a browser with uBlock Origin. Instead we're in a world where Youtube screws us around for a bit, and then uBlock does an update and everything goes back to 'normal'. This isn't productive for either side. It's just busywork.
Maybe Youtube sees it differently and can actually imagine that world, but even then, it doesn't really seem like that's the state of things they're working towards.
increasing friction for ad blockers will increase ad views will increase revenue.
It is pretty easy for a company whose existence depends on ads to see people that use ad blockers as leeches or freeloaders or other derogatory terms to justify making their lives more difficult.
Youtube premium is around $15, and depending on people's video usage, it pays for itself
This is the reflex/instinct approach though. Sure, they increase friction for people with adblock, and then 5 minutes later, uBlock Origin does an update to undo Youtube's friction, and we're back to square one. No gain for anyone, no thought of what happens long term, just busywork.
I'll pay for Youtube Premium the day they bring back a pre-2015-ish Youtube web layout, tone down the ads accordingly for those who can't pay, community subtitles, dislikes and annotations. I have no intentions of paying for a service that grows worse year over year, which I constantly have to counteract with either browser add-ons, or separate programs like yt-dlp and Freetube. I'll pay for the content if need be, but that's what Patreon is for in most cases. Youtube's a middleman I'd rather not have to deal with, but which we're stuck with.
If Youtube's services (streaming/storage) are not paid for, they can't pay content creators.
When people do not pay for services directly with a credit card, they pay for it indirectly with ads and data collection. The internet would be a better place if companies didn't have to worry so much about monetizing indirectly. Plus, the only companies that can give out free services often have monopolistic intent.
This whole debate embodies why the internet has become what it has.
I really wonder how much they actually care about ad blockers.
My understanding is that most people actually watch youtube on smart TVs and then smart phones. It may very well make sense for them to leave ad blockers alone and to keep youtube dominant while they make money off consumers like that which can't run ad blockers (or at least make it much harder to.)
The kinds of people who use ad blockers are also the kinds of people who start new things and convince the larger consumer oriented people to follow them. The reason YouTube is dominant is because it's still usable for that set of people.
ive said this before, when your [x] depends on people watching videos, you have to let people actually watch videos. its a corner youtube painted itsself into long ago, and means only so many ads can be shown, and videos must be of a minimum quality otherwise or the platform will implode.
I'm glad there's enough bureaucracy inside Google to make these measures roll out slowly with long breaks between changes. It gives the add blockers enough time to update their blocks, before the anti-blocking measures even make it out to all users.
I mean just try to sumarize ads running on YouTube: Lightsabers ad which is actually a torch - scam. Wooden cutting board as source of microplastics - scam. Muscular old geezer selling Tai-chi - grift and scam. Mobile games advertising a "playthrough" but real game is completely something else - scam. Palestinians having difficult life - propaganda. Israel delivering help to Palestine - counter propaganda.
I have seen so many ads on YouTube and so far it was either scam or propaganda.
To be fair, the "wooden cutting board" ad is actually trying to tell you (if you listen to the whole thing) that plastic cutting boards are a source of microplastics but wooden cutting boards will instead result in bacterial contamination; thus they're selling you (supposedly) a titanium cutting board. Which of course will command some ungodly price tag both because of the material (supposing for the moment that this is legit) and because you'll supposedly only ever need one.
And I don't think any of these are nearly as bad as the ones trying to sell you on some purported absurdly large arbitrage on crypto markets. I've also seen some for supposedly super-advanced data storage devices that I'm quite confident are scams; and bogus scam ultra-high-capacity USB keys are already all over the place to the point where they'd be a huge problem even if never advertised.
(I usually don't care as much about first-party ads like this because at least the advertiser isn't serving me custom JavaScript. And I do sometimes let these things play if I have the video on in the background.)
It's also really noticeable how you'll keep seeing the same ads for the same few things, regardless of what your "algorithm" is currently doing. I really have to wonder how much YouTube makes off those cutting board guys.
> It's also really noticeable how you'll keep seeing the same ads for the same few things, regardless of what your "algorithm" is currently doing. I really have to wonder how much YouTube makes off those cutting board guys.
Oh yes, that's true it has been happening to me as well. Israel/Palestine propaganda fight were biggest offenders. Every 10 minutes one or the other sometimes sprinkled with a scam mobile game ad. And I don't even play mobile games...
Btw cutting on titanium cutting board is the fastest way to have dull knives. So we moved from scam to deception.
I'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of ads and I don't have a lot of respect for the modern ad networks. However this culture of expecting websites to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly.
There is an unwritten social contract here. Websites are willing to host and organise a vast number of content because that'll attract an audience for ads. If there are too may freeloaders resisting the ads then services won't host the content, and on the path to that the freeloaders are really just leeching off a system in an entitled way (unless their goal is to destroy the services they use in which case good on them for consistency and for picking a worthy target).
If people aren't going to be polite and accept that contract then fine, enforcement was always by an honour system. But strategically if a service's social contract doesn't work for someone then they shouldn't use that service - they'd just be feeding the beast. They should go make their own service work or investigate the long list of alternative platforms.
Talking about ads, just went in the living room and tv was turned on and there were ads. I never see any ads but let me take 30 seconds to see what is on tv.
Absolutly disgusting. Wasted 30 seconds of my life and now I need medication to sleep tonight after seeing the *it goes on tv.
"About 11% of YouTube users openly say they use ad blockers. Some communities report 40-60% of viewers use ad blockers. Overall global ad blocker usage is around 42.7% for all internet users."
So, almost half of people online use adblockers. I know some use adblockers that have white lists. Everyone should use uBlock Origin as it does not have white lists to allow "some" ads and it is the best adblocker and protection to be online on every site.
First we have to close every company that depend on ads to survive. All of them.
If your business is ads, you need to close. That simple.
A company that depends on ads, lives by using you. Your data. Your information. Your privacy.
Remember that first thing to do before open any site is to install uBlock Origin and then spend some time learning how to install a Pi-Hole for a network block on network level.
> First we have to close every company that depend on ads to survive. All of them.
Spoken like someone who has never built anything of value in the world. Even Apple, who famously "hates advertising and adtech companies" makes ads to promote their products. Ads exist for a reason.
Your statement is no better than "if your company emits carbon, you need to close". Sounds nice. Doesn't work
“Depends on ads to survive” is wildly different from “uses ads to promote the product it depends on to survive”. Apple doesn’t generate revenue from running ads. Google does because you can pay google to promote your ads and google makes money even when your product doesn’t sell.
> Apple doesn’t generate revenue from running ads.
Oh, how mistaken you are. Apple runs a profitable ads business. Not as cute as meta or Google, but still meaningful.
Earn revenue with advertising on Apple News - Apple Support https://support.apple.com/guide/news-publisher/earn-revenue-...
Apple doesn't report Ad business numbers in quarterly earnings report, so we have to rely on third party analyst reports.
> Last year, Apple’s U.S. ad business totaled $6.47 billion, but only accounted for 2.1% of total digital ad spending, according to eMarketer’s March 2025 forecast
https://digiday.com/marketing/when-it-comes-to-ads-apple-isn...
Sounds didactic
What about uMatrix; some might argue it is even better than uBlock Origin, at least one can use both at the same time; if "security issues" are a concern, the so-called "modern" browser is a gigantic target that sources and runs Javascript from the internet automatically; there is also the choice of not using one (hence no need for uBlock or other extensions); Javascript isn't required for downloading or watching YouTube videos but YouTube of course wants everyone to use their "Javascript player" so they can monitor people's behaviour at the computer with telemetry and other unsolicited connections
"A company that depends on ads, lives by using you."
Ad services. The company acts as an intermediary (middleman), sitting between two parties, e.g., a video producer and a video consumer, conducting surveillance, collecting data, serving ads, relying on other people to produce and upload video, for free, then targeting the people consuming it with ads; parasitic
Mozilla is the company's business partner, sending data about www users to the company
As such, their software seems compromised; they continually promote an "internet advertising ecocsystem"
There are other ways to avoid ads that do not require a so-called "modern" browser that runs Javascript; usually the so-called "modern" browser are distributed by the company and its partners or competitors; optimised for serving ads
In fact, usually internet ads rely on Javascript, so the "ad blocker" solution is using Javascript to counter Javascript
Some users might prefer to just not choose the so-called "modern" browser as their client, and not run Javascript
Also, not sure whether it is still true but Pi-Hole used to suggest the company's DNS service as "upstream", provide it as a choice, maybe even set it as a default
Nothing hands the company more control than using its public DNS service; the company's DNS cache is filled with IP addresses of tracking and ad servers; users will actually pay third parties like NextDNS to filter these addresses out while the company's hardware products hardcode their public DNS service into the products to allow phoning home to the mothership and free flow of telemetry, tracking and advertising
BTW uMatrix isn't maintained and has had security issues before, so it might not be the best choice.
Why should you have the right to dictate that no one is allowed to pay for their services by watching ads? You're suggesting cutting off services for the majority of the planet because you are in a financial position to pay for what you want.
Why should private corporations have unlimitied license to propagandize and intentionally psychologically manipulate the entire populace?
Why should private corporations with no oversight or meaningful consequences have the unlimited and unchallenged right to market drugs to kids? Why should they be allowed to post enormous flashing billboards on our roads? Why do these corporations have more right to common public spaces than the people do?
I haven't arguing they have a right to any of those things. When you resort to straw manning it's generally a good time to step back and reconsider your stance.
That many using ad blockers would suggest there is something like a democratic mandate for disallowing ads as a business model.
Those are just people who expect things for free. Free loaders will always exist and they will always try to come up with justifications for why their free loading is actually noble and not just selfish.
Some people just really like to believe and repeat anything a corporation tells them. It's so much easier than forming your own unique thoughts. Buy coke!
If the "price" to load a webpage were that you run a crypto miner or give a site access to upload whatever files it feels from your computer, would you do it? Or would blocking such malware make you a free loader?
I wouldn't use the site but yes using the site and not doing that would make you a free loader.
So I presume you browse with a vulnerable webp library or something in case sites you do browse would like to use that functionality? You can't know whether they wanted to use it if your browser silently blocks their attempts.
Yes, that sounds exactly like what I'm suggesting and not a bad faith argument at all.
Correct. Web adware/spyware is drive-by malware and a frequent funnel for scammers. Malware blockers are simply prudent. Intentionally allowing their programs to run would be insane. A normal person doesn't stop to consider whether blocking malware is somehow freeloading.
You will justify wanting things for nothing no matter what. Luckily for the rest of us, people like you are the minority so there are still enough resources for us to get the content we enjoy. But keep telling yourself that your not supporting the creators you enjoy is some moral victory.
Free loaders? You're talking about Google's reCAPTCHA using my browser to train its AI, right?
They are providing a service to the people protecting their services with recaptcha and you're solving those issues because you value what's on the other side so no I wouldn't consider that free loading.
A service that's easily defeated by automation and thus mostly devoid of value outside of training Google's AI products. I think the technical term is "false sense of security".
I use it on a number of my forms and it works fantastically on almost all cases since most bad actors are lazy.
Sorry, I should've just left it at trivially defeated. My preferred method is to just use a different browser and/or clear my cookies. Meanwhile I spent around 30 seconds on DDG and came up with 5 chrome store captcha solvers, 2 github projects, and 1 paid captcha solving service.
False. Sense. Of. Security.
Perfect is the enemy of good. See we can all do that. I don't need a captcha to be perfect, I need to it be good enough.
Right, it's not even good at anything save for using my CPU and my time to train Google's AI products. As a human if I get blocked (a.k.a. it refuses to acknowledge anything I've "solved" correctly) I can clear my cookies and bypass the block. Whatever benefit you think you're getting, you're not.
The benefit I'm getting is it stop almost all bots from submitting forms on my websites. It works basically flawlessly for that. I'm guessing you either don't run any websites with traffic or have never tried it if you think its worthless. I'm sure there are ways to bypass them but no one I care about has bothered so it doesn't matter. The lock on my front door doesn't have to stop a professional lock picker to be useful. The captcha on my website doesn't have to stop someone trying to get around it for it to be useful at stopping almost all the bots that don't even bother trying.
I literally am stopping bots though, it isn't hard to see the results or the differences between results into my systems with it on and off. It's weird that you're trying to argue against my actual experience.
Of course you do, you've managed to justify to yourself that your leeching is both giving it to Google and somehow supporting content creators. The internal inconsistency could only possibly lead to a good nights sleep.
Google has exploited network effects and the essentially free labor of millions of content creators to create a video platform no one can compete with. I don't find it the least immoral for me to block ads, while I watch someone play a game I like on a channel with less than 2k views/video.
It's like running a farm at a huge deficit until everyone else goes out of business and then jacking up prices.
Google has offered free hosting for millions of content creators and once they are profitable offers them a revenue source. It further helps those creators by trying to stop freeloaders. You talk about Google exploiting creators while at the same time talking about removing their income. Google offers an easy way to support creators and avoid as. If you were really concerned with creator well being you could go that route or Subscribe to the patron or similar of every creator you enjoy and bypass YouTube entirely.
Google has made untold thousands of dollars by spying on me and stealing my personal and private information to sell to other ad companies.
Why don't I have a right to that money? Why should I then have to pay google even more either directly with cash or indirectly through more advertising and spying?
Google has made FAR more than enough money by spying on me than it actually costs them for me to use adblock. Bonus, I don't have to watch AI generated ads for boner pills with a celebrity's fake face on it
This is exactly what I'm talking about elsewhere when I say free loaders will always come up with a justification to make themselves look honorable.
Most content creators have no ad revenue at all and didn't create their videos with the intent to profit from them. Yet they help build YouTube's back catalogue and get nothing in return for it. They have no Patreon accounts or donation links. I am a "content creator" too. Not like I give a shit if people watch videos of me playing guitar with their ad blockers on.
They get free hosting and streaming software for it on top of free discoverability.
Prostitutes get free sex.
That's a really weird reply.
Clear your cookies and check out youtube sometime. Perhaps once they stop pushing vile right wing nonsense, anti-vax conspiracy theories, and assorted brain rot I'd consider tossing money at Google.
It's a lot of creators only income from creating. Once you get some scale there are certainly better ways depending on your niche.
Again justification for why your free loading is actually a moral act.
"a lot"
If you're small time Google won't pay out enough to make it your sole source of income so you'll probably seek out other ways of monetizing your videos (e.g. Patreon, merch). If you're large enough you're gonna seek out more stable source of income that won't threaten to demonetize you at the drop of a hat (e.g. Patreon, merch).
Me? I think it's immoral to run 30 minute ads hyping up hate churches and 15 minute ads hawking missile launchers.
e.g.
https://old.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/17lcv5e/...
Same reason they shouldn't be able to pay with gambling, scamming, prostitution or their organs. Advertisement industry is all a scam. It's a privately levied tax that lets sellers win competition with themselves and ultimately the customer pays, both in price of products and in their attention as well.
Without advertising how does anyone get visibility into new products? You are proposing winner take all markets when you propose banning advertising.
Retailers could always highlight high value products they are offering within their storefront (without being compensated by manufacturers to do so; that would be a scam ad).
How do retailers find new products? Why would they bother highlighting new products if there is no pull demand from community awareness. You'd just pick one vendor and agree to only sell their products for better rates
They publish contact information for vendors? They reach out to vendors through their published sales channels? Go to industry trade events or follow industry periodicals where that's the purpose?
They'd highlight new products because they believe they're good.
The solution to your last problem is to make exclusive dealing contracts always illegal and actually enforce antitrust law.
All your solutions are forms of advertising.
Contacting a sales department at their provided address for that purpose is responding to a request for you to do so. This is nothing at all like taking money to propagandize people.
Putting a product at a prominent part of your store because you think it's a good purchase for customers is also completely different from accepting money from a manufacturer to place it prominently.
Going to an event where everyone specifically went to meet and exchange information about what people in their industry are doing is also again entirely unlike paid promotion.
Right direct sales is not advertising. The rest still is.
You're missing a step though. There is no consumer pull for new products so there is no reason for stores to bother with them even if the owner thinks it's a great idea. The demand isn't there
Single, public, online product and service database provided by the market regulator. Since the country gets income from taxing commerce it's only fair that they also provide discovery service. If you want to sell something on the market you have to enter it into this database, with the up to date price and relevant documentation.
Consumers can access the database through provided UI or through 3rd party tools using this database API.
That sounds incredibly dystopian to me. If you want to see anything to the public you must register with the appropriate government officials and hope that someone notices you in the giant list of your competitors. Of course giving too much information about why you're different would be an ad so how do consumers decide?
You're also just going to end up with the phone book model. "AAAAAASearch, AAAAAACars"
I wonder what the end goal is for Youtube. I doubt they have one, and they're just doing this on instinct/reflex. Not to mention they probably wouldn't have seen a need to to this as much if they didn't go down the path of shoving more and more ads down people's throats.
If Youtube stops working with uBlock Origin, I'll just download the videos wholesale and watch them that way instead, and I doubt there's a realistic way to completely block that, and there will be/already is a large community of people who are willing to make that experience as smooth as it can be, if need be. I don't see an end that works out significantly worse for adblockers in the long run, so everything in the short term is just busywork.
Long term, a pipeline is needed to rip from YouTube and then torrent seed with magnet links per video ID (which your browser could then lookup and expose with an extension when surfing YouTube).
perfect use case for webtorrents
The end goal is probably some low level employee who is trying to justify their job or push for a promotion. The gain for them is a lot smaller than the negative for everyone else - but it is their own gain.
The goal is to increase revenue, and one way to do that is to make the experience worse for people blocking ads. Some, like you, will keep finding new ways to bypass them. Others will give up and allow the ads, or pay for ad-free. They don’t need to stop all the ad-blocking users, just more and more each time. And if you’re a die-hard who will never allow ads, they probably don’t care what you do at all. Why should they? It’s not personal - they just want to keep increasing revenue, and it’s not coming from you no matter what, so they don’t care what your experience is like.
I have a hard time imagining a world which Youtube ceases to work in a browser with uBlock Origin. Instead we're in a world where Youtube screws us around for a bit, and then uBlock does an update and everything goes back to 'normal'. This isn't productive for either side. It's just busywork.
Maybe Youtube sees it differently and can actually imagine that world, but even then, it doesn't really seem like that's the state of things they're working towards.
increasing friction for ad blockers will increase ad views will increase revenue.
It is pretty easy for a company whose existence depends on ads to see people that use ad blockers as leeches or freeloaders or other derogatory terms to justify making their lives more difficult.
Youtube premium is around $15, and depending on people's video usage, it pays for itself
This is the reflex/instinct approach though. Sure, they increase friction for people with adblock, and then 5 minutes later, uBlock Origin does an update to undo Youtube's friction, and we're back to square one. No gain for anyone, no thought of what happens long term, just busywork.
I'll pay for Youtube Premium the day they bring back a pre-2015-ish Youtube web layout, tone down the ads accordingly for those who can't pay, community subtitles, dislikes and annotations. I have no intentions of paying for a service that grows worse year over year, which I constantly have to counteract with either browser add-ons, or separate programs like yt-dlp and Freetube. I'll pay for the content if need be, but that's what Patreon is for in most cases. Youtube's a middleman I'd rather not have to deal with, but which we're stuck with.
It is very likely that you are a customer that youtube would rather not have to deal with, so the feelings would be mutual
> Youtube premium is around $15, and depending on people's video usage, it pays for itself
How many ads does YouTube have to serve in order to net $15 from the advertisers?
How much would they gross in this circumstance (vs. what they pay out to content creators)?
If Youtube's services (streaming/storage) are not paid for, they can't pay content creators.
When people do not pay for services directly with a credit card, they pay for it indirectly with ads and data collection. The internet would be a better place if companies didn't have to worry so much about monetizing indirectly. Plus, the only companies that can give out free services often have monopolistic intent.
This whole debate embodies why the internet has become what it has.
I agree with all of that. But I'm not debating; I'm trying to understand what the underlying numbers are.
But thats even less private. If you log in, they know exactly who you are.
They likely have nearly as good an idea who you are based on what you watch from which IP address(es).
I really wonder how much they actually care about ad blockers.
My understanding is that most people actually watch youtube on smart TVs and then smart phones. It may very well make sense for them to leave ad blockers alone and to keep youtube dominant while they make money off consumers like that which can't run ad blockers (or at least make it much harder to.)
The kinds of people who use ad blockers are also the kinds of people who start new things and convince the larger consumer oriented people to follow them. The reason YouTube is dominant is because it's still usable for that set of people.
ive said this before, when your [x] depends on people watching videos, you have to let people actually watch videos. its a corner youtube painted itsself into long ago, and means only so many ads can be shown, and videos must be of a minimum quality otherwise or the platform will implode.
I'm glad there's enough bureaucracy inside Google to make these measures roll out slowly with long breaks between changes. It gives the add blockers enough time to update their blocks, before the anti-blocking measures even make it out to all users.
I mean just try to sumarize ads running on YouTube: Lightsabers ad which is actually a torch - scam. Wooden cutting board as source of microplastics - scam. Muscular old geezer selling Tai-chi - grift and scam. Mobile games advertising a "playthrough" but real game is completely something else - scam. Palestinians having difficult life - propaganda. Israel delivering help to Palestine - counter propaganda.
I have seen so many ads on YouTube and so far it was either scam or propaganda.
To be fair, the "wooden cutting board" ad is actually trying to tell you (if you listen to the whole thing) that plastic cutting boards are a source of microplastics but wooden cutting boards will instead result in bacterial contamination; thus they're selling you (supposedly) a titanium cutting board. Which of course will command some ungodly price tag both because of the material (supposing for the moment that this is legit) and because you'll supposedly only ever need one.
And I don't think any of these are nearly as bad as the ones trying to sell you on some purported absurdly large arbitrage on crypto markets. I've also seen some for supposedly super-advanced data storage devices that I'm quite confident are scams; and bogus scam ultra-high-capacity USB keys are already all over the place to the point where they'd be a huge problem even if never advertised.
(I usually don't care as much about first-party ads like this because at least the advertiser isn't serving me custom JavaScript. And I do sometimes let these things play if I have the video on in the background.)
It's also really noticeable how you'll keep seeing the same ads for the same few things, regardless of what your "algorithm" is currently doing. I really have to wonder how much YouTube makes off those cutting board guys.
> It's also really noticeable how you'll keep seeing the same ads for the same few things, regardless of what your "algorithm" is currently doing. I really have to wonder how much YouTube makes off those cutting board guys.
Oh yes, that's true it has been happening to me as well. Israel/Palestine propaganda fight were biggest offenders. Every 10 minutes one or the other sometimes sprinkled with a scam mobile game ad. And I don't even play mobile games...
Btw cutting on titanium cutting board is the fastest way to have dull knives. So we moved from scam to deception.
> Btw cutting on titanium cutting board is the fastest way to have dull knives
I would have thought so. But the ad explicitly claims that this helps keep them sharp, IIRC. So there might be a legal case there too....
> Lightsabers ad which is actually a torch - scam.
Aren't they really just confined plasma torches though, lore-wise?
No, a torch has a far shorter "beam", while a lightsaber is a very large "beam" compressed into a cylindrical shape by magnetic fields.
Either that or they meant "torch" as in "flashlight", which I've seen shitty lightsabers be.
That would be candle in a flowerpot ad to save on energy bills.
I'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of ads and I don't have a lot of respect for the modern ad networks. However this culture of expecting websites to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly.
There is an unwritten social contract here. Websites are willing to host and organise a vast number of content because that'll attract an audience for ads. If there are too may freeloaders resisting the ads then services won't host the content, and on the path to that the freeloaders are really just leeching off a system in an entitled way (unless their goal is to destroy the services they use in which case good on them for consistency and for picking a worthy target).
If people aren't going to be polite and accept that contract then fine, enforcement was always by an honour system. But strategically if a service's social contract doesn't work for someone then they shouldn't use that service - they'd just be feeding the beast. They should go make their own service work or investigate the long list of alternative platforms.
Youtube will lose the fight against ad blockers, again.
The article was written more than two months ago..
I wonder what is the proportion of users using an adblocker
I saw around me that many people are fine with ads, so I don't think it's much of a problem for YouTube
I read that people with either adhd or in the autism spectrum cannot tolerate ads.
"I read that people with either adhd or in the autism spectrum cannot tolerate ads." where you read that?
Wut?
Talking about ads, just went in the living room and tv was turned on and there were ads. I never see any ads but let me take 30 seconds to see what is on tv. Absolutly disgusting. Wasted 30 seconds of my life and now I need medication to sleep tonight after seeing the *it goes on tv.
How many seconds of your life were wasted reading an article about YouTube ads then commenting here multiple times?
If you need medication to sleep after seeing a single ad that seems like a pretty serious problem that warrants avoiding media entirely.
I was gift hospitalized for three months after reading your comment. We are very sensitive here.