[lackblogger]

The absolute icing on the cake for why adverts suck is the whole notion of demonetisation.

Creators can no longer make what they want to make because Youtube will 'hide' their content from wide release if the video contains content that commercial entities find objectionable.

Commercial companies will base what is acceptable on the political winds of the day, they do not wish to appear in bad press about being associated with today's bad guy.

So it's all just a means to an end to convert Youtube from a video sharing website into a propaganda delivery service.

Whether it be demonetising the word fuck or demonetising the concept of genuine political debate, it's all the same game of the old world trying it's best to beat the crap out of the new fangled concept of increased global communication that is, shock and horror, free.

Youtube always had ads, you remember those desperately irritating banners at the bottom of videos you had to click the little x on every 5 minutes.

But 20 second unskippable loud, abrasive forced video adverts is escalation of a magnitude.

"Hey, Youtube needs money, it's not a charity" - does it? Alphabet currently has an annual net profit of $60b. How much does Youtube cost to maintain annually? My guess is a lot less than $60b.

Sure, businesses need to 'make a profit', but, well, let's face it, it's not about making sure it pays for itself (RPGWatch's or Wikipedia's kind of goal), it's about making lots and lots more profit than is actually needed. And to hell with anyone who stands in the way.

Youtube was originally designed as a platform for people aged 13+. Originally you were being very naughty if you watched Youtube as a minor. Now? Oh, you have to state whether your video is "suitable for children" every time you upload a video, andif it's not, hey, guess what, it's more hidden and less likely to get ad revenue, because the 'big bucks' is advertising to all those clueless 7 year olds spamming minecraft videos.

I found it hilarious the 1st time one of my videos got labelled 'adult content' and restricted viewership, you weren't supposed to be on the site if you weren't an adult. But heaven forbid an advert for lego appears on a video of a girl jiggling her boobs to music in a skimpy bra.

Fuck it, let's just ban everyone who isn't a shill for a commercial or political company with strong lawyers and be done with it.

"Oh, it's just a little advert, it's not like it's a big thing or anything, and people just need to be paid" LOL, yeah, right. Underplay the overplay x 100.

 

[danutz_plusplus]

Sure, businesses need to 'make a profit', but, well, let's face it, it's not about making sure it pays for itself (RPGWatch's or Wikipedia's kind of goal), it's about making lots and lots more profit than is actually needed. And to hell with anyone who stands in the way.

This is what I find absolutely fascinating about our latest form of capitalism. In short, endless growth and profits. It doesn't matter that it's profitable. It needs to be more profitable than last quarter. It's gone past wishful thinking a long time ago.
And when I see the leadership of companies setup goals and targets for each quarter, every time either slightly or significantly bigger than last quarter. Based on what? They're gonna throw a bunch of babble about how they know certain segments of the markets aren't fully capitalized on, how they can still squeeze a little more here and there, how if they cut here and there, how if they buy their own stock they're gonna inflate it some more and get their freaking bonuses.

And in sufficient time, drive that company off a cliff. Usually by selling it off, at a hugely inflated price. And the new owner has huge expectations from what he's bought at an artificially inflated value. And when it doesn't deliver at those inflated expectations, they'll dismantle it for parts, since it's off no use to the holders of capital. They could care less if they're buying and selling potatoes or an IT company. And so another company that was maybe running decently at one point, got sold off for maximum immediate profits, some other big capital owner got left holding the bag (effectively money was stolen from that one, to the one selling it). Rinse and repeat. I think this is what they call a finance capitalism, in comparison with industrial capitalism, which for all its faults, at least produced something and didn't kill the host immediately.

 

[Redglyph]

The "I don't click on ads, so it doesn't matter if I block them." argument.

That's not really what I wrote. Once again, to be clear: I'm talking about Youtube.

I don't think that there's anyone that particularly likes ads, just people who don't mind them for the most part and people who hate them to a varying degree.

Right. I'm sure you didn't understand what I meant.

That's nothing out of the ordinary, most people do that with commercials to an extent. This is something that's taken into account on the side of the advertisers.

How do you mean, it's taken into account? They make ads to be seen, not to be ignored.

I don't know that most people do that. I've seen many who watch the ads passively until the show continues, without even muting the TV, so I expect they do the same when watching Youtube. There are even special events at the cinema where people go to watch only ads (the best ones, of course). I have a few friends who used to do that.

Not really, because the advertising providers pay YouTube for the privilege of showing ads on their platform and they only pay for the ads that are actually delivered. So that income is YouTube's, whether it is being paid for directly by the advertisers or via substitution by a Premium user. And the number of Premium users will likely always be quite small compared to non-paying regular users.

It still reduces the audience for their clients. And if the number of accounts is small, why would they bother at all? That's why I think it's not a priority either way.

 

[Couchpotato]

Yep the age old question of when is enough,enough? Humans have answered there is never enough and always want or need more. Look at Apple for a good example.

We forecasted the comany would make 458 Billion but oh we only made 457 Billion. Time to fire more employees and raise prices even more. Capitalism at it's worst.

 

[Taluntain]

That's not really what I wrote. Once again, to be clear: I'm talking about Youtube.

*sigh* You literally wrote: "Viewers who block ads are unlikely to watch the ads and visit the seller's website anyway." YT or any other site, it works the same.

How do you mean, it's taken into account? They make ads to be seen, not to be ignored.

We've already established that plenty of people don't pay any attention to ads as long as they can help it. Getting up to raid the fridge when the commercials come on or muting them, or looking away and doing something else is what pretty much everyone does, but naturally not every single time and naturally there are exceptions to the rule. Nobody expects to catch people's undivided attention with every ad. We're talking about humans, not robots.

Most people online are extremely adapt at completely ignoring standard types of advertising; this is so common that there's a term for it -- see Banner blindness. No point in me even quoting anything from the article because it literally covers everything that I've already posted.

People complain only when they actually notice ads, they don't care about the ads that they don't notice because they don't even register with them on a conscious level.

But I'm sure you know all this already so it's really silly that I need to spell it out.

It still reduces the audience for their clients. And if the number of accounts is small, why would they bother at all? That's why I think it's not a priority either way.

So what if it reduces the audience for advertisers? It's not like they're obligated to them in any way. Giving those people willing to pay for an ad-free experience the option to has been the norm online for a long time now, so it's natural that every website with advertising will want to offer it. It's not like anyone wants to force ads on those users who don't want to see them as long as they can offset their loss of advertising income via a subscription. That's just common sense and user-friendliness, which every website strives for to a lesser or greater extent.

 

[wolfgrimdark]

Guess I should clarify a few things since I was away all day.

I hate in your face ads and I hate YT ads that play in the middle of a play list. I don't like intrusive ads. Some places are better at it some are worse. I was speaking in general terms of the ongoing discussions I see online that people expect certain things for free.

I don't use YT much. Even that might stop if the ads get even more intrusive.

There is also another factor here which I think people sometimes confuse. How much money is too much?

Making some assumptions here - People tend to want a fair price for things they get (service, item, entertainment, etc.). Most, I assume, also want the company to make a fair profit, that workers are paid a fair amount, and so on. Fair being subjective of course but in general that it feels balanced. Then there is greed when employees barely get paid poverty level while top CEO types walk away with millions a year. The issue with greed.

Do I want to pay a monthly fee to YT knowing that (making all this up) the bulk goes to making the BOD and high level execs even richer with barely any going to employees? No, no more then I want my taxes used inappropriately (although in one I have a choice in the other less so).

So, I get the idea of not wanting to pay YT anything and blocking ads (or any service) when it feels like money paid is just making the wealthy even richer.

I was mainly pointing out that some seem to expect online services for free (much more so than in-person or physical stuff) but revenue and money needs to come from somewhere.

One's personal "data" is one payment most of us seem willing to accept for services. I am uneducated in just how this plays out though (meaning I don't know). I know one use of the data is to target people for ads ... which people then block I also am pretty sure if you pay for a service you also still give them your data.

I am sure there must be other uses of the data besides ads though. Pretty sure I read one of those is AI training. Not sure what others are.

Could services live off data gathering and selling alone? If they used that as the only source of income would data collecting on people become even worse? Could it be worse? (not sure I want to know the answer to that).

I also differentiate between big places like X/Twitter, FB, InstaGram, YT, etc., and mom and pop places like here. Nexus ... a strange mix of big but also hobby and perhaps one of the few large hold-outs not going full out corporate greed. As long as ads are not too intrusive I am fine with them on smaller sites. I also sometimes subscribe, although rarely (2 people currently on Patreon). I don't have the income to support folks. Content creators I usually do one time stuff like with Ko-Fi or Paypal.

Places with very annoying ads I siimply won't use unless its some short emergency, like how to solve a puzzle for a game or read a bit of lore. I mean some WIKI sites are HORRIBLE. Lets not even get into some of the SIMS 4 sites for downloading mods, where you need to be a detective to figure out how to download content and not click on some ad link.

 

[Redglyph]

*sigh* You literally wrote: "Viewers who block ads are unlikely to watch the ads and visit the seller's website anyway." YT or any other site, it works the same.

I also outlined the consequences. And no, Youtube and other sites aren't working the same way. For example, when a viewer skips the video ad, it's not charged.

See also below for more context to see why it's not a false argument at all.

We've already established that plenty of people don't pay any attention to ads as long as they can help it. Getting up to raid the fridge when the commercials come on or muting them, or looking away and doing something else is what pretty much everyone does, but naturally not every single time and naturally there are exceptions to the rule. Nobody expects to catch people's undivided attention with every ad. We're talking about humans, not robots.

Most people online are extremely adapt at completely ignoring standard types of advertising; this is so common that there's a term for it -- see Banner blindness. No point in me even quoting anything from the article because it literally covers everything that I've already posted.

People complain only when they actually notice ads, they don't care about the ads that they don't notice because they don't even register with them on a conscious level.

But I'm sure you know all this already so it's really silly that I need to spell it out.

I know that, but you're once again talking about other ads when I'm talking about the video ads.

The wikipedia page you linked mentions an interesting article, which is a study on eye movements and attitude towards brands when a (small) number of people read web pages. The conclusion is that more frequent glances are favourable and longer attention spans are less favourable, though the data on attention results are not explained so I can't judge the amplitude of the effect, not do I see any confidence interval analysis.

So this is mostly irrelevant or even against video ads. Video ads are mandatory, so the user has to either sit there and watch them, or (as I do), do something else like changing to another app or page, thus completely hiding the Youtube video. If people watch this, the article suggests that it will have a better effect on memory and a negative effect on attitude towards the brand. If they don't, this study doesn't apply.

The wikipedia page continues and mentions that native ads and social media can be used to avoid banner blindness (which caused the click ratio to drop).

So the point is not so much that we register ads unconsciously, but that ads must be either inconspicuous or not easily distinguishable from the content the user wants to see. Youtube ads are not in that category, unless you give an occasional glance and wait for the actual content to play.

TV ads are different because the context is different. The probability of sampling parts of a TV ad is uniform over its duration, while it drops after a few seconds on Youtube ads.

So it looks like if you're passive or if the ad is 'well disguised', there's more chance for the ads to introduce a bias. If someone is blocking ads, obviously nothing will happen, but if they can't and are actively trying to evade them another way (which isn't everyone - I never established that), chances are the effect will be negative. Which comforts me in what I said before: Youtube is better off not trying too hard to enforce invasive ads.

Content creators are smarter about it (or maybe the ad publishers are), by introducing ads themselves in the video. Some have the knack of doing it so the viewer only realizes it a few seconds later and there is a strong relationship with the video content. That's more devious and effective.

So what if it reduces the audience for advertisers? It's not like they're obligated to them in any way. Giving those people willing to pay for an ad-free experience the option to has been the norm online for a long time now, so it's natural that every website with advertising will want to offer it. It's not like anyone wants to force ads on those users who don't want to see them as long as they can offset their loss of advertising income via a subscription. That's just common sense and user-friendliness, which every website strives for to a lesser or greater extent.

They do want to force ads on users, that's the whole point here. Contrary to other websites which get their revenues from the content, like news websites, Youtube gets its revenue from advertising. As long as their videos keep attracting enough viewers, they don't give a damn about user-friendliness - if that were the case, the website would be much more convenient (which shouldn't be hard). That's not what their algorithms are trying to achieve.

I'm not saying they're obligated to their clients. What I'm saying is that either they have a few subscribers to a lite plan and it's not worth the trouble for them, or there's a large number, it starts conflicting with the purpose of the website by reducing the potential audience for the ads.

Actually, I'm wondering why they offer a Premium at all. It's probably an experiment to start diversifying their products with music and professional video streaming (in which we'll likely see ads again). Maybe the ad-free is a temporary argument to lure enough viewers until they reach the critical mass.

 

[Ivanwah]

I stopped getting popups few days ago. I noticed that loading any youtube video was very slow for some time but that is back to normal for now.

 

[Carnifex]

Last evening I was getting no ads at all while using youtube. It's weird how the situation can almost change daily.

 

[Vaelith]

Honestly, I haven't even seen the pop-up at all yet, this thread is the only news I have of it existing. As far as I'm aware, YT has been add-free for the last five years.

 

[lackblogger]

The visibility of ads to yourself is only half the story. Regardless of what methods you can put in place to be ad-free, the algorithm of the site is still dedicated to primarily promoting content that is advertising friendly.

Again, from a personal perspective, this might not be an issue individually, as each individual, particularly long-term users, will already know where to look for their favourite content.

But you'll still find it much harder to be presented with new content in the first place, something that has less of an impact the less you care about what content is put up as either recommended or similar in any search you make.

 

[Redglyph]

Ah well...


For some reason, I didn't open the video in incognito mode. I've done the same earlier today and got yet another of those warnings.

Opening the video again in incognito mode worked, of course, so I don't care much.

 

[Shagnak]

I decided to try YouTube without uBlock, just to see where the ad experience is at these days.
First ad

 

[Redglyph]

For me it's permanently blocked when AdBlock is active, so others may follow soon.

We'll see if AdBlock finds a way, or if we have to rely on a legal action (I won't hold my breath for that).

 

[Redglyph]

To add to the confusion:

As YouTube Declares War on Ad Blockers, Google Sponsors Ad Blocking Conference

Five Google employees recently presented at the Ad Filtering Dev Conference, highlighting the company's complicated relationship with ad blockers.

www.404media.co

Maybe 39% of the advertising market isn't enough for Google, and they're trying to block the others? What a mess Internet has become.

 

[Couchpotato]

Talk abut irony at it's finest but then again it could be a devious trap.

 

[Vaelith]

Just to add another case to the pool, I got the "warning" popup once a few days ago. So I blocked it with my adblock and it hasn't shown up again, while YT still works perfectly for me.

 

[danutz_plusplus]

I've still on the Brave browser with ads blocked via its native ad blocker, and aside from a comple of warnings from youtube a week or two ago, I haven't seen anything about my blocker being active since.
So I assume the brave developers patched it once again. I recommend trying the brave browser for youtube. I've been using it for the past 1-2 years, only for youtube. It's been pretty great.

 

[Redglyph]

I've still on the Brave browser with ads blocked via its native ad blocker, and aside from a comple of warnings from youtube a week or two ago, I haven't seen anything about my blocker being active since.
So I assume the brave developers patched it once again. I recommend trying the brave browser for youtube. I've been using it for the past 1-2 years, only for youtube. It's been pretty great.

I've tried Brave for a few days and it's working great! Even with the same account that is now blocked when I watch Youtube from Chrome (unless I disable AdBlock, though sometimes it still blocks me despite it). But it was a weird procedure to get access to my account in Brave.

Anyway, I'll probably use Brave to watch Youtube when I don't do it in incognito mode - I'm glad that when users post a Youtube video, the link is shown below (except in news), because it makes it easier to watch incognito.

It's the same chase game for them, so it won't last forever.

EDIT: LOL, I tried watching a couple of video (only the beginning) on Youtube with Chrome and no AdBlock; it was enlightening. The first video had one skippable ad in front of the video and ads in the suggestions on the right (the first one being for an ad blocker). The second video had a series of 3 skippable ads in front. Oh, and I had a pop-up to subscribe to Prime each time. I don't understand how people can put up with so much brainwashing, and even less how Google thinks it can force it on viewers. There's zero subtlety in their approach; it's just overkill. Chances are, if I watched the entire videos, I would probably have had ads in the middle of them too.

 

[Beren]

Well, part of it is some YTers make not just careers, but multi-million dollar empires, out of channels that spit out daily content that garners thousands or even millions of views. Some of these YTers are cash cows that bring in the dough for YT, so YT's move with the ads shouldn't exactly come as a surprise.

On that note, anybody here been following that drama between SSSniperwolf and JacksFilms on Youtube?

I used to watch her vids every now and then. Mind-blowing that she's been such a psychotic piece of work all along ...

An argument can be made that JacksFilms critiquing her content, while valid, was of such a frequency that it started to feel obsessive. But doxxing somebody out of spite is just a stupid and crazy thing to do.

And YT only gave her a temporary demonitezation. So naturally a lot of other YTers are now complaining that as one of their cash cows, she's getting a slap on the wrist where another creator with far less of a following / views would get cratered into eternal oblivion for the same thing.