an add every 5 Minutes is That the new Youtube in 2020 ?

[lamyathla]

or it is Just Only me ?

 

im sorry I mean an ad not add

I cant re edit it

[gloop]

How is YouTube or it’s creators meant to make money then?

[lamyathla]

1 hour ago, gloop said:

How is YouTube or it’s creators meant to make money then?

2 ads for a video is Not enough ?

yesterday I watched a video which was 1 hour in length with 16 ads some of them are 1 minutes in length 

not to mention every time you rewind youtube will give a bonus ad

[porina]

1, adblock is still an option (at least on desktop, don't know about mobiles)

2, Youtube Premium is a thing. I just signed up to it recently as it wasn't much of an incremental cost over Play Music I had already. Play Music they're transitioning to Youtube Music (included in Premium also). Hope the youtubers I watch are greatful for the 2 cents or whatever they might get from me now, and not before from the adblock...

[Intergalacticbits]

I don't mind the ads at all if  they are just at the beginning.

The thing that really drives me crazy though is when they show the same ad for every video I watch in a sitting.

I mean if I watch five videos in a row they will sometimes show me the same ad for 3 or more of those views.

I wish they were nicer about it and mixed up the ads more.

 

On a side note, could someone explain to me why some videos on some channels on there play smooth but others on other channels stutter and pause continuously?

So bad sometimes that it makes me feel like I never want to watch anything from that channel again.

 

 

[Guest]

Ads have gotten worse no doubt.

[PhantomJaguarr]

Ads? What ads. I got YouTube Premium. Better than Adblock because at least I’m still supporting my creators I’m subscribed to. I justify having it because it’s basically my tv and music use.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

3 hours ago, lamyathla said:

an ad every 5 Minutes is That the new Youtube in 2020

I wouldn't know 

 

3 hours ago, porina said:

1, adblock is still an option (at least on desktop, don't know about mobiles)

I think for Youtube specifically, using NewPipe is a much better route than forcing Youtube to not use the dedicated app and run in a browser with effective ad-blocking capabilities (assuming there is one).  But if you are using an ad-blocked browser anyway, and it works with Youtube too, then why not (it won't fix other problems like background playing, though).

[Lord Vile]

4 hours ago, lamyathla said:

or it is Just Only me ?

 

im sorry I mean an ad not add

I cant re edit it

Last I checked Youtube wasn't particularly profitable it more or less breaks even, as they need more money for increased storage space etc I'd take more ads vs them altering the revenue split and taking food out of the mouths of small and medium sized channels on the platform. Plus it's still nowhere near as many ads as TV where the average hour is 40 mins program and 20 mins ads. 

[Kawaii Koneko]

That's how YouTube supports itself and creators. Don't like it? Don't use it. That's how a free market works.

 

3 hours ago, porina said:

1, adblock is still an option (at least on desktop, don't know about mobiles)

Yeah, but using it is tantamount to stealing and highly immoral. Watching ads are the terms for using the service and somehow skipping out on it is like skipping the bill at a restaurant.

 

4 hours ago, porina said:

2, Youtube Premium is a thing. I just signed up to it recently as it wasn't much of an incremental cost over Play Music I had already. Play Music they're transitioning to Youtube Music (included in Premium also). Hope the youtubers I watch are greatful for the 2 cents or whatever they might get from me now, and not before from the adblock...

That's the solution. I personally have been using Red/Premium/All Access/whatever you want to call it since they introduced the initial beta. I've been a member ever since and even upgraded to the family plan.

 

It is worth every single penny. Being able to watch videos ad free and still support creators is a good feeling. Being able to play videos with the screen off and download them without having to resort to any kind of hack or third party app is also very useful, especially for someone who likes to listen to videos when they exercise and lives in a rural area with a 1x connection. And of course, Play Music is a huge boon for the service as well. I use it all the time and it has pretty much all the mainstream artists I listen to plus a lot of the smaller, less heard of artists.

 

Being able to upload my music and download it to whatever device I'm using is nice too.

 

35 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I think for Youtube specifically, using NewPipe is a much better route than forcing Youtube to not use the dedicated app and run in a browser with effective ad-blocking capabilities (assuming there is one).  But if you are using an ad-blocked browser anyway, and it works with Youtube too, then why not (it won't fix other problems like background playing, though).

Those are things you are supposed to pay for and you are stealing by circumventing them.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

8 hours ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

Those are things you are supposed to pay for and you are stealing by circumventing them.

I don't think you understand what "stealing" means, and to what extent is in Youtube's hands to enable such third-party apps to exist or not in the first place.

[lamyathla]

17 hours ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

That's how YouTube supports itself and creators. Don't like it? Don't use it. That's how a free market works.

 

Yeah, but using it is tantamount to stealing and highly immoral. Watching ads are the terms for using the service and somehow skipping out on it is like skipping the bill at a restaurant.

 

That's the solution. I personally have been using Red/Premium/All Access/whatever you want to call it since they introduced the initial beta. I've been a member ever since and even upgraded to the family plan.

 

It is worth every single penny. Being able to watch videos ad free and still support creators is a good feeling. Being able to play videos with the screen off and download them without having to resort to any kind of hack or third party app is also very useful, especially for someone who likes to listen to videos when they exercise and lives in a rural area with a 1x connection. And of course, Play Music is a huge boon for the service as well. I use it all the time and it has pretty much all the mainstream artists I listen to plus a lot of the smaller, less heard of artists.

 

Being able to upload my music and download it to whatever device I'm using is nice too.

 

Those are things you are supposed to pay for and you are stealing by circumventing them.

What the hell you are talking about ? Stealing what ?

[Kawaii Koneko]

14 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I don't think you understand what "stealing" means, and to what extent is in Youtube's hands to enable such third-party apps to exist or not in the first place.

Watching the ads are your payment for getting to use YouTube. By circumventing them, it is the same thing as stealing. If you don't want to watch ads, then you should should stop using YouTube, not bypass the ads.

 

7 hours ago, lamyathla said:

What the hell you are talking about ? Stealing what ?

Content. It's the same thing as downloading movies you didn't pay for in the store except in this case, you pay for the video by watching the ad. This is an understood agreement between YouTube and the user. By using adblock you are basically stealing. Sure, not in the legal sense, but morally you definitely are. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

4 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

Watching the ads are your payment for getting to use YouTube.

No, it's not "payment" - running ads replaces requiring payment as a means to monetization for the service provider, but substituting something else's function in a given context (in this case, the provider business model) doesn't make it synonym  or even "a different version of the same". Services offered for free are offered for free, meaning there is no payment required, period. They are often not offered for free for no reason, but with the expectation to make profits through means other than user payments, running paid ads being one of them.

 

4 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

By circumventing them, it is the same thing as stealing.

Of course it is not, as explained above, and also as reflected in every legal system I'm aware of. It's something you are making up, the same way I can decide that peeling off stickers from PSUs, RAm sticks, etc is "stealing" because the manufacturer expected the products I bought to feature their brand as advertisement, and they would charge a higher price if they knew I would peel them off... I could came up with such definition, but it would only exist in my head.

 

4 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

If you don't want to watch ads, then you should should stop using YouTube, not bypass the ads.

You see, that's where you are crossing the coherence line. The logic you claim to apply is not being applied consistently. You say that "if you don't want to watch ads, don't watch YouTube", but you don't say to Youtube "if you don't want people to watch for free, don't broadcast your videos without payment". Basically, you accept the tight of a company (Youtube) to take whatever legal course of action they see fit in pursue of its best interest, yet you claim consumers (youtube users) cannot take whatever legal course of action they see fit in pursue of their best interest, and go as far as to claim their legal actions are actually an illegal action. Youtube maximizes its profits given the options available to it and the context it operates in, which is fine, but you have a problem with consumers maximizing their welfare given the options available to them and the context they operate in. I frankly can't understand this double standard of corporate friendliness and consumer hostility.

I think Youtube is free to make anything (within the law) they want in order to prevent views of videos hosted by them deemed not profitable enough. It's their platform and they can close any door they want closed, and then it's up to me whether I watch in a different way or don't watch at all.

 

4 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

 This is an understood agreement between YouTube and the user.

There is no such agreement, and in fact Youtube has no way to know or enforce you watching ads even if you use no adblocker. Just because a video-ad is loaded to your computer, it doesn't mean you are paying any attention to it, or even in front of the monitor, while the ad is played.

But I guess TV viewers going to the bathroom during ad breaks are filthy thieves after all  

I wonder why you are so certain that there is an implicit contract about watching ads with Youtube (what are the details of this contract? Is it one ad? Two ads? is it a number of ads per day? Does it entail implicit restrictions for youtube as well? Which ones?), but not an implicit contract to buy one merch piece one day from LTT , or donate during a live stream, and you, know, all those ways of making money that are left to the viewer's discretion? Because, and this is important, in the current technological and legal context, Youtube is leaving ad viewing at the viewer's discretion, and they are very much aware of that. They just find it optimal to do so.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

By using adblock you are basically stealing. Sure, not in the legal sense,

That certainly is telling.

4 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

but morally you definitely are. 

You definitely are not. Now that I said it with the same degree of conviction, I guess it's true as well?  

You, as an individual, feel morally inclined to watch (or "not blcok", we haven't established the degree of attention required by the "implicit contract" ) ads, I won't judge your personal choice on that front (as you are judging others). The "ad blocking = stealing" equation doesn't have a leg to stand on, though.

[Kawaii Koneko]

3 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

No, it's not "payment" - running ads replaces requiring payment as a means to monetization for the service provider, but substituting something else's function in a given context (in this case, the provider business model) doesn't make it synonym  or even "a different version of the same". Services offered for free are offered for free, meaning there is no payment required, period. They are often not offered for free for no reason, but with the expectation to make profits through means other than user payments, running paid ads being one of them.

I totally disagree. The service is free with ads. As in ads are the trade off for not paying for a subscription. Therefore, if you don't want to pay actual money, then you should let the ad play. By blocking it, you are taking away the revenue that YouTube and the content creator is depending on.

 

8 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Of course it is not, as explained above, and also as reflected in every legal system I'm aware of. It's something you are making up,

Like I said, it isn't illegal but it is morally the same thing.  You get to choose when you watch YouTube, do you pay or watch ads? It's one of the two.

 

10 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

There is no such agreement, and in fact Youtube has no way to know or enforce you watching ads even if you use no adblocker. Just because a video-ad is loaded to your computer, it doesn't mean you are paying any attention to it, or even in front of the monitor, while the ad is played.

It doesn't matter whether you literally watch it. The advertiser pays the same amount whether you watch or not. By watching, I just mean dealing with the ads as in allowing them to load. That shouldn't have even needed to be stated.

 

And again, the agreement is understood. Ads are for free users and no ads are for paid users. There is no legal contract or enforcement but it should just be morally assumed that since you aren't paying for it, you should allow the ads to load. Do you not want to support the content creators you watch? Are you really so entitled that you think you should just get to watch their content for free? Is is that hard to let an ad load and then click skip after five seconds?

 

16 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

The "ad blocking = stealing" equation doesn't have a leg to stand on, though.

It certainly does based on the implicit understanding that if you don't pay for a subscription you are supposed to deal with the ads.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

Just now, Kawaii Koneko said:

I totally disagree. The service is free with ads. As in ads are the trade off for not paying for a subscription.

Well, that's not a matter of opinion, it is a fact. But you are welcome to read the Youtube ToS.

Just now, Kawaii Koneko said:

Like I said, it isn't illegal but it is morally the same thing. 

You said it but you were wrong  

 

Just now, Kawaii Koneko said:

You get to choose when you watch YouTube, do you pay or watch ads? It's one of the two.

I'm pretty sure you forgot to mention a number of alternatives. Those exist and, again, that's not opinable, it's a fact. A fact Youtube knows and takes into account in its decision-making process.

 

Just now, Kawaii Koneko said:

 

It doesn't matter whether you literally watch it. The advertiser pays the same amount whether you watch or not. By watching, I just mean dealing with the ads as in allowing them to load. That shouldn't have even needed to be stated.

Oh, wait, I thought there would be some sort of implicit? contract between Youtube and the advertiser by which ads are shown to people, nor bots or empty seats... I guess once again everything is OK for Youtube to do, as long as it's legal, but consumers are liable by morals?

 

Just now, Kawaii Koneko said:

 

And again, the agreement is understood. Ads are for free users and no ads are for paid users. There is no legal contract or enforcement but it should just be morally assumed that since you aren't paying for it, you should allow the ads to load. Do you not want to support the content creators you watch?

There are tons of ways to do it, and almost every one of them is better than watching Youtube ads. Feel free to watch Linus tell you that in a number of WAN shows and "how we make money?" videos.

That's besides the point, though: I certainly don't want to support the authors of many videos I've watched, I wished I hadn't even watched some of them. Youtube, however, is not in charge of the content, and they are showing ads to support their hosting capacity.

 

Just now, Kawaii Koneko said:

Are you really so entitled that you think you should just get to watch their content for free?

See, that'ts when you fully derailed and start to make  (even more) shit up. If you had taken the 5 seconds of an ad to read what I wrote, you would have noticed that I indicated several times how Youtube could close any open door for unmonetized views, and they are well within their right to do so. That's exactly the opposite of "entitled to watch for free", as I never, not even once, claimed that Youtube should show videos for free, or even exist, for that matter. In fact, ad-supported youtube doesn't need to exist either, it could be fully subscription based. I never restricted Youtube choices in any way, so no, clearly I don't feel entitled to anything, I merely choose among the options available to me. "Free videos with no ads" may or may not be an option (it's not like they're actually free, there are a number of costs implied in watching a video, but I digress), an option I never said should exist, much less that Youtube in particular should provide it.

You, on the other hand, seem quite "entitled" to tell others what to do.

 

Just now, Kawaii Koneko said:

Is is that hard to let an ad load and then click skip after five seconds?

It certainly wasn't all those years I didn't have an ad blocker in my browser, but you must have started using Youtube Red a looong time ago if you believe "5-sec countdown then click skip" is all that's going on in Youtube...

 

 

[Kawaii Koneko]

16 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Well, that's not a matter of opinion, it is a fact. But you are welcome to read the Youtube ToS.

Again, it is an implicit understanding.

 

18 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I'm pretty sure you forgot to mention a number of alternatives. Those exist and, again, that's not opinable, it's a fact. A fact Youtube knows and takes into account in its decision-making process.

Yes, I'm well aware of the alternatives. But I didn't mention it just like I wouldn't if I was saying "If you don't like the price of the Blu-ray then don't buy it", I also wouldn't include the alternatives of shoplifting or pirating it.

 

21 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

You said it but you were wrong  

Okay. If me being wrong allows you to continue to feel justified in not supporting content creators, then fine. Enjoy the content while it lasts because as YouTube continues to make it harder for creators to earn a living and more people like you deprive them of compensation for watching their content, many will just quit.

 

But I'm right anyway.

 

24 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Oh, wait, I thought there would be some sort of implicit? contract between Youtube and the advertiser by which ads are shown to people, nor bots or empty seats... I guess once again everything is OK for Youtube to do, as long as it's legal, but consumers are liable by morals?

YouTube can't control whether or not users actually watch the ads but you as an individual can choose whether or not you are willing to contribute financially by allowing an ad to load to support the creator and platform you are using. If you can't be bothered to do that, stop using the service.

 

27 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

See, that'ts when you fully derailed and start to make  (even more) shit up. If you had taken the 5 seconds of an ad to read what I wrote, you would have noticed that I indicated several times how Youtube could close any open door for unmonetized views, and they are well within their right to do so. That's exactly the opposite of "entitled to watch for free", as I never, not even once, claimed that Youtube should show videos for free, or even exist, for that matter. In fact, ad-supported youtube doesn't need to exist either, it could be fully subscription based. I never restricted Youtube choices in any way, so no, clearly I don't feel entitled to anything, I merely choose among the options available to me. "Free videos with no ads" may or may not be an option (it's not like they're actually free, there are a number of costs implied in watching a video, but I digress), an option I never said should exist, much less that Youtube in particular should provide it.

It doesn't matter what you think YouTube should do to monetize or how they should handle adblock users. The fact YouTube hasn't done anything to stop adblock users doesn't change the fact that you are depriving content creators of money. YouTube uses ads to monetize and you choose to bypass them knowing very well you deprive the platform and content creator of money. That is really the bottom line here.  And yes, doing so is a form of entitlement. Whether or not you openly say you should get videos for free, you know what you are doing. Come on dude, this the kind of thing Scumbag Steve would do.

 

And no, I have no problem using a dead meme.

39 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

You, on the other hand, seem quite "entitled" to tell others what to do

You are welcome to do whatever you like like. Should you choose to deprive hard working creators of their revenue and can sleep well at night because "reasons" then go for it.

 

44 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

It certainly wasn't all those years I didn't have an ad blocker in my browser, but you must have started using Youtube Red a looong time ago if you believe "5-sec countdown then click skip" is all that's going on in Youtube...

I'll admit that I haven't had the displeasure of having to watch ads in quite some time but I am aware that some videos are chock-full of them. But once again I'll reiterate, don't like it, don't watch it. If you want to watch something that has ads and you know that is how the platform and creator support themselves, then loading the ads is just the right thing to do. Shame you can't see that.

 

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

49 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

It doesn't matter what you think YouTube should do to monetize or how they should handle adblock users.

I actually don't think anything, as I stated, they do as they please, not as I please.

49 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

The fact YouTube hasn't done anything to stop adblock users doesn't change the fact that you are depriving content creators of money. YouTube uses ads to monetize and you choose to bypass them knowing very well you deprive the platform and content creator of money. That is really the bottom line here.  And yes, doing so is a form of entitlement. Whether or not you openly say you should get videos for free, you know what you are doing. Come on dude, this the kind of thing Scumbag Steve would do.

LOL, OK, I'm done beating a dead horse, it's just a waste of time at this point, you're just running around in circles in your endless chain of non-sequiturs. The last thing I'll say is that I never demanded Youtube to exist in its current form, never demanded browsers to have extension support, never enabled ad-block extensons to be developed, and pretty much never demanded anything when it comes to online videos. All those things exist independent of me, may cease to exist at any point, and I never expressed any demand one way or another. You, on the other hand, come here demanding people abide by your own personal code of conduct, calling names, making up crimes that don't actually exist, etc., and you have the nerve to call me "entitled" through some more transmutational "logic"?

I honestly find much bigger ethical concerns in your self-righteous passion to dictate other people's behavior than in any form of online video consumption, but feel free to believe you've got the moral high ground here, I won't be coming back to tell you otherwise again.

 

[soldier_ph]

AdBlockPlus is your friend.