ads I am sick of the Youtube ads watch time. After 6 years I installed AD-Blocker.

[Mellmac]

Hi,

(May be a hot topic)

In the past I have not been disturbed by the in-video and starting ads of Youtube videos. I have always been prompted one or two 20 second ad with the option to skip out after 5 seconds. This is fine and I understand Youtubes need for income.

But there comes a point when ads completely destroy the experience. In the past month I have been prompted the following for almost every video with ads.

Start of a 15 - 20 minute video:
Video click
20 second ad
15 second ad 
About 5 - 7 minute video mark
20 second ad
15/20 second ad
About 11 - 13 minute video mark
20 second ad
15/20 second ad
End of video

There are often smaller intervals of ads on shorter videos and I can not prompt out of ads anymore. I have had enough with the ads and do not care if Youtube will not get revenue from me, they have enough of money to investigate user behavior and research ad experience. 

 

Note: Below I am not going to put words in the LTT team below I might be wrong. 

Hypothetically this can happen.

I think Linus knows the watching experience is bad for the channel with Youtube ads, and I think he is wrong for taking Youtubes side in "Is Adblock Piracy?" Link below. There is a reason why LTT do not prompt Youtube ads and go with the in video edited sponsorship ads. Sure it might pay a little more and the team need a good salary, LTT does probably not run a good business if they do not have ad income. If Youtube one day changes the rules and demand to prompt in-video ads, LTT needs to follow these rules. This risk is then something you need to prepare for.
 

 

Question I will get a lot, why I think Linus is taking Youtubes side in this topic. In the whole discussion he is pointing out that it is a platform for creators paid by ads by viewers. This is a good point but we as viewers still determine how you get paid. It is just like a good working democracy, If the people do not like the rules they will change, like it or not you will have to seek out other opportunities for income, platforms change.

Now I know that this is a rare case, but long ads still will hurt the platform with more use of ad-blocker software and that is bigger than LTT and will lead to new changes.

I am a pirate and I will ware my patch until changes take place. Yarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!

[porina]

I have no hesitation using adblock on the web in general, but youtube is an exception for me where I pay for Premium to get ad free viewing. I do watch enough of it, on desktop and mobile for it to be worth it for me.

 

In parallel, Twitch feels like it has been getting heavier on ads recently. I'm not aware of good/working adblock solutions for that, and I find myself using it much less than I used to. Ads here are also more destructive since you can't pause live content and still be in sync, so you will miss content. Pre-recorded youtube content at least you wont miss anything other than your time.

[Mellmac]

3 minutes ago, porina said:

I have no hesitation using adblock on the web in general, but youtube is an exception for me where I pay for Premium to get ad free viewing. I do watch enough of it, on desktop and mobile for it to be worth it for me.

 

In parallel, Twitch feels like it has been getting heavier on ads recently. I'm not aware of good/working adblock solutions for that, and I find myself using it much less than I used to. Ads here are also more destructive since you can't pause live content and still be in sync, so you will miss content. Pre-recorded youtube content at least you wont miss anything other than your time.

I have been thinking about paying for Youtube Premium, Probably the time saved on ads would pay me back. The problem I see is that they force me to give in to Youtube Premium.

I understand your case with mobile watching

[WereCat]

I always use adblock. Right now I use YT Premium though because it's just 2eur more expensive than Spotify and I can watch without ads on TV and phone and with turned off display and I still get to listen to music so it was worth it for me but before I just used adblock like always.

I'ts just good for escurity reasons as well.

 

Good example why (the first result is an ad which is a phishing link):

 

[MrSimplicity]

I've ran an ad-blocker for as long as I can remember. I don't have cable and pirate 99% of the movies and shows that I watch. I still pay for Netflix and in the case for the topic I also pay for YouTube Premium. So even though I still run an ad-blocker the creators that I watch on a daily basis still get something from me watching the content I enjoy. I would say the amount of ads everyone talks about is definitely excessive. There's no reason for that many ads but as you mention it's up to the creator on how many, if any, ads appear throughout the video. In the case of LTT, however, their YouTube adsense is very close to being the smallest percentage of their profits. To my knowledge Google will never actually force creators to put ads in their videos. The advertisers pay whether their ad is watched or not. Google gets their money either way. By creators opting out of mid role ads, Google is essentially pocketing whatever would have gone to the creator otherwise. 

[Mellmac]

4 minutes ago, WereCat said:

I always use adblock. Right now I use YT Premium though because it's just 2eur more expensive than Spotify and I can watch without ads on TV and phone and with turned off display and I still get to listen to music so it was worth it for me but before I just used adblock like always.

I'ts just good for escurity reasons as well.

 

Good example why (the first result is an ad which is a phishing link):

 

Good point with the phishing links! I work in a SOC so it is generally not a problem for me.

For the other people in the chat this is a great tool to not get hijacked or scammed

[Mellmac]

6 minutes ago, MrSimplicity said:

I've ran an ad-blocker for as long as I can remember. I don't have cable and pirate 99% of the movies and shows that I watch. I still pay for Netflix and in the case for the topic I also pay for YouTube Premium. So even though I still run an ad-blocker the creators that I watch on a daily basis still get something from me watching the content I enjoy. I would say the amount of ads everyone talks about is definitely excessive. There's no reason for that many ads but as you mention it's up to the creator on how many, if any, ads appear throughout the video. In the case of LTT, however, their YouTube adsense is very close to being the smallest percentage of their profits. To my knowledge Google will never actually force creators to put ads in their videos. The advertisers pay whether their ad is watched or not. Google gets their money either way. By creators opting out of mid role ads, Google is essentially pocketing whatever would have gone to the creator otherwise. 

Yeah you have a good point of the percentage of their profits. I think the team has thought this trough. 

As I said "Hypothetically this can happen", it will probably not but google has done som shady things in the past. Not to mention the drivers license and credit card prompt if you want to watch videos for that are marked adult. This to me is going to far. They do not care about adult videos they just want information.

[MrSimplicity]

8 minutes ago, Mellmac said:

Not to mention the drivers license and credit card prompt if you want to watch videos for that are marked adult. This to me is going to far. They do not care about adult videos they just want information.

I have never seen that before. then again being that they already have my credit card for premium then that might be why. Even if I'm not on my account that has premium I've never seen that ever. It's only ever been "this video has been flagged as age restricted, to view you must login to your youtube account."

[Mellmac]

1 minute ago, MrSimplicity said:

I have never seen that before. then again being that they already have my credit card for premium then that might be why. Even if I'm not on my account that has premium I've never seen that ever. It's only ever been "this video has been flagged as age restricted, to view you must login to your youtube account."

Yeah, so when you log in you already have your credit card assigned to your google account. My account is not associated with any of these cards.

I have to give this information to watch a restricted video.

It is for European users, I do not know if I am allowed to post links in the forum. You can search "Youtube will start to demand ID / credit cards information from European users." on reddit.

[MrSimplicity]

1 minute ago, Mellmac said:

You can search "Youtube will start to demand ID / credit cards information from European users." on reddit.

Oh well that sounds stupid but also understandable. I mean there really is no good way to verify someone's age on the internet and it honestly is a good thing to start cracking down on. If you were able to find a nonintrusive way of doing so I'd imagine you could be a millionaire. Certain sites I could mention would probably love get ahold of something like that.

[Spotty]

As already mentioned Youtube Premium will remove ads. If your only concern is ads on Youtube and you spend enough time watching Youtube to justify the cost, or want some of the other features it allows, then it might be worth considering.

 

I almost consider using an adblocker as a requirement for browsing the web these days. I use an adblocker on my desktop but not on my phone and it amazes me how awful some sites are without an adblocker when I browse them on my phone. Turns me away from using the website at all. Ads are a necessity if we expect to have free services and content on the internet, but some websites have little to no scrutiny over the ads they display and have extremely obnoxious or potentially harmful advertisements. You can always add websites that you trust to the allow list in the adblocker.

 

Adblockers are also useful for removing annoying things like autoplaying videos that follow as you scroll. I use custom filters in my adblocker to block videos with certain keywords in their titles from displaying in any recommended feeds on Youtube (home page, side panel beside video).

 

6 minutes ago, WereCat said:

Good example why (the first result is an ad which is a phishing link):

That's exactly the reason why the FBI recently published an alert which included a recommendation for people to use adblockers. Can't feel bad about using an adblocker if the FBI is suggesting you do it.

 

https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221

Quote

Cyber criminals purchase advertisements that appear within internet search results using a domain that is similar to an actual business or service. When a user searches for that business or service, these advertisements appear at the very top of search results with minimum distinction between an advertisement and an actual search result. These advertisements link to a webpage that looks identical to the impersonated business’s official webpage.
 

In instances where a user is searching for a program to download, the fraudulent webpage has a link to download software that is actually malware. The download page looks legitimate and the download itself is named after the program the user intended to download.

[...]

Tips to Protect Yourself

The FBI recommends individuals take the following precautions:

• Before clicking on an advertisement, check the URL to make sure the site is authentic. A malicious domain name may be similar to the intended URL but with typos or a misplaced letter.
• Rather than search for a business or financial institution, type the business’s URL into an internet browser’s address bar to access the official website directly.
• Use an ad blocking extension when performing internet searches. Most internet browsers allow a user to add extensions, including extensions that block advertisements. These ad blockers can be turned on and off within a browser to permit advertisements on certain websites while blocking advertisements on others.

[Mellmac]

9 minutes ago, MrSimplicity said:

Oh well that sounds stupid but also understandable. I mean there really is no good way to verify someone's age on the internet and it honestly is a good thing to start cracking down on. If you were able to find a nonintrusive way of doing so I'd imagine you could be a millionaire. Certain sites I could mention would probably love get ahold of something like that.

Yeah well I would think of some different solutions.

1. State age verification number that does not include name and other personal information. This is only to verify your age. The state will verify this with your real ID.

2. Start a company that does this with the solution provided above. The company will then verify your ID and give you a age verification number instead of a state.

Problem here is legitimacy.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Mellmac
Had to clarify a point.

[Bismut]

14 minutes ago, MrSimplicity said:

If you were able to find a nonintrusive way of doing so I'd imagine you could be a millionaire.

It just needs to seem nonintrusive, I kinda doubt that Google, Facebook and such would be amped about not getting that sort of info confirmed about people.

[MrSimplicity]

14 minutes ago, Mellmac said:

Yeah well I would think of some different solutions.

1. State age verification number that does not include name and other personal information. This is only to verify your age. The state will verify this with your real ID.

2. Start a company that does this with the solution provided above.

That probably wouldn't be the worst idea. Though I know something like that would definitely not fly here in the US. Not that it would be much different than say a library card, people would still find a way to utilize it for ad tracking. just like they do now when you turn most of your security and privacy setting on in windows and chrome. The common individual wouldn't be smart enough let alone care enough to realize it's not sharing any personal data but still get mad because they think it is. The only true way to get a result that wouldn't completely scare the public bonkers is purely algorithmic.

 

*edit* but in order to do that they'd have to be able to track your activity which is something everyone is trying to combat.

[Mellmac]

11 minutes ago, MrSimplicity said:

That probably wouldn't be the worst idea. Though I know something like that would definitely not fly here in the US. Not that it would be much different than say a library card, people would still find a way to utilize it for ad tracking. just like they do now when you turn most of your security and privacy setting on in windows and chrome. The common individual wouldn't be smart enough let alone care enough to realize it's not sharing any personal data but still get mad because they think it is. The only true way to get a result that wouldn't completely scare the public bonkers is purely algorithmic.

 

*edit* but in order to do that they'd have to be able to track your activity which is something everyone is trying to combat.

I think you are right about this not working in the US. It would probably work in the EU. Problem here is that the west is mostly dependent on all US tech companies. This will then not become a real use case if not implemented in the US first.

[Mark Kaine]

42 minutes ago, MrSimplicity said:

Oh well that sounds stupid but also understandable. I mean there really is no good way to verify someone's age on the internet and it honestly is a good thing to start cracking down on.

actually there is... forgot the name but you can verify your age through some government/ post thing here, but that wouldn't give google as much information... also they stopped asking for drivers license etc here, i guess because that's actually illegal... and a joke because most "age restricted" videos dont have a reason to be age restricted anyways,  they're usually R12 or lower...

[MrSimplicity]

6 minutes ago, Mellmac said:

I think you are right about this not working in the US. It would probably work in the EU. Problem here is that the west is mostly dependent on all US tech companies. This will then not become a real use case if not implemented in the US first.

I think the simplest solution would be to require a login for your web browser. Age verification would be done strictly though that account. then from there it's up to your browser to provide websites that age verification. Other than the big 3 browsers most of them are open source and provide the security that most people are looking for. The main selling point for browsers other than Chrome, Safari, and Edge are that they are focused on privacy. So implementing the above mentioned wouldn't actually be that difficult if Google, Apple, and Microsoft weren't so hellbent on tracking everyone's information. At least on paper it seems Apple has stopped being so scummy. Microsoft has definitely gotten worse. Google of course is the worst of the 3 but finds a way to hide it pretty well.

[SimplyChunk]

1 hour ago, Mellmac said:

Not to mention the drivers license and credit card prompt if you want to watch videos for that are marked adult.

It's a European legislation that's caused this

32 minutes ago, Bismut said:

I kinda doubt that Google, Facebook and such would be amped about not getting that sort of info confirmed about people.

At the end of the day, the more and more the EU fine and punish these big tech companies for Data breaches the more and more that our info will look like a liability to them

[MrSimplicity]

3 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

actually there is... forgot the name but you can verify your age through some government/ post thing here, but that wouldn't give google as much information... also they stopped asking for drivers license etc here, i guess because that's actually illegal... and a joke because most "age restricted" videos dont have a reason to be age restricted anyways,  they're usually R12 or lower...

It's a mix of promoting capitalism, legal loopholes, and borderline immorality. 

[Mellmac]

8 minutes ago, SimplyChunk said:

It's a European legislation that's caused this

At the end of the day, the more and more the EU fine and punish these big tech companies for Data breaches the more and more that our info will look like a liability to them

It is a fine line to thread on for the tech companies . EU has a good history to stirr up the pot. I do not agree with the European legislation on age verification. It only makes the privacy glass clearer for my information to be collected.

But I like the punishment of big tech companies. If they do not follow GDPR or have data breaches you need to step in line and pay up.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Mellmac
Had to clarify a point

[Mark Kaine]

13 minutes ago, SimplyChunk said:

It's a European legislation that's caused this

yeah, another one of those things were eu has a good idea and then doesn't know how to implement it properly... iirc they actually planned to have an anonymous way to verify your age (looked it up apparently "postident") but im not sure what happened with this, almost no one uses it afaik...

i just know google stopped asking me for verification long ago and ive never sent them anything*... and i just cant see it being legal to ask for this kind of information without an option to hide your identity...

 

*

Spoiler

and i can watch "age restricted" content i just have to click "yes i want to watch this" each time lol

 

[Heliian]

I watched a 3hr long video last week that had no ads in it. 

 

Stop blaming YouTube for ads, the creators are overloading the ads.  

 

It's also free content on YouTube, how else are you going to support the channels if there's zero ads? 

 

 

[JustFarmer]

I have seen six/ten minute videos, with four to six ads. Sorry but that doesnt even happen on the worst tv channels. google went overboard and so did the users because a lot of them are placed, by the users, not the youtube machine ai assisted (powered by google) president.

 

I have never used an adblocker but in the youtube forums, even video creators are getting fed up with videos that they dont want to make money with, full of ads. Ads, even the name itself resembles a std, the bane of the nets since, always mostly. Cant live with them, cant live without them.

 

Even then, the ads are just not good but thats not entirely youtubs fault. The things I want to buy, simply dont do youtube advertisments. Also, when you get the same advert on every video for a month, that makes no god damned sense. Thats not how you sell something, in fact its how you tell them to hate it.

[Mellmac]

1 hour ago, Heliian said:

I watched a 3hr long video last week that had no ads in it. 

 

Stop blaming YouTube for ads, the creators are overloading the ads.  

 

It's also free content on YouTube, how else are you going to support the channels if there's zero ads? 

 

 

1. Because the creator turned of ads. Probably because he or she thinks that ads are destroying the content the creator made.

2. I think you are thinking of this in a faulty perspective. It is Youtube that is not paying the creators enough per ad. They need to milk the viewers on ads because the company is to big to even care or to even find new innovative an creative ways to generate revenue.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Mellmac
Had to clarify my point.

[konstant213]

I`m watching youtube with ad blocking software for years now; last year i tried new browser (with no ublock installed ) and it was impossible to watch youtube.
P.S But i don`t use SponsorBlock.