• YouTube is intensifying efforts to combat adblockers, including blocking video playback and warning users of potential account suspension.
  • Increased ads on YouTube have driven many users to adblockers, hurting both YouTube’s ad revenue and content creators reliant on ad-based income.
  • Despite these measures, many users are leaving YouTube or finding workarounds, leading creators to seek alternative revenue streams off-platform.
You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
126 points
*

I’ll never understand the entitlement of these companies when it comes to ads. You send the content freely to my computer along with BS ads. It’s my computer. I’ll display what I want using programs I want.

If you want me to pay for that content with $ or by watching ads - then put up a hard paywall and stop sending the content for free. You can’t get uppity and complain about ad blockers - it doesn’t make any sense…

The real problem is your content sucks and nobody is willing to pay for it. And that’s your problem - not mine.

Here’s some free apples. There’s a newspaper ad stuffed in there as well. Oh you ate the apples without reading the newspaper? Foul ball! /facepalm

Edit: never mind the fact that many ads have been served that are downright malicious code…

permalink
report
reply
55 points

I was paying for Google music until they took it away from me and told me it was Youtube Premium and then raised the price twice.

Not exactly what I’d call a great value proposition.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-24 points

That’s a weird way to look at it, obviously you’re watching the content.

I’d rather see it like this:

  • Free tier with ads

  • Subscription without ads (and better quality)

You are currently on the free tier. Yes, you can block ads (just like you can pirate movies), but that’s not the deal you were offered. I’m using an ad blocker myself, but I can understand the corporate side too.

They absolutely could add a hard paywall, but why should they if there are plenty of users who want to watch for free by paying with ads?

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

No, I’m on the “you’re freely posting content to the internet - some of which I want to consume(videos), others not so much (ads)” plan. I never asked them to post anything, never entered a contract, etc.

If they lock the content up, and stop freely posting it, then fine, I’ll stop consuming and go elsewhere. If I can’t live without the content, then I can decide to pay up. It’s their content - they can do whatever they want with it. But they can’t get mad at ad blockers if they put their stuff out there for free.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

Totally fine by me! But by your logic you can’t get mad at them if they block you from watching due to using an ad blocker. Which brings us back to square one?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

They definitely couldn’t add a hard paywall. It would collapse the system overnight.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Collapse what exactly? It would actually reduce strain on their servers and provide a better experience for paying users. Obviously they won’t do it because there’s a ton of users who watch ads (think of the average guy who plays YouTube on their phone or TV, with zero adblocking).

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

They make more money via ads than they ever will with a hard pay wall. The innumerable advertisers paying google/youtube will always pay more than individuals paying for a subscription for no ads.

That’s why people who paid for no ads will eventually end up with ads again, despite paying. They don’t care if we pay or not. They want that sweet sweet ad revenue.

The sad fact of the matter is that we live in an ad based economy. Advertising is more profitable than selling an actual product. Having a platform to sell infinite ad space is a money making machine, plus people making free content for them to lure in more people to watch said ads. It’s super fucked up on youtubes part.

YouTube now exists as a billboard first, content second or third.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

And in all tiers: make an additional profit by selling your information without your consent (it has been decided in many courts that burying subtext deeply in forced terms of service isn’t consent)

We are already paying them by letting them harvest our data, ads or not.

Then they double or triple dip with the scenarios you describe. I am still paying them by being on their site with an ad blocker as they harvest my data and sell it to the highest bidder. Not to mention quadruple dipping with using our info and content without consent to train AI to sell.

They use the argument “your data/art/photos/videos are freely posted on the internet, so we can use them how we please”. If they publish content openly on the internet, then we are free to do with it as we please.

They can’t use the argument but say “no no no, it doesn’t apply to things WE put out”

They are either pirating our content and data constantly or ad-blocking is not pirating.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-29 points
*

“Your content sucks… And I can’t stop watching it. I also got herpes by watching too much brain rot”

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 18K

    Monthly active users

  • 5.8K

    Posts

  • 122K

    Comments