rossman has lost the plot, hasn't he?

[Soukamoshirenai]

as i understand it, the use of an ad blocker is to block intrusive ads, but rossmann's glorification of ad blockers (among others) have reached a point where youtube addicts are looking for every possible way to block ads, this situation has turned places such as r/youtube into a cesspool of made up posts of complaining about ads and the anti-adblocker, one of the most upvoted posts of the week was some dude claiming that he needed not to have ads in a first aid video. lil bro wants to watch a youtube video before calling 911. 

 

i use ublock origin and im doing well enough, not a single annoying ad, but these ad blocker people want to block every possible ad, even if non-intrusive.

 

[Donut417]

9 minutes ago, taekononomiya said:

i use ublock origin and im doing well enough, not a single issue, but these ad blocker people want to block every possible ad, even if non-intrusive.

I have had ads on Facebook try to give me malware. So yes in my eyes all ads are bad because these dumb fucks refuse to verify who they are selling ads to.

[Mark Kaine]

40 minutes ago, taekononomiya said:

i use ublock origin and im doing well enough, not a single issue, but these ad blocker people want to block every possible ad, even if non-intrusive.

ok, ok... but ublock pretty much blocks 99% of all ads, and also how would *you* know which ads are malicious...?  hint: you don't lol

 

41 minutes ago, taekononomiya said:

the use of an ad blocker is to block intrusive ads

no, its to block *all* ads, and tracking, and *especially* "malicious" ads... all ads are "intrusive" by nature... 

[ImWilly]

54 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

I have had ads on Facebook try to give me malware

I had same experience as well

If the platform serving ads doesn't give any single crap on making actual good ads experience and care for their users, I don't see the problem of blocking it

[Lurking]

11 hours ago, taekononomiya said:

as i understand it, the use of an ad blocker is to block intrusive ads, 

All ads are intrusive. At minimum they take screen space and bandwidth, and distract.

 

Some news websites I use force disabling of ad blocker. At least I haven't found a workaround. For some, I suck it up and accept the ads. Others I just don't visit anymore since they are not worth the ads.

 

Some sites make me click that I say that I disabled adblocker (but I don't disable them). Some websites make me click that "I don't want to support them". 

 

So, there are ways to make us see ads. It isn't my fault if some websites aren't sophisticated enough to do that. Same for YT... it isn't my fault they don't mix the ads into the video. As long as there is obtainable technology to circumvent ads, many will use it. Human nature. 

[Neroon]

9 hours ago, Donut417 said:

I have had ads on Facebook try to give me malware. So yes in my eyes all ads are bad because these dumb fucks refuse to verify who they are selling ads to.

Are you saying this is the case everytime?

 

By all means, I use adblockers, and I agree with the sentiment, but I also know there are sites who do better, who have stopped just plugging in ads, and have switched to doing them manually again, as in they host the image and use a direct link to the page, so basically the way it was done 20 years ago.

 

No one likes ads, this nothing new, but not all ads are problematic, and this where standards should be developed. We need safe and reasonable ads. 

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, Neroon said:

Are you saying this is the case everytime?

It doesnt matter if its the case every time. What should I take a chance? Why should I have to compromise my security?

[Absentia13]

All ads are intrusive to me. I don't buy stuff from ads, I never have and never will. Unless I was buying it anyway and searching for it it's not going to make my interest in the thing any better or worse. For me personally, ALL ADS are just a nuisance. I will block ads everywhere, all the time for as long as possible. 

[Echothedolpin]

2 hours ago, Neroon said:

 

No one likes ads, this nothing new, but not all ads are problematic, and this where standards should be developed. We need safe and reasonable ads. 

I may be misunderstanding what you mean by ‘need’ but I would make the argument that we would be better off without any ads.

[Doobeedoo]

Well, f 'em, f ads. Especially how aggro on say yt and Twitch they are pushing them, yes some general text websites too. 

[Dedayog]

1 hour ago, Echothedolpin said:

I may be misunderstanding what you mean by ‘need’ but I would make the argument that we would be better off without any ads.

 

Get your wallet out, because without ads you'll be paying for everything you see.

 

1 hour ago, Absentia13 said:

All ads are intrusive to me. I don't buy stuff from ads, I never have and never will. Unless I was buying it anyway and searching for it it's not going to make my interest in the thing any better or worse. For me personally, ALL ADS are just a nuisance. I will block ads everywhere, all the time for as long as possible. 

And keep getting your consumed content for free

 

Don't forget the part where you're entitled to not have to pay for anything you consume, k?

 

Wouldn't want you to actually EARN that which you get.  Would we?

 

You do realize some of the people here have a point in regards to security, but just being a "nuisance" isn't a leg to stand on.

[Erioch]

Dude was always on the verge of losing the plot.  I remember watching one of his soldering videos years ago and he went on about a 15 minute tirade about the proper way to wipe your ass.  I'm not even kidding.

[ToboRobot]

14 hours ago, taekononomiya said:

as i understand it, the use of an ad blocker is to block intrusive ads, but rossmann's glorification of ad blockers where youtube addicts are looking for every possible way to say "ads bad" turned it into something where places such as r/youtube have become a cesspool of made up posts because personalities like him are glorifying ad blocking, ironically, through intrusive means. holy cow!

 

i use ublock origin and im doing well enough, not a single issue, but these ad blocker people want to block every possible ad, even if non-intrusive.

 

You think he lost the plot, because TVs can and do spy on people?

I think he is able to read the plot well.

[starsmine]

2 hours ago, Echothedolpin said:

I may be misunderstanding what you mean by ‘need’ but I would make the argument that we would be better off without any ads.

I do think we need ads to a degree. They are one of the best ways to get you to hear or learn about something you did not know enough about to even look up. 

[Vilacom]

Same shit different day, all ad blockers do is keep websites looking for ways to fight ad blockers.  You dont change a product that keeps getting stolen, you change a product that no one even considers worth stealing. The thing that keeps getting stolen you just lock up more effectively. 

Who knows what’ll happen, ultimately the ad block users will become an extremely small niche of people as the websites get better and better at turning off mainstream easy to install ad blockers and since the release schedule/quantity of YouTube just doesn’t make the normal piracy model worthwhile there will never be any actual reason for YouTube to change anything.  Personally i get a ton of value from my premium subscription, nearly 15k hours of YouTube since I signed up way back when it way YouTube red.  There are actually a good number of full on movies for free there that I didn’t even realize, hooray all manner of old school Godzilla movies.  

But maybe things like streaming and YouTube just will never actually be a sustainable business model and things will either go back to the cable/sitcom model and big shows like Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad will just stop being a thing since they’re too easy to pirate and extremely expensive to produce.  

Either that or there will have to end up being some kind of government subsidy that keeps YouTube going while keeping it a private entity for moderation purposes.  YouTube is just such a valuable repository of human knowledge at this point it would be a tragedy to lose it.  

Also yes, Rossman has very much lost the plot, for many more reasons than just this. 

 

[Absentia13]

1 hour ago, Dedayog said:

 

Get your wallet out, because without ads you'll be paying for everything you see.

 

And keep getting your consumed content for free

 

Don't forget the part where you're entitled to not have to pay for anything you consume, k?

 

Wouldn't want you to actually EARN that which you get.  Would we?

 

You do realize some of the people here have a point in regards to security, but just being a "nuisance" isn't a leg to stand on.

Nah, they are all straight trash that waste my time and annoy the crap out of me. If I find value in something I'll buy it, like the Gamers Nexus coasters or mouse pad. If I like an album I'll buy a shirt or go to a show which is a lot better than the 3 cents per song that a band gets if I buy the album. The entire world is a scam and money is flying out the door like no other time in history. I don't need to feed into streaming platforms, LTT store, movie companies, etc, where rich people get richer and those of us at the bottom still have next to nothing. Deal with it I guess. 

[RobertOfHill]

3 hours ago, Echothedolpin said:

I may be misunderstanding what you mean by ‘need’ but I would make the argument that we would be better off without any ads.

With an ad free internet, I hope you are prepared to pay for the sites you use. Storage isn't free, nor is traffic. I run Ublock Origin, but I also pay for sites I use regularly. I am a Youtube Premium subscriber, along with donations to other media and creators that I regularly enjoy.

 

It's one or the other, you can't have a free and ad free internet.

[RobertOfHill]

2 hours ago, Dedayog said:

 

Get your wallet out, because without ads you'll be paying for everything you see.

 

And keep getting your consumed content for free

 

Don't forget the part where you're entitled to not have to pay for anything you consume, k?

 

Wouldn't want you to actually EARN that which you get.  Would we?

 

You do realize some of the people here have a point in regards to security, but just being a "nuisance" isn't a leg to stand on.

Partial disagree. Some ads are so incredibly annoying that the only response I can have to them is a negative one. Some ads don't bother me all that much, but there is a range to be observed.

 

That being said, I don't shy away from paying for websites and content I regularly use and consume. I think that's just a hard truth people are going to have to get used to.

[Middcore]

r/youtube is an absolutely comical circlejerk of people who think that internet videos are as essential to life as oxygen and water and that a limitless supply should be provided to them for free. 

[Sauron]

6 hours ago, Neroon said:

No one likes ads, this nothing new, but not all ads are problematic, and this where standards should be developed. We need safe and reasonable ads. 

No, I feel absolutely no need for ads to exist. There isn't a way to ensure that all ads are safe, after all malicious ads are already illegal but they exist nonetheless. Further, no matter how "safe" you make them they're still content I didn't ask for and don't want to download on my machine, or to interfere with my usage of the internet.

 

The only reason there's a fuss about this is that trackers exist and ad providers have had the stupid, but profitable on the short term, idea of using them to track viewing statistics. By doing this they screwed themselves over; now if I block the ad the advertiser does not see a view and does not pay Google or whoever else for that placement. This is an insane and invasive way of doing things; ads you see on billboards don't track how many people look up (yet) and are paid for nonetheless. If they simply removed tracking data and asked for upfront payment for a certain appearance frequency this would not be an issue on either side.

45 minutes ago, RobertOfHill said:

With an ad free internet, I hope you are prepared to pay for the sites you use. Storage isn't free, nor is traffic. I run Ublock Origin, but I also pay for sites I use regularly. I am a Youtube Premium subscriber, along with donations to other media and creators that I regularly enjoy.

 

It's one or the other, you can't have a free and ad free internet.

Wikipedia is proof enough this is not a problem. If a service is useful and well made people are willing to donate to keep it running. What youtube wants however is not simply to cover the running costs; they want profit. And sorry, I really don't care about ensuring they can turn one. They were directly responsible for monopolizing video sharing on the internet and I won't be made to feel bad about them dealing with the consequences, or be strongarmed into paying to not see ads that make the website unusable and would have killed it had they been present before they were the only real player on the scene.

 

Louis has opinions I strongly disagree with but this isn't one.

3 hours ago, Dedayog said:

You do realize some of the people here have a point in regards to security, but just being a "nuisance" isn't a leg to stand on.

Not wanting something annoying to be downloaded to my machine using my internet connection is absolutely reason enough to block it. If youtube or whomever wants me to download and even watch it, it's on them to give me a compelling reason to. But as I mentioned, there's no reason it has to be this way; ad providers could simply stop tracking views.

[OhioYJ]

13 hours ago, Lurking said:

Some news websites I use force disabling of ad blocker. At least I haven't found a workaround. 

On many sites just disabling JavaScript will fix that. The NoScript plugin will allow you to easily enable / disable scripts. 

[Neroon]

5 hours ago, Donut417 said:

It doesnt matter if its the case every time. What should I take a chance? Why should I have to compromise my security?

You said, and I quote: "So yes in my eyes all ads are bad because these dumb fucks refuse to verify who they are selling ads to."

We are having a discussion abouts ads, if you straight up claim that all are bad for the reasons you mentioned, it means there is no discussion possible with you, because reality is that not all ads are bad, ads can be perfectly safe.

 

My argument is that ads needs to be made safe. You argument is that this is not possible, or are you changing your argument?

4 hours ago, Echothedolpin said:

I may be misunderstanding what you mean by ‘need’ but I would make the argument that we would be better off without any ads.

Would we? Are you willing to pay for everything out of pocket? I really struggle with how people can pretend that ads are just pure evil and that everything should be free. There are 3 ways they get paid, ads/sponsors, consumers paying, or selling your data. Often all 3 are used in various ways. People don't want their data sold, they don't want to pay, and don't want ads. Basically they want content creators to do charity.

41 minutes ago, Sauron said:

No, I feel absolutely no need for ads to exist. There isn't a way to ensure that all ads are safe, after all malicious ads are already illegal but they exist nonetheless. Further, no matter how "safe" you make them they're still content I didn't ask for and don't want to download on my machine, or to interfere with my usage of the internet.

 

I mean you can't guarantee any 100% safety in anything. LMG could put malicious shit on this forum tomorrow. It's that simple.

 

What can happen is that sites take control of the ads, just like back in the day. Basically you pay us X amount per month, you send us the image of your ad, and we host it on our site with a link to the main page of your site, also we will only host ads for reputable companies.

 

Is that perfectly safe? Nope. But like I said, nothing is, you don't need ads for that.

 

As for not needing ads, read my apart above your quoted text. There is no such thing as free content.

[Donut417]

2 hours ago, Neroon said:

bad because these dumb fucks refuse to verify who they are selling ads to."

We are having a discussion abouts ads, if you straight up claim that all are bad for the reasons you mentioned, it means there is no discussion possible with you, because reality is that not all ads are bad, ads can be perfectly safe.

 

My argument is that ads needs to be made safe. You argument is that this is not possible, or are you changing your argument?

Never said it couldn’t be fixed. But as an American I know these companies won’t do their due diligence, even if the government is breathing down their necks. To me the burden of proof that ads are safe are on companies that sell ad space. Knowing that these corporations don’t give a fuck means I ain’t going to give one either. 

[Blademaster91]

3 hours ago, Neroon said:

My argument is that ads needs to be made safe. You argument is that this is not possible, or are you changing your argument?

Well its more of a safe option to assume all ads are bad, because these companies don't care as it is with scam and malware ads, I wouldn't expect that to change any time soon either so I leave an ad blocker on for everything.

3 hours ago, Neroon said:

Would we? Are you willing to pay for everything out of pocket? I really struggle with how people can pretend that ads are just pure evil and that everything should be free. There are 3 ways they get paid, ads/sponsors, consumers paying, or selling your data. Often all 3 are used in various ways. People don't want their data sold, they don't want to pay, and don't want ads. Basically they want content creators to do charity.

And I struggle with how people defend these corporations as if they need your money while they want to force intrusive and dangerous ads onto everyone. Ad blockers are simply a solution to the problem these companies have caused, people don't want to view ads and have lost trust with seeing ads at all given that even allowing them is a security risk.

Most companies are going to sell your data no matter if you pay or not, especially with Youtube, so IMO people should have no issue with using an ad blocker, just support the content creators you watch if you feel like you want to support them.

5 hours ago, RobertOfHill said:

With an ad free internet, I hope you are prepared to pay for the sites you use. Storage isn't free, nor is traffic. I run Ublock Origin, but I also pay for sites I use regularly. I am a Youtube Premium subscriber, along with donations to other media and creators that I regularly enjoy.

 

It's one or the other, you can't have a free and ad free internet.

Except youtube/google will still collect data regardless if you pay for it, so it isn't free as a user.

Also as Rossmann points out in the video ,YT/Google wants to verify your home address after you sign up for YT premium, IMO that sounds like an invasion of privacy. But YT/Google won't ask for that if you use an ad blocker instead of paying to remove ads. The point of the video is people shouldn't be so accepting of paying for things and still getting treated like crap or getting an even worse service than you could for free.

[Vilacom]

4 hours ago, Sauron said:

Wikipedia is proof enough this is not a problem. If a service is useful and well made people are willing to donate to keep it running. What youtube wants however is not simply to cover the running costs; they want profit. And sorry, I really don't care about ensuring they can turn one. They were directly responsible for monopolizing video sharing on the internet and I won't be made to feel bad about them dealing with the consequences, or be strongarmed into paying to not see ads that make the website unusable and would have killed it had they been present before they were the only real player on the scene

Wikipedia has an operating budget slightly under 150 million dollars and if you include ALL the media you can download the entire website with just over 140 gigabytes free on your hard drive. 

YouTube's operation budget is just north of 5 billion dollars and the uploaded videos every single day exceed four petabytes.  

Roughly 3% of wikipedia users actually donate, if you assume a similar ratio for youtube's 2.7 billion users you'd get 91 million who would need to donate over $60 per year, which is more than 4x as much as the average donation to wikipedia($15).  Wikipedia also actually survives by large donations($50,000+) from more than 20 "Major Benefactors" one of which is google that gave 3 million in 2022.

Wikipedia doesn't even survive on individual donations, dont kid yourself, if you wait for users to pay what something is actually worth by choice then all you'll do is have a failed business.

Edit: To be clear as well, that is just the OPERATING budget for youtube, it includes none of the money that gets paid out to creators which reportedly averaged about 10 billion per year getting paid to creators alone from ad revenue....so that 60 bucks is gonna need to go up quite a bit if 10 billion is the 45% of ad revenue that actually goes to creators.