Countering the Ad-Blockers being theft argument

[will0hlep]

6 minutes ago, Biohazard777 said:

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?

Well kinda,

 

On TV, the Ad companies only pay for the ad to be shown, not for the ad to be seen (this is the desired outcome, but it is known that this is not garenteed. The contracts don't say x number of people will watch the ad intently, they say the ad will be broadcast x number of times and a x times of day and on x days of the week/month/year). So, they are getting what they paid for even if you leave the room.

[BrandonLatzig]

3 minutes ago, Biohazard777 said:

Indeed, and what exactly did the company paying for advertisement get out of it?

the paid for the hope that enough people will see it and be interested in it. 
they didn't pay for it to reach 100% of viewers and for them to be all interest in it. Same has how renting a billboard might be a waste of money if people hate your ad.
Thats just advertising, the whole point is TELLING people you exist and you do things.

[Biohazard777]

2 minutes ago, will0hlep said:

Well kinda,

 

On TV, the Ad companies only pay for the ad to be shown, not for the ad to be seen. So, they are getting what they paid for even if you leave the room.

Just now, BrandonLatzig said:

the paid for the hope that enough people will see it and be interested in it. 
they didn't pay for it to reach 100% of viewers and for them to be all interest in it. Same has how renting a billboard might be a waste of money if people hate your ad.
Thats just advertising, the whole point is TELLING people you exist and you do things.

Whoa, whoa, slow down...
Weren't mental gymnastics reserved for privateers? 

[will0hlep]

3 hours ago, Biohazard777 said:

Whoa, whoa, slow down...
Weren't mental gymnastics reserved for privateers? 

It's not mental gymnastics at all , it's the truth,

 

The Ad companies only pay for the ad to be shown,

The contracts don't say x number of people will watch the ad intently,

They say the ad will be broadcast x number of times, at y time(s) of day and on z day(s) of the week/month/year (or put up for x days from date y),

The contracts likely also include a price structure negotiated to reflect the likely numbers watching or seeing it based on statistics measured afterwards, if the price structure is wrong then the ad company neogotiated badly and got a sh*t deal but it still dosn't make dodging the ad by muting the channel piracy.

Your not being shafted if you get what you pay for (which in this case is a chance at having your ad seen).

[Rex Hite]

31 minutes ago, will0hlep said:

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 .)

Sure, technically, but not watching ads make me feel all bad-assed and rebellious. Not like those sheeple sitting there with full bladders, no tea and the faint yet growing sense of their own diminished self-worth.

[will0hlep]

4 minutes ago, Rex Hite said:

Sure, technically, but not watching ads make me feel all bad-assed and rebellious. Not like those sheeple sitting there with full bladders, no tea and the faint yet growing sense of their own diminished self-worth.

So what your saying is: leaving the room and not watching the ads on TV makes you feel good cause you get the rush of commiting a crime, without commiting any form of piracy.

 

Whatever floats your boat, my friend

[Biohazard777]

34 minutes ago, will0hlep said:

It's not mental gymnastics at all , it's the truth,

 

The Ad companies only pay for the ad to be shown,

The contracts don't say x number of people will watch the ad intently,

They say the ad will be broadcast x number of times, at y time(s) of day and on z day(s) of the week/month/year,

The contracts say nothing about who is watching (although the price will be negotiated to reflect the likely numbers watching, if the price is wrong then the ad company neogotiated badly and got a sh*t deal but it still dosn't make your actions piracy).

Your not being shafted if you get what you pay for (which in this case is a chance at having your ad seen).

Now replace company with YT.
YT pays for a chance to serve ads & sell subscriptions.
They aren't getting shafted, they are getting what they payed for. 

 

3 hours ago, will0hlep said:

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.

14 minutes ago, will0hlep said:

So what your saying is: leaving the room and not watching the ads on TV makes you feel good cause you get the rush of commiting a crime, without commiting any form of piracy.

Easy now, since when is blocking ads a criminal offense?
When that happens, sure equate it to piracy. 

[will0hlep]

6 minutes ago, Biohazard777 said:

Now replace company with YT.
YT pays for a chance to serve ads & sell subscriptions.
They aren't getting shafted, they are getting what they payed for. 

remember while reading: as I've stated above I use adblock and am not trying to high road you

I assume you mean Ad companies pay to have their ads served. And they do.

However, if you adblock, the ad dosn't get served and YT (and creators) don't get paid (which is why this is different from walking away from TV advertising, where the ad is served and the TV company is paid either way).
 

The difference is clear

TV but you left the room: the ad is served and everyone who stayed saw it. As the ad company only paid for the ad to be shown, the TV company gets paid and you have paid for the content.

Youtube with adblock: the ad is never served to you and youtube and the creators don't get paid for their content and infesturture. You havn't paid for the content and have commited piracy.

 

The issue of if TV ad companies get a good deal is seperate to whether the adblockers are piracy.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Biohazard777 said:

Easy now, since when is blocking ads a criminal offense?
When that happens, sure equate it to piracy. 

was meant as a joke,

[Biohazard777]

34 minutes ago, will0hlep said:

I assume you mean Ad companies pay to have their ads served. And they do.
However, if you adblock, the ad dosn't get served and YT (and creators) don't get paid (which is why this is different from walking away from TV advertising, where the ad is served and the TV company is paid either way).

The company (let's say Philips) pays for a chance for an ad to be seen (some new light bulb) on TV or a billboard.
If someone walks / looks away, it is still fair, after all they payed for a chance for an ad to be seen, no guarantees that people will watch it.
(This is what you and @BrandonLatzig said)

Which finally brings us to YT itself. Philips doesn't pay anything if the ad isn't shown on YT.
YT pays (in bandwidth, storage, and so on) for a chance people will buy a subscription or watch ads.
Because the platform isn't pay walled, doesn't require sign in, and by the looks of it they aren't committed to block/ban such behavior.
(I wonder why )

So, in a way... telling people to not block YT ads is like telling people not to fast forward commercials on their cable TV or walk away if the event is live.

Told you, we shouldn't go down this path of mental gymnastics, Lord only knows where it may lead us. 

[Rex Hite]

If a viewer, careful to play by the rules and not be branded a thief yet simultaneously trying to minimise their exposure to ad content, then they have to know the specific business arrangements that creators, distributors and platforms have all agreed to before an ethical decision on whether or not to consume and ad can be made. The difference between thievery and honesty, filthy pirate and upstanding citizen is apparently in the details of some contract made between other parties. This seems like a lot of bother and burden left to the hapless viewer to figure out.

[will0hlep]

Just now, Biohazard777 said:

YT pays (in bandwidth, storage, and so on) for a chance people will buy a subscription or watch ads.

So effectively, your position is that the ad counting as played is not the fee you pay to watch the content? If that isn't the fee, what is the fee for watching?

 

6 minutes ago, Biohazard777 said:

Because the platform isn't pay walled, doesn't require sign in, and by the looks of it they aren't committed to block/ban such behavior.

I'd argue that the site is paywalled by the ads and those of us with adblocker (me included) are circumventing that paywall. I'd also argue that the last few weeks has seen google attempt to come down hard on adblockers. There were several days this week were I had to try different ad blocker to avoid popups that blocked access to content.

 

1 minute ago, Biohazard777 said:

So, in a way... telling people to not block YT ads is like telling people not to fast forward commercials on their cable TV or walk away if the event is live.

I'm not telling anyone not to adblock, I myself encourage it, I just think adblock is piracy.

Also, the two are totally different: if you fast forward or walk away from an ad break, the TV company still got paid and you therefore still paid for the content. If you ad block, you got access to the content without youtube and the creators getting paid, hence piracy.

 

1 minute ago, Rex Hite said:

If a viewer, careful to play by the rules and not be branded a thief yet simultaneously trying to minimise their exposure to ad content, then they have to know the specific business arrangements that creators, distributors and platforms have all agreed to before an ethical decision on whether or not to consume and ad can be made. The difference between thievery and honesty, filthy pirate and upstanding citizen is apparently in the details of some contract made between other parties. This seems like a lot of bother and burden left to the hapless viewer to figure out.

It's actually far simpler than the contracts. It's as simple as, did the creator and platform get paid for your access to the content they created and hosted. If yes, then it isn't piracy. If no, then it is piracy.

 

Whether or not the advertisers got a good deal is irrelivant to if you've commited piracy.

[WildDagwood]

Devils advocate but why is it considered the "price of entry" and piracy to block ads (by some) when Google is already profiting off of you and your data?

[will0hlep]

54 minutes ago, WildDagwood said:

Devils advocate but why is it considered the "price of entry" and piracy to block ads (by some) when Google is already profiting off of you and your data?

It's all the price of entry (and, let it be known that I hate this situation too). Being served the ads (not watching them, but being served them) and forfieting your data is all part of the price of entry. I'm not arguing it's a good price, or that you should pay it. Just that not paying the price that is set for access to the content and platform is piracy.

 

IMO we should all use adblock (and other privacy measures) (and commit piracy) on youtube until the value of advertising is low and data is non-trivial to collect, and youtube is forced to set a more reasonable price, while also finding other ways to compensate creators.

[Biohazard777]

1 hour ago, will0hlep said:

So effectively, your position is that the ad counting as played is not the fee you pay to watch the content? If that isn't the fee, what is the fee for watching?

I'll leave that for them to figure out. They must have their reasons, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.
 

1 hour ago, will0hlep said:

I'd argue that the site is paywalled by the ads and those of us with adblocker (me included) are circumventing that paywall. I'd also argue that the last few weeks has seen google attempt to come down hard on adblockers. There were several days this week were I had to try different ad blocker to avoid popups that blocked access to content.

Maybe it is a regional thing.
All I've seen in browser (Brave) was a total of two popups saying how it isn't allowed and an X button to close the popup and carry on.
On my TVs I've seen nothing, SmartTube worked fine.
And I am singed into all of those devices, even on SmartTube. Maybe that partially answers your previous question as well.
 

1 hour ago, will0hlep said:

I'm not telling anyone not to adblock, I myself encourage it, I just think adblock is piracy.

Also, the two are totally different: if you fast forward or walk away from an ad break, the TV company still got paid and you therefore still paid for the content. If you ad block, you got access to the content without youtube and the creators getting paid, hence piracy.

Yes the TV company still got payed, but what about Philips (from my example), they payed to be seen but weren't seen.
YT pays to serve the content and if I pay for a subscription / watch an ad great, if not - oh well no guarantees (same as for Philips).

Also you've mentioned creators several times now, that is another topic, which I feel has been beaten to death already but sure.... if you wanna go there.

[demonix00]

Also I consider an ad blocker to be a malware/virus prevention tool considering the amount of crap that was embedded in adverts that gave false alerts and redirected to fake AV sites.

 

If google/alphabet wants people to stop using adblockers, they (along with every other internet advertising company) need to step up to the plate and verify that all adverts are safe and don't contain any malicious code.

 

There's also the fact that I've seen a lot of scam adverts showing up for swamp coolers being falsely advertised as AC replacements, tiny heaters that are supposedly hated by the power companies that couldn't heat a single room and drones that don't have any of the features that are advertised and really needs to be addressed as well.

[will0hlep]

46 minutes ago, Biohazard777 said:

I'll leave that for them to figure out.

They have figured it out: they charge you for watching the content by serving you ads and collecting your data. Their pay wall might currently be full of holes, but that dosn't mean using those holes isn't piracy.

 

46 minutes ago, Biohazard777 said:

Yes the TV company still got payed, but what about Philips (from my example), they payed to be seen but weren't seen.

YT pays to serve the content and if I pay for a subscription / watch an ad great, if not - oh well no guarantees (same as for Philips).

Let me give you another example. Imagine your at one of those supermarkets with scales in the fruit and veg section. When you buy first or veg you have to tell the machine what type of fruit and veg your buying and then weigh it to get the price. If you wanted to pay less you could alway tell the machine it was a type of fruit or veg that was cheaper per kg, but doing so is certainly theft.

 

In my scenario the situation certainly isn't: shop pays to stock fruit and veg (labour costs, building rental, cost of produce, ect.) and if I pay correct amount/pay for it at all, then great, if not - oh well no guarantees.

As for Philips, you continue to ignore that they neogotiating the price to compensate for the fact that they know not everyone is watching. They only pay for the slot. They only pay for the ad to be served. They do this cause they can't accurately measure who is watching unlike YT (who can count viewers) and the shop in my example (who can see their produce went missing).

Your also ignoring that your relationship to a TV advertiser is different to your relationship to youtube and creators. With YT and creators: You are buying access to the content (like buying the fruit in the shop) from youtube and the creators (the shop) with the ad slot and your data (in lieu/instead of payment). In the Philips case: when you see (or don't see) the ad, your not buying anything from philips at that moment. At that moment, you are buying access to the channel from the TV company by being served the ad (whether you watch it or not).

 

If you can't see the difference between the 2 scenarios you've listed then I expect we simply arn't going to find common ground and we should simply go our seperate ways: me believing that I'm commiting piracy using adblock, and you believing that your not.

 

I guess we still have the common ground that adblock is to be recommended .

 

46 minutes ago, Biohazard777 said:

Also you've mentioned creators several times now, that is another topic, which I feel has been beaten to death already but sure.... if you wanna go there.

How is it a different topic, they also don't get paid when you use an adblock? You access their content and they are not compensated for it.

 

30 minutes ago, demonix00 said:

Also I consider an ad blocker to be a malware/virus prevention tool considering the amount of crap that was embedded in adverts that gave false alerts and redirected to fake AV sites.

I agree adblock is a useful tool for this (as I've said above) and I recommend everyone uses one. However, that dosn't change the fact that when we (myself included) use an adblocker on youtube, and therefore don't compensate youtube and the creators for the content we are viewing, we are commiting piracy.

[Kisai]

3 hours ago, will0hlep said:

It's not mental gymnastics at all , it's the truth,

 

The Ad companies only pay for the ad to be shown,

The contracts don't say x number of people will watch the ad intently,

They say the ad will be broadcast x number of times, at y time(s) of day and on z day(s) of the week/month/year,

The contracts say nothing about who is watching (although the price will be negotiated to reflect the likely numbers watching, if the price is wrong then the ad company neogotiated badly and got a sh*t deal but it still dosn't make your actions piracy).

Your not being shafted if you get what you pay for (which in this case is a chance at having your ad seen).

Nope. Nope.

 

Each ad source has statistics. Billboards have known traffic (eg cars, transit and foot traffic) that can see them. Television and Radio has known broadcast statistics and also has people with Nielsen (or Numeris in Canada.) Cable has even better broadcast statistics because cable companies know their exact subscriber numbers from their cable plants. IPTV services, even know down to the second of what you are watching. So does Youtube and Twitch.

 

All these places selling advertisements, know exactly what their own traffic is (unless they just plopped google adsense onto their site, then they likely don't know they are selling what should be $3.00CPM for 0.01CPM most of the time.) Unfortunately, it's always a race to the bottom to sell more quantity than quality ads. If I were to give you a list of every single ad I've seen on Youtube, you'd see the same 4 ads shown repeatedly, I keep being shown ads for "legal" drugs, or ads from cult-owned newspapers. Yes totally serious.)  This too me tells me that youtube doesn't see my "viewership" as valuable and is thus pushing the "scams, and garbage" ads on me, and thus the youtube channel that those ads were shown on probably earned a 1/100th of penny instead of maybe 2 cents.

 

These sites would rather not have subscriptions to bypass the ads on them, because they know it would shrink their ad statistics, which is why Youtube and Twitch go out of their way to hide how to subscribe and turn ads off. Showing ads on a popular channel, has unlimited upside if the viewership is "good quality". You might get CPM's that far exceed any paid subscription revenue. That's the model Netflix, Hulu, etc assume to be true.

 

But the hard fact is, only maybe 1 in 1000 people who view/read your content is going to subscribe, and that only goes up, the smaller your audience is. Because the people who really enjoy your content will continue to subscribe to your content because they believe they are supporting YOU. But if they realize that you're only getting like 30% (eg Twitch affiliate) or none (Youtube or Twitch without affiliate/partner) they will try to to subscribe to you by other means (eg Patreon) but that won't remove the ads from the channel. Hence a lot less people are willing to do that.

 

It actually makes a lot more financial sense to NOT be an affiliate or partner, and instead have your video content on a platform you control, but if you do that, your discovery goes to ZERO, and then you are now paying the advertising game rather than receiving revenue, you are now the customer.

 

Have you ever seen a LTT ad on a non-LTT video? Why yes, I have, because some of those sponsor shoutouts have been used by those sponsors in their own ads that they have advertised on youtube. Not very often, but that is why it's often more valuable to pay the channel directly for promotional spots, because those ads remain permanently part of the video they were originally put in (I don't see LTT ever retroactively cutting promotions from their videos, since they can't replace them.)

 

There is also a thing that YOU, should be doing as a content creator, and that is to shill your own merchandise in your own videos, and then REPLACE these spots with promotional ads you did for third parties IF they are paying you for it. If you can not benefit from your own ad space, you should not be letting google to just stick worthless 0.01CPM ads on in those spaces. Your own merch, if you have it, is worth more in those spaces than any garbage inventory google might stick in it.

 

Footnote ( I tried to get a screenshot, of the ads on LTT right now, and if I hit F5 about a dozen times, they stop showing ads after 5 times. The most common static ad on the right was for that cult's newspapers, and dubious mobile game sites. The most common video ad that showed up was for 1-star rated browser plugins ("don't buy anything off amazon before you ...." is how it starts))

 

You know youtube's advertisement algorithm is working, SOMETIMES, when it shows you Coca-Cola or McDonalds, or the occasional vehicle ad. You know it's broken when you are seeing those fake mobile game ads and fake browser plugins.

 

[will0hlep]

18 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Nope. Nope.

I'm sorry, can you TLDR this, I can't actually understand exactly what your disagreeing with me on?

I'm aware the money creators get from these platforms isn't as good as it should be or as good as any of us would like, and certainly am not arguing it is.

 

I'm also aware that ads are terriable right now, which is why I use adblock (and consider myself a pirate), but that dosn't change the fact that having them served is the price for access to the content on youtube and not paying that price is piracy.

 

If your point is that each ad source has more statistics than I'm giving it credit for, then I amend my orginal statement to:

 

"The Ad companies only pay for the ad to be shown,

The contracts don't say x number of people will watch the ad intently,

They say the ad will be broadcast x number of times, at y time(s) of day and on z day(s) of the week/month/year (or put up for x days from date y),

The contracts likely also include a price structure negotiated to reflect the likely numbers watching or seeing it based on statistics measured afterwards, if the price structure is wrong then the ad company neogotiated badly and got a bad deal but it still dosn't make dodging the ad (by muting or turning off the TV/Radio or refusing to look at the billboard) piracy."

[NsRhea]

59 minutes ago, will0hlep said:

In my scenario the situation certainly isn't: shop pays to stock fruit and veg (labour costs, building rental, cost of produce, ect.) and if I pay correct amount/pay for it at all, then great, if not - oh well no guarantees.

With YT and creators: You are buying access to the content (like buying the fruit in the shop) from youtube and the creators (the shop) with the ad slot and your data (in lieu/instead of payment).

 

I like this analogy but find it slightly off the mark.

 

In traditional retail fronts, the shops (content creators) pay the storefronts (YouTube) for storing (HDD space), stocking (bandwidth), and promoting the product inside the store (algorithm). Where it differs though is YT doesn't charge creators. YT also has unlimited floor space so creators have the onus of promoting and maintaining their own product for consumption.

 

In this analogy the creator has carte blanch for content because their storefront is free. You have 2.3 billion potential 'buyers' simply for existing in that space. You can't expect everyone that enters the store to pay you because you're on the shelf.

 

On the flip side; YouTube DOES charge for floor space for advertisers. The creators in this instance are the floor space. Because Youtube has unlimited floor space with no regulation on content quality, it's on YouTube to either regulate the content or regulate the advertisements. Having signs on the floor in front of content (banner ads or those bottom bar overlays) would be expected. It promotes different material in the store. It keeps people wandering the aisles.

 

Imaging you're in Walmart about to buy a pizza, but before you buy a pizza a man stops in front of you blocking the door for 30 seconds. That's a best case scenario for ads currently. Tombstone (the creator) isn't "out" anything beyond paying Walmart for freezer space. Now imagine to have access to the pizza the man blocking you drags you to another aisle (website redirect), kicks you in the dick, steals your wallet (ID theft), and then gives your ID to anyone who wants (profit for them). That's the current state of advertisements, by and large. And YouTube (Walmart) not only knows this is happening, but charges the man for the privilege of prowling their store. Tombstone (the creators) should be furious at the advertisers for their practices, and furious at the store for allowing this to happen, not blaming the people in the store for carrying a knife (adblock) to defend themselves.

 

You're losing POTENTIAL sales because YouTube won't protect shoppers, but you're NOT LOSING MONEY for shoppers not buying your product because YouTube isn't charging you for space. If you want people to pay for your product, you can't rely on Google / YouTube to make it better. You need to adjust how you get paid by diversifying income options.

 

Edit: I do want to clarify I see a difference in Google not getting paid by users vs creators not getting paid.

[Needfuldoer]

If you’re not a Nielsen household, your viewing habits don’t affect ratings in the slightest. 
 

Every ad impression matters online. 

[wasab]

Nah, I think I should get everything for free

[Biohazard777]

1 hour ago, will0hlep said:

They have figured it out: they charge you for watching the content by serving you ads and collecting your data. Their pay wall might currently be full of holes, but that dosn't mean using those holes isn't piracy.

We've gone over that already, blocking ads isn't a criminal offense. Piracy is.

Also, I'm not blocking them from collecting my data. I couldn't, even if I really wanted to... they are just so good at it.
Now isn't that funny, that (collection without my consent) actually is punishable by law.

 

1 hour ago, will0hlep said:

Let me give you another example. Imagine your at one of those supermarkets with scales in the fruit and veg section. When you buy first or veg you have to tell the machine what type of fruit and veg your buying and then weigh it to get the price. If you wanted to pay less you could alway tell the machine it was a type of fruit or veg that was cheaper per kg, but doing so is certainly theft.

 

In my scenario the situation certainly isn't: shop pays to stock fruit and veg (labour costs, building rental, cost of produce, ect.) and if I pay correct amount/pay for it at all, then great, if not - oh well no guarantees.

Bonkers.
For starters, that isn't theft - it is fraud. 
What you described is truly a criminal offense.
Price tag switching, improper self-checkout activity, false returns are all classified as fraud under $5000 by s. 380(1)(b) of the Criminal Code in CA.
And many other countries...
Why stores rarely go after them is complicated, but it isn't unheard of.
 

1 hour ago, will0hlep said:

As for Philips, you continue to ignore that they neogotiating the price to compensate for the fact that they know not everyone is watching. They only pay for the slot. They only pay for the ad to be served. They do this cause they can't accurately measure who is watching unlike YT (who can count viewers) and the shop in my example (who can see their produce went missing).

I'm not ignoring it.
They can pretty accurately measure it though (TV), but even if they could not - it doesn't invalidate what I said.

Exactly, YT knows precisely how many of their users are blocking ads.
And I do not believe the reason why so many are slipping through is because of their incompetence to put a stop to it.

 

1 hour ago, will0hlep said:

Your also ignoring that your relationship to a TV advertiser is different to your relationship to youtube and creators. With YT and creators: You are buying access to the content (like buying the fruit in the shop) from youtube and the creators (the shop) with the ad slot and your data (in lieu/instead of payment). In the Philips case: when you see (or don't see) the ad, your not buying anything from philips at that moment. At that moment, you are buying access to the channel from the TV company by being served the ad (whether you watch it or not).

Nothing like buying fruit in the shop.
Tell me one shop that does only fruit and gave out free fruit for a decade to grow their market share / have near monopoly over selling fruit.
Oh wait that sounds like Amazon, and Epic . But hey, even they didn't just give it all out for free.

 

1 hour ago, will0hlep said:

How is it a different topic, they also don't get paid when you use an adblock? You access their content and they are not compensated for it.

Because they are further down the chain and their interest might not always align with YT interests. (see Linus clip above & merch messages, just one example).
We've been informed by various creators that YT ad revenue is not something they rely on, a single merch purchase or a single month of Patreon subscription will cover one viewer's ads for years. So why are those creators on YT, why isn't Linus only on FloatPlane, you know the answer... 
 

1 hour ago, will0hlep said:

I agree adblock is a useful tool for this (as I've said above) and I recommend everyone uses one. However, that dosn't change the fact that when we (myself included) use an adblocker on youtube, and therefore don't compensate youtube and the creators for the content we are viewing, we are commiting piracy.

I compensate the creators I watch often, and Google is definitely making money off of me.

[will0hlep]

1 hour ago, NsRhea said:

In this analogy the creator has carte blanch for content because their storefront is free. You have 2.3 billion potential 'buyers' simply for existing in that space. You can't expect everyone that enters the store to pay you because you're on the shelf.

I'm not expecting everyone that visits youtube to pay up just as the stores don't charge for entry. However, if you want to watch the videos (have some produce), there is a price to pay. If you don't pay the price on youtube, it is imo priacy.

 

1 hour ago, NsRhea said:

On the flip side; YouTube DOES charge for floor space for advertisers. The creators in this instance are the floor space. Because Youtube has unlimited floor space with no regulation on content quality, it's on YouTube to either regulate the content or regulate the advertisements. Having signs on the floor in front of content (banner ads or those bottom bar overlays) would be expected. It promotes different material in the store. It keeps people wandering the aisles.

 

Imaging you're in Walmart about to buy a pizza, but before you buy a pizza a man stops in front of you blocking the door for 30 seconds. That's a best case scenario for ads currently. Tombstone (the creator) isn't "out" anything beyond paying Walmart for freezer space. Now imagine to have access to the pizza the man blocking you drags you to another aisle (website redirect), kicks you in the dick, steals your wallet (ID theft), and then gives your ID to anyone who wants (profit for them). That's the current state of advertisements, by and large. And YouTube (Walmart) not only knows this is happening, but charges the man for the privilege of prowling their store. Tombstone (the creators) should be furious at the advertisers for their practices, and furious at the store for allowing this to happen, not blaming the people in the store for carrying a knife (adblock) to defend themselves.

 

You're losing POTENTIAL sales because YouTube won't protect shoppers, but you're NOT LOSING MONEY for shoppers not buying your product because YouTube isn't charging you for space. If you want people to pay for your product, you can't rely on Google / YouTube to make it better. You need to adjust how you get paid by diversifying income options.

 

Edit: I do want to clarify I see a difference in Google not getting paid by users vs creators not getting paid.

I have no interest in debating if the price (as I see it) that youtube charges users (ads and data collection) are good or not (FYI I believe they are awful prices too, which is why I use adblock). All I'm saying is that not paying (avoiding the ads and data collection) is piracy. That is all. I'm not saying you shouldn't do it. In fact I actively encourage you to do. I have an adblocker and I use it on youtube. All I'm saying is it is piracy. The quality of the ads is another subject. How eggegious data collection is another topic. I also am not trying to debate if creators should go else where or if youtube have created a bad market place. The only topic I'm talking on here is the matter of "is adblock piracy?". I'm not even trying to talk on "is piracy morally wrong?". Just "is adblock piracy?".

 

1 hour ago, Biohazard777 said:

We've gone over that already, blocking ads isn't a criminal offense. Piracy is.

Also, I'm not blocking them from collecting my data. I couldn't, even if I really wanted to... they are just so good at it.
Now isn't that funny, that (collection without my consent) actually is punishable by law.

 

Bonkers.
For starters, that isn't theft - it is fraud. 
What you described is truly a criminal offense.
Price tag switching, improper self-checkout activity, false returns are all classified as fraud under $5000 by s. 380(1)(b) of the Criminal Code in CA.
And many other countries...
Why stores rarely go after them is complicated, but it isn't unheard of.
 

I'm not ignoring it.
They can pretty accurately measure it though (TV), but even if they could not - it doesn't invalidate what I said.

Exactly, YT knows precisely how many of their users are blocking ads.
And I do not believe the reason why so many are slipping through is because of their incompetence to put a stop to it.

 

Nothing like buying fruit in the shop.
Tell me one shop that does only fruit and gave out free fruit for a decade to grow their market share / have near monopoly over selling fruit.
Oh wait that sounds like Amazon, and Epic . But hey, even they didn't just give it all out for free.

 

Because they are further down the chain and their interest might not always align with YT interests. (see Linus clip above & merch messages, just one example).
We've been informed by various creators that YT ad revenue is not something they rely on, a single merch purchase or a single month of Patreon subscription will cover one viewer's ads for years. So why are those creators on YT, why isn't Linus only on FloatPlane, you know the answer... 
 

I compensate the creators I watch often, and Google is definitely making money off of me.

We appear to agree on very little in this conversation and I don't think we ever will. I therefore suggest that we agree to disagree .

[Rex Hite]

The adblocker thing could all be settled if adblocking software was clever enough to spoof the content servers into recording that the ad was delivered, even though it was blocked. That way, everyone is happy. Delusions maintained all around. Kind of like the old days when I could go for a slash, put the kettle on and no one was the wiser. And apparently that system worked just fine.

This is not an issue of theft or piracy (an asinine expression) or of ethics or morals but of technological capability to fine-tune ad delivery and targeting; not something I or most people should concern themselves with. Literally none of my business.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Rex Hite said:

The adblocker thing could all be settled if adblocking software was clever enough to spoof the content servers into recording that the ad was delivered, even though it was blocked. That way, everyone is happy. Delusions maintained all around. Kind of like the old days when I could go for a slash, put the kettle on and no one was the wiser. And apparently that system worked just fine.

This is not an issue of theft or piracy (an asinine expression) or of ethics or morals but of technological capability to fine-tune ad delivery and targeting; not something I or most people should concern themselves with. Literally none of my business.

Then it wouldn't be blocking the ad, it would just be downloading the ad and not showing it.

 

Now, "technically", and I say this as someone who has setup ad nonsense before. Ad fraud is the act of basically recording more impressions or viewing time (video ads) than actually happened. When a site's traffic doesn't line up with what the advertiser is paying for, you lose the advertiser, and in some cases, your revenue gets deducted for the "fake traffic."

 

If you wanted to destroy the online advertising space, the quickest path to that is not blocking ads, but by hyper-cycling the ads until the ad fraud becomes completely unchecked and sites start seeing record ad fraud. not click fraud, just straight ad traffic fraud. You may have seen websites that refresh the ads every few seconds, or have ads after every sentence or paragraph, or those god-awful slide-show type of content farms full of stolen content, that have more space dedicated to ads than content.

 

You have to recognize the difference between "this site is purely a scam and wasting your time" over sites that have created their content, not merely stolen or plagiarized another source. This is the problem with LLM's right now, are that people are creating the laziest, low-effort GPT regurgitations of wikipedia articles, full of wrong information, and google is indexing these sites because they are appearing faster than the keyword stuffing SEO content farms of 3 years ago.

 

At SOME POINT, I expect google will have it's arm twisted to do something about ads on garbage content and misinformation farms. The fastest way this will happen is if garbage content is denied revenue, and that can be achieved faster by having web browsers default to "no third party cookies, no third party scripts, no webasm". But that requires a change in browser priorities, and that means people need to stop using Google Chrome and Android so Google can't undermine it.