Countering the Ad-Blockers being theft argument

[NsRhea]

For clarity, I've use ad-blockers since they've existed, and I don't think I'll ever stop given the state of the internet by and large.

 

Your content, statistically speaking, is not worth my time. I don't mean LTT but I am speaking to the broader creator.

 

Services like YouTube, Spotify, SoundCloud, and more allow any and everyone to upload content that is essentially unmoderated (except for the obvious racism / illegal activities). For creators this is excellent at removing barriers of entry or the requirement to sign over your rights of your content to a studio. It also gives you access to the largest audiences on Earth.

 

For users though, you're at the mercy of the algorithms. Creators expecting a user to watch a 30 second ad for every piece of random content they watch is not only ridiculous, it's downright disrespectful of their time. This is especially so when we consider for every one good-to-great creator worth watching, you can sift through hundreds or thousands of creators uploading literal fart videos, or 'reaction' videos they sit silent on the entire time. I'm much more likely to watch an ad baked into the video (such as those LTT does) than one shown at the beginning of a clip that is un-skippable. Statistically speaking, your content isn't worth the extra 30 seconds. If you are one of those good creators, I'd argue relying on Google to pay you isn't a good business decision. Merch, subscriptions, and baked in ads are a much better option imo.

 

This is where 'traditional' media dominates the internet. Content on cable networks or your airwaves is pretty moderated from a quality standpoint. Even the bad shows go through vetting processes. They want the highest quality programming because better programming means more eyes and more eyes means more money. I expect ads on TV because the floor entertainment level is much higher than endlessly browsing YouTube. Watch a random 20 minute YouTube video and compare it to a rerun of NCIS or whatever. You can catch gold, but statistically you're wasting your time - and that's the nature of YT allowing anyone to upload anything.

 

The bigger issue however, is the responsibility of content distributors such as Google.

 

I use an ad-blocker because I hate ads. I installed ad-block on every family computer because ads these days are unmoderated garbage. They're quite literally linking to malware, adware, crypto bros, pyramid schemes, dick pills, phishing sites, and more. My mother clicked an ad to get a quote to repair her windows, and her email address was sold to like 7 other spam sites. It's insane.  Yes, yes... There's the late night infomercial trying to sell me a $5 Magic Bullet blender for $49.99, but at least I'm not getting my credit card stolen, my address broadcast across whomever will pay for it, and my credentials being swept across other websites trying to gain access without my knowledge. I'm not dumb enough to click these links AND I understand the risk. I work in the CyberSecurity field and couldn't explain session hijacking or cookie theft enough to matter for my family to not click on 'too good to be true' links immediately after I left.

 

Tl;dr Statistically your content isn't worth watching advertisements for. If it is, generate money another way than expecting people to watch automatically served ads.

 

Content distributors don't do their due diligence into advertisers and what exactly they're advertising or linking to, creating MAJOR security risks for end users.

 

We also don't call it theft when I leave the room during a commercial break for football, either. Advertisers pay for access to audiences, not how many people actually watch the ads.

[GOTSpectrum]

Yeah... in my opinion though, if they offer a paid method of getting rid of ads, that clearly shows you that ads are needed to support the platform, thus just pay the damn fee or watch the damn ads. 

 

YouTube is so stupidly expensive that I'm surprised it's free at all, My opinion, YouTube should be a very cheap paid service, pay a dollar a month to use it, and every single user HAS to pay it. In my world, this one dollar tier would still include ads(skippable) and be limited to at most 720p 

 

Then 3 dollars for 1080p with one skippable ad per video and 5 dollars for ad free up to 4k... YouTbe should be a paid service, it just is not sustainable and having the rest of Alphabet subsidise it won't fly forever. 

 

TLDR Make it cheap, but make it paid 

[4bettingrags]

It appears we're entering a new arms race. I noticed over the past month that YouTube was getting super aggressive in attempting to crack down on people using extentions like uBlock. Older, tech-illiterate folk will always be susceptible to scams from someone working in a mold-ridden, dank call center in the heart of Bengal.

There's nothing egregious about wanting to stay safe, though some people will always be anti-establishment by nature. Google already makes copious amounts of revenue from harvesting our data, so fuck them.

 

Stand up and take a bow, Sir.

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

My resistence to youtube charging money is very simple: It was Google's idea all along:

1. Offer video streaming for free, burning through cash.
2. Subsidize content creators, burning through cash.
3. Get a monopoly by pushing out everyone that doesn't have gigantic stash of cash to burn trough and offer an expensive service for free.
4. Your competitors are out of businness. Google raise prices. People will have to pay the price Google sets.

Now Google is in Step 4. And I have big resistence to letting their monopolistic and anti-competitive master plan go trough. And it's not just Google. Uber's plan is to use VC cash to push Taxi out of businness and raise prices. WEWORK planned to subsidize rental, get every competitor out of businness, then raise prices!

 

We could have had sustainable video streaming services, that were killed by Google subsidation. Google is the one that pushed the hardest to offer free streaming, and now that they have won, Google is like "streaming is expensive, why would you ever think it could be free? Pay the price our monopolistic position allow as to dictate." NO.

 

Personally I'm not supporting Google victory here. I think it's openly anti-competitive and monopolistic behaviour that should be illegal. Nothing good comes out of big money subsidizing money losing businnesses to try and create a monopoly.

 

I'll enjoy the VC subsidized bandwidth as long as it lasts and never pay a cent.

P.S. I am happy paying for Curiosity Stream, because their plan wasn't to use cash to push everyone else out of businness. Fair price for fair service.

P.S. ublock on firefox still work.

[emothxughts]

I block ads because I hate looking at ads, always hated them since the days of television programs being interrupted by commercials. Simple as.

[4bettingrags]

5 minutes ago, emothxughts said:

I block ads because I hate looking at ads, always hated them since the days of television programs being interrupted by commercials. Simple as.

Such a vapid, rudimentary take. What a shocking revelation this is..... 

[OhioYJ]

I think YouTube is over valuing their content unfortunately. Even TV and radio doesn't have as many ad breaks as YouTube does at times. Apparently YouTube doesn't care about how I block ads as I haven't been bothered by any of these messages. However I know I just don't use Youtube, outside of my devices, or outside of my network, as it's not worth dealing with the ads. (I think this also shows, I'd be fine without YouTube.)

 

I'm not against them making money, or ads. Just they need to dial it back a little.

[will0hlep]

Before reading, keep in mind I use an adblocker. I'm not high roading you, and I'm not morally superiour.

 

Linus' arguement was simply that "adblocker is piracy". He is (imo) right.

 

Lets start with the simple part: It is clear that the price for watching content on youtube, is having the ad count as played. If the ad counts as played, then youtube and the creators gets their money. This is the same as ads on TV, having them count as played on your TV is the price for watching.

1 hour ago, NsRhea said:

We also don't call it theft when I leave the room during a commercial break for football, either. Advertisers pay for access to audiences, not how many people actually watch the ads.

The reason walking away isn't priacy is that the price is only that the ad count as played on your TV. You don't have to watch it for the TV company to get their money (or leave it unmuted, or even play it at all so long as it counts as played (for example: you could pause the TV at the start of the ad break and then jump to live 5 minutes later)). The same is true with youtube, if the ad counts as played, youtube and the creators get their money. Using an adblock is different from walking away. This is because blocking ads means the ad dosn't count as played and youtube and the creator don't get paid. Hence, if you use a ad block, you have not paid the price for entry and you are a pirate.

1 hour ago, NsRhea said:

Statistically your content isn't worth watching advertisements for.

If you feel this price of the content is too high for the quality it represents, and also don't want to be a pirate, then don't access youtube and don't watch the content.

1 hour ago, NsRhea said:

Content distributors don't do their due diligence into advertisers and what exactly they're advertising or linking to, creating MAJOR security risks for end users.

The quality of the ads dosn't change that having them count as being viewed is the price of access. Yes, they should be better vetted and regulated (as should all advertising on all platforms) but in a capatalist system, looking after the consumer is not a cooperations job. If you have a problem with how adverts are vetted, the morally correct way to deal with it would be to lobby your political representatives. And too repeat, if you feel the price google has set for the content is too high, and also don't want to be a pirate, then don't access youtube and don't watch the content.

 

 

As I said above, I use an adblocker and I do so in full understanding that using my adblocker means LMG, youtube and several other creators don't make a penny from my views and that I am pirating their content. I attempt to make up for this by buying merch, and using the like and comment system to try and boost creator in the eyes of the algorithm. But I know that I have pirated their content, and (lazy town song plays) that I am a pirate, and I've made my peace with that. Maybe you should too.

[podkall]

1 hour ago, GOTSpectrum said:

Yeah... in my opinion though, if they offer a paid method of getting rid of ads, that clearly shows you that ads are needed to support the platform, thus just pay the damn fee or watch the damn ads.

it may seem like that, but let's remember that corporations are good at seeming they are in need for cash, or justifying increasing the prices of their products/services,

 

You can see the example clearer on special unbeatable products nobody else offers and monopoly or semi-monopoly areas. Nvidia -> fast AI stuff -> $$$ -> gamers mad -> don't care AI companies will pay -> remember when miners were the ones buying the cards? -> again... don't care, miners and rich people will buy scalped GPUs anyways

 

I personally would find ads fine if they were reasonable with them, however I most often will use Adblock,

 

because ads aren't reasonable, you can easily get 2 ads that are at minimum 5 seconds long if skipped or minimum length, for a less than a 10 second video.

 

Talk about ratio, sometimes the advertising is so aggressive you watch more of ad than an actual video, and same goes for websites and other areas. Having limitless availability to where sites can put ads, banner on left, banner on right, banner in-between each paragraph, muted video ad, ad popup that closes and a whole page that opens just because you clicked somewhere, that's also just an ad or a transfer to advertised websites, meaning there are also invisible ads.

 

And more, apparently some ads can be dangerous, not to mention, misleading ads, scam ads and more.

 

There are even scam ads on youtube, "check out our website and claim 1000$". (at one point I've seen that ad so many times that reporting it felt useless)

 

YouTube, and let's not forget what YouTube is, a giant platform, that is basically just a Google's branch of many other things.

 

Out of all corporations Google shouldn't be scarce for money, it's literally everywhere, basically half people that have smartphone have Android, who has Android? What's Google Play? Save files on Google Drive. Write document on Google DOCS. Write an email on my G-Mail, listen to music on YouTube Music, ask Google Assistatnt, I'm lost let me look at Google Maps, I have some things I need to plan for let me use Google Calendar.

 

Google Google Google

 

 

13 minutes ago, will0hlep said:

If you feel this price of the content is too high for the quality it represents, and also don't want to be a pirate, then don't access youtube and don't watch the content.

I also heared Google used to fund Adblock companies and regularly donate them, strange right? Why would they do that?

Edited November 5, 2023 by podkall
edit

[will0hlep]

9 minutes ago, podkall said:

I also heared Google used to fund Adblock companies and regularly donate them, strange right? Why would they do that?

Before reading this: I use an adblocker, I'm not high roading you, I'm not morally superiour.

They are trying to increase chrome usage. Giving devs money to make ad blockers for chrome means that us tech savy people are more likely to use chrome (I use firefox myself to avoid ads). And whatever we use, the world uses cause: we setup the computers of everyone around us and we advise people when they have a question. I also suspect google is trying to pursade devs to create ad blocks the only work for non google ads.

 

However, whatever google is doing on funding adblockers, It dosn't change the fact that when you block ads (and stop them counting as played) you are failing to pay the price of entry. This is piracy and you should either stop, or make your peace with that.

[TetraSky]

Not this shit again...

My problem with Youtube's subscription, is that it is unnecessary expensive if all you want to do, is watch the occasional Youtube video.

I don't give a single fcks about Youtube Music. Just give me a cheaper tier without all the "features" that I don't care about, without ads.

Pretty much all the benefits you get with premium, are not to the benefits of users who watch youtube on their browser.

 

10 minutes ago, podkall said:

I also heared Google used to fund Adblock companies and regularly donate them, strange right? Why would they do that?

To get rid of the competition. That's also why many adblockers whitelisted Google Adsense by default years ago.
"these other ads are bad, but ours are good".

[will0hlep]

1 minute ago, TetraSky said:

My problem with Youtube's subscription, is that it is unnecessary expensive if all you want to do, is watch the occasional Youtube video.

I don't give a single fcks about Youtube Music. Just give me a cheaper tier without all the "features" that I don't care about, without ads.

Pretty much all the benefits you get with premium, are not to the benefits of users who watch youtube on their browser.

Before reading this: I use an adblocker, I'm not high roading you, I'm not morally superiour.

 

This, if this existed that would make me turn off my adblocker on youtube and stop my piracy.

[podkall]

2 minutes ago, will0hlep said:

I also suspect google is trying to pursade devs to create ad blocks the only work for non google ads.

not really sure, if 99% of ads on internet are "powered by google ads"

 

2 minutes ago, will0hlep said:

However, whatever google is doing on funding adblockers, It dosn't change the fact that when you block ads (and stop them counting as played) you are failing to pay the price of entry. This is piracy and you should either stop, or make your peace with that.

it's not piracy, it's blocking ads, it's almost same as blocking burgles from your house using better locks or whatever, I don't know if it's true, but apparently some ads can go as far as being literal malware

 

Just now, will0hlep said:

This, if this existed that would make me turn off my adblocker on youtube and stop my piracy.

it's not piracy

[will0hlep]

1 hour ago, GOTSpectrum said:

Yeah... in my opinion though, if they offer a paid method of getting rid of ads, that clearly shows you that ads are needed to support the platform, thus just pay the damn fee or watch the damn ads. 

 

TLDR Make it cheap, but make it paid 

The advantage of the free tier is that it attracts a massive audiance, which attracts lots of creators. I think if youtube ever removed the free tier it would start sinking pretty quickly. (although admittedly there is no president for this and I could be wrong )

[will0hlep]

23 minutes ago, podkall said:

it's not piracy, it's blocking ads, it's almost same as blocking burgles from your house using better locks or whatever, I don't know if it's true, but apparently some ads can go as far as being literal malware

Before reading this: I use an adblocker, I'm not high roading you, I'm not morally superiour.

 

Having the ads count as being viewed is the price of access to youtube. Using an adblocker is failing to pay that price, and therefore piracy. Just like if you bought a 3rd party pirate TV/cable box to avoid paying the monthly fees. You'd be failing to pay the price of entry/access, and commiting piracy.

 

The fact that some ads are literal malware/scams is terriable (and one of the reasons I use an adblock)*, but it dosn't change that fact that those ads are the price for entry (even if it you get "burgled" or your PC gets infected, it is still the price of entry). If you feel that that price for the content is too high, and also don't want to be a pirate, then don't access and watch the content. Otherwise keep using adblock (as I do) (which is failing to pay the price of entry and therefore piracy, whether you accept it or not (remember: I use an adblocker, I'm not high roading you, I'm not morally superiour.)) . (you can also stop using ad block and not be a pirate, but I don't recommend that ).

 

Is it really that difficult to accept that you are a pirate?

*Yes, they should be better vetted and regulated (as should all advertising on all platforms) but in a capatalist system, looking after the consumer is not a cooperations job. If you have a problem with how adverts are vetted, the morally correct way to deal with it would be to lobby your political representatives and vote for representatives who campaign on this issue (I do relaise the fruitlessness of this path in America though).

[will0hlep]

As a final note in this thread:

 

I whole heartedly recommend firefox with the AdBlocker Ultimate extension.

[Holmes108]

2 hours ago, GOTSpectrum said:

 My opinion, YouTube should be a very cheap paid service, pay a dollar a month to use it, and every single user HAS to pay it. In my world, this one dollar tier would still include ads(skippable) and be limited to at most 720p 

 

Then 3 dollars for 1080p with one skippable ad per video and 5 dollars for ad free up to 4k... YouTbe should be a paid service

 

I think this is a good idea. Youtube might be one of the only sites that could pull it off too.

 

Don't think it'd work for a twitter or Facebook as something can just replace it, but that's not the case for YouTube in the same way. 

 

 

[will0hlep]

3 minutes ago, Holmes108 said:

I think this is a good idea. Youtube might be one of the only sites that could pull it off too.

 

Don't think it'd work for a twitter or Facebook as something can just replace it, but that's not the case for YouTube in the same way.

Unfortuantly, I'm not convinced they could pull it off and I don't think google will ever want to risk their dominant position in this space.

 

I do think a cheaper youtube premium tier (which only included adblock on youtube) would be possiable though, and that would very much interest me.

[GOTSpectrum]

Just now, Holmes108 said:

 

I think this is a good idea. Youtube might be one of the only sites that could pull it off too.

 

Don't think it'd work for a twitter or Facebook as something can just replace it, but that's not the case for YouTube in the same way. 

 

 

Exactly, they have like 2-3billion active users, Let's say 10% of 3 billion users pay a dollar a month. In reality, I think it would be higher.

 

That's 300,000,000 per month.

 

If we are presuming 10% of 3 billion users(I don't know the current userbase, this is a thought experiment) and a transaction fee of 20%, that would be 2,880,000,000 USD per year

 

Also remember, that if everyone was on the one-dollar plan(Which they won't be) YouTube is still getting ad revenue too on top of that. But they could use that income as a "baseload" income so they can be more picky on what advertisements are running and possibly reduce the ads(They wouldn't reduce ads most likely, but yeah, they could).

 

Now if you are paying a dollar a month, and don't like ads, it's not a big leap to go to 5 dollars a month to get rid of those ads... You see how that works... 

[Biohazard777]

This thread seems like a good place:

 

Dang it Linus, make up your mind.
Are they overflowing or not ?!

[will0hlep]

33 minutes ago, GOTSpectrum said:

Exactly, they have like 2-3billion active users, Let's say 10% of 3 billion users pay a dollar a month. In reality, I think it would be higher.

 

That's 300,000,000 per month.

 

If we are presuming 10% of 3 billion users(I don't know the current userbase, this is a thought experiment) and a transaction fee of 20%, that would be 2,880,000,000 USD per year

 

Also remember, that if everyone was on the one-dollar plan(Which they won't be) YouTube is still getting ad revenue too on top of that. But they could use that income as a "baseload" income so they can be more picky on what advertisements are running and possibly reduce the ads(They wouldn't reduce ads most likely, but yeah, they could).

 

Now if you are paying a dollar a month, and don't like ads, it's not a big leap to go to 5 dollars a month to get rid of those ads... You see how that works... 

Lets do the maths:

Having googled it, "YouTube's global advertising revenues amounted to approximately 29.24 billion U.S. dollars in 2022" and "YouTube has more than 2.70 billion monthly active users as of 2023"

 

So youtube makes 0.90$ on average off each monthly user.

 

If they change to be a paid only service at $1 a month and lose 90% of their user base, then they're losing alot of money (compared to just running ads) and then move dosn't make business sense (they might survive on less revenue, but no cooperation will choose to make less).

 

If they simply offer a paid ad free tier (without youtube music ect.), it could work but it would have to cost more than 0.90$. This is because monthly users who are willing to pay to have no ads likely spend alot more time on the platform and therefore make up a much larger proportion of the ad revenue. To make this worth it for google, the price they charge needs to be high enough that the average person who pays to block ads is paying as much or more than would have been earned from the ads they watched. Unfortunatly there is no data on how much the top 1% and 10% earn in ad revenue for youtube, but I'll bet it's several times more than the average (In fact it probably must be, simply cause of how much youtube premium costs).

[will0hlep]

6 minutes ago, Biohazard777 said:

This thread seems like a good place:

Dang it Linus, make up your mind.
Are they overflowing or not ?!

Linus never said he wanted you to give money to google,

[Rex Hite]

I suppose I could be racked with guilt over leaving the room to put the kettle on or have a slash when the ads came on (not unrelated activities), and then I think of all the poor sods who bravely stayed and watched the adverts in their entirety, effectively subsidising my TV watching habit. But I'm not.

[will0hlep]

27 minutes ago, Rex Hite said:

I suppose I could be racked with guilt over leaving the room to put the kettle on or have a slash when the ads came on (not unrelated activities), and then I think of all the poor sods who bravely stayed and watched the adverts in their entirety, effectively subsidising my TV watching habit. But I'm not.

No one said you had to be racked with guilt .

 

(also, if you leave the room, the TV companies still get paid so that's not piracy .)

[Biohazard777]

3 minutes ago, will0hlep said:

(also, if you leave the room the TV companies still got paid so that's not piracy .)

Indeed, and what exactly did the company paying for advertisement get out of it?
At the end of the day, someone gets shafted that is for sure, the question is: who will it be?