The amount of money the content provider wants to make is price you pay + amount ads pay.
If you don’t like the content, don’t view it.
I removed AdBlock a few months ago because I’ve been talking the talk for a long time but I wanted to walk to the walk...
I take 5 seconds before watching a YouTube video, maybe 10 seconds for something unskippable, then watch 30 minutes to an hour of videos. Compare that to 30 minute tv slots with 22 minutes of content.
And it’s not been a big deal. At least to me.
What do a I care that Google is tracking my preferences? What would I have to pay for a product with the kind of investment Google Search, GMail and Youtube have alone? I’m not willing to pay that.
---
But that’s me. If you have a problem with it, don’t visit the sites.
If you visit and disable Js and hide half the elements, you’re still consuming media from a content provider you don’t support.
You still incrementing the number of page views. You’re still clicking on that link and showing search engines that they’re relevant.
You’re supporting the content provider yet you apparently are not ok with how they fund their content?
The problem with your argument is that you unify the creator of the content and the entity placing the ad.
Supporting people via Patreon or PayPal? Donating to software? Participating in open source you use? Watching an ad embedded, vetted and filmed by the video creator (popular example: end of CinemaSins)? Buy silly merch which is actually thoughtfull? Sure thing! I always did that und will always do that!
Getting a screaming Shooter Ad from EA in the middle of my "Better sleep meditation"? Giving Sony money because I want to listen to Bethooven and they copyright-trolled that? Playing endless cat and mouse with the dark patterns added every other week to let me click on ads? Explaining my little sister what a dildo is because YouTube is busy demonitizing everyone but inappropriate scam ads? FUCK NO.
>The problem with your argument is that you unify the creator of the content and the entity placing the ad.
Please point out where I did that? I don't like having words put in my mouth.
>Getting a screaming Shooter Ad from EA in the middle of my "Better sleep meditation"?
Your "better sleep meditation" gets to choose it's platform. Ask them why they're on a platform with screaming shooter ads. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's because they want money that screaming shooter ads pay.
>Giving Sony money because I want to listen to Bethooven and they copyright-trolled that?
Are you referring to the unwarranted automated copyright strike that was sent by Sony then reversed?(admittedly after longer than it should have taken, but still)
Or are you talking about recordings that Sony actually has the rights for and fully has the right to make you pay for?
> Playing endless cat and mouse with the dark patterns added every other week to let me click on ads?
Playing endless cat and mouse games with the dark patterns that let you fund the services you're using? I mean it sounds like you're using some seriously abusive service, maybe stop using it?
>Explaining my little sister what a dildo is because YouTube is busy demonitizing everyone but inappropriate scam ads? FUCK NO.
I don't see how YouTube is "demonitizing everyone but inappropriate scam ads"
Actually I can barely even parse that, you mean when the entire video is a scam ad it's less likely to be demonitized, because I find that pretty hard to believe, or you mean scam ads are demonitized? ads don't get demonitized, they just get removed, and if you keep doing that Google will just block you from making ads.
But I digress, if you let a child on the internet without adult supervision, they will find adult things. That's just the nature of the beast, ads or not. It's unforunate that happened to you and your little sister, but if you let a child on the internet there will eventually be uncomfortable things found.
What you should be doing for someone not old enough to know what something like that is is curating content and letting them consume it on a platform you're confident doesn't have anything inappropriate.
And this is anecdotal but... I don't think I've ever seen an explicit ad on YouTube, let alone YouTube Kids. Next time you see an ad that you find explicit, you can click on the information bubble and find out why it was shown, the number one reason listed is usually recent searches.
Here's where you unify the content creator and the advertiser:
> You’re supporting the content provider yet you apparently are not ok with how they fund their content?
You're saying that if you hate the sin (intrusive ads), you're not allowed to love the sinner (content).
That's bogus.
If a company wants to make itself relevant by providing content and then exploiting its visitors with ads, fine. Users have the option of exploiting the content and rejecting the ads.
YouTube is successful because people choose to generate and consume content there. There has to be some room for discussion among users about what form that consumption takes. I reject your suggestion that users have to either accept everything about the platform or go somewhere else.
On a different note, it's probably beneficial to YouTube to hear the conversation about what users block and what they dislike. Otherwise someone else will build a better mousetrap and YouTube will lose its dominance of the video sphere. This is the way business works, otherwise we'd all be connecting to Myspace via AOL and looking for the nearest Toys R Us on Mapquest.
>You're saying that if you hate the sin (intrusive ads), you're not allowed to love the sinner (content).
No. I’m not.
What’s bogus is you spent this many paragraphs attacking a strawman consisting one sentence instead even one actual point I made, but I digress.
The content and the content creator are not the same.
The content doesn’t “sin” and I’m sure you knew how ridiculous that sounds the moment you typed that. (But of course you also couldn’t say content creator because... that’s clearly not what I said.)
The content creator puts their content on a platform belonging to a content provider.
The content creator and provider both want to make money. My comment is referring to how the provider makes money (which, wouldn’t you know... pays to deliver the content!).
You can support someone on Patreon that then in turn uploads to YouTube (it’s not even uncommon). You’re then funding to two separate entities separately.
---
But you know what? Now that a I think about it I’d even go as far as to blame the content creator a bit more since they chose the platform.
I mean take your “better meditation” example. Is there a reason it’s intentionally uploaded to the platform with mid-video ads? Then monetized it and enabled ads?
You know ads are enabled because the uploaded chooses to monetize be video right? They chose to subject you to those ads because they want money.
They didn’t choose the ad, but they know video ads are allowed to interrupt their content, it’s no secret.
So I won’t even say they’re faultless.
---
>it's probably beneficial to YouTube to hear the conversation about what users block and what they dislike
Yeah... they already have ways to do that.
You can dislike ads, you can click the info button and let them know when a topic is no longer relevant to you.
From time to time you get ads that are just asking if you actually cared about an ad topic “Which if these have you seen an ad for recently?”
You can go into your Google profile and select interests in a much clear way than their guessing.
I do these things and now instead of a constant reminder of the car I bought months ago I get interesting movies I wouldn’t have heard about otherwise, or useful products.
---
So in summation...
>You're saying that if you hate the sin (intrusive ads), you're not allowed to love the sinner (content).
No.
>You're saying that if you hate the sin (intrusive ads), you're not allowed to support the sinner (content provider) by consuming content on their platform.
Yes. I mean, you’re allowed to do whatever you want, but the alternative is simple hypocrisy if you try and paint it as something noble meant to change how they do business.
The funny thing is I don’t think Adblock in itself is hypocritical. It’s just when you add in the virtue signaling and “we’re just trying to make YouTube a better mousetrap!” that my eyes start to roll back into my head and the irony hits a little too hard...
> What do a I care that Google is tracking my preferences? What would I have to pay for a product with the kind of investment Google Search, GMail and Youtube have alone?
Some of us care about tracking and are unwilling to pay what we consider a massive price, far above the monetary value of those services. Yet, we are unable to opt for the paid, no-tracking alternative, and indeed, we are being forced to pay the onerous data price even by companies we have no contractual dealings with and that provide us no services whatsoever.
Surfing the internet without an adblocker is like having one-night stands without condoms. You never know what you might get infected with, and it's a stupid risk.
The amount of money the content provider wants to make is price you pay + amount ads pay.
If you don’t like the content, don’t view it.
I removed AdBlock a few months ago because I’ve been talking the talk for a long time but I wanted to walk to the walk...
I take 5 seconds before watching a YouTube video, maybe 10 seconds for something unskippable, then watch 30 minutes to an hour of videos. Compare that to 30 minute tv slots with 22 minutes of content.
And it’s not been a big deal. At least to me.
What do a I care that Google is tracking my preferences? What would I have to pay for a product with the kind of investment Google Search, GMail and Youtube have alone? I’m not willing to pay that.
---
But that’s me. If you have a problem with it, don’t visit the sites.
If you visit and disable Js and hide half the elements, you’re still consuming media from a content provider you don’t support.
You still incrementing the number of page views. You’re still clicking on that link and showing search engines that they’re relevant.
You’re supporting the content provider yet you apparently are not ok with how they fund their content?