YouTube Begins New Wave of Slowdowns For Users With Ad Blockers Enabled (9to5google.com) 307
An anonymous reader quotes a report from 9to5Google: YouTube recently started slowing down its entire site whenever ad blockers are used. A new wave of slowdowns is hitting users, with the only resolutions being disabling the ad blocker or upgrading to premium. To combat the increasing frequency of ads on YouTube, people have employed the use of ad blockers for years. According to YouTube, that method of avoiding ads is deemed a violation of the terms of service. Of course, pre-video ads are a huge source of income for the service, and the only way to avoid them without the use of a third-party application is to pay YouTube directly for premium.
YouTube has since started discouraging the use of ad blockers in a couple of ways. The first is with a pop-up message that reads, "Ad blockers violate YouTube's Term of Service." The message then suggests you turn off your ad blocker. The user is not allowed to continue watching without doing so. The second method is one that's now starting to roll out to more users. YouTube has recently started slowing the entire site when an ad blocker is being used, referring to it as "suboptimal viewing." According to a post on Reddit, multiple users have noted that YouTube has become laggy and unresponsive, seemingly all of a sudden. It was quickly discovered that disabling whichever ad blocker is being used immediately revitalizes the site.
YouTube has since started discouraging the use of ad blockers in a couple of ways. The first is with a pop-up message that reads, "Ad blockers violate YouTube's Term of Service." The message then suggests you turn off your ad blocker. The user is not allowed to continue watching without doing so. The second method is one that's now starting to roll out to more users. YouTube has recently started slowing the entire site when an ad blocker is being used, referring to it as "suboptimal viewing." According to a post on Reddit, multiple users have noted that YouTube has become laggy and unresponsive, seemingly all of a sudden. It was quickly discovered that disabling whichever ad blocker is being used immediately revitalizes the site.
So they want to get less viewers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's be real here. The greedy assholes at YouTube may think people cannot live without their service, but that is, obviously, not true. So all they will do is reduce viewership.
Re:So they want to get less viewers? (Score:4, Informative)
The enshittification continues. When I got the full block, I logged out and deleted cookies and continue ad-free unabated. Their recommendations had gotten worse and worse, so nothing of value was lost. The near daily updates to Adblock Pro that I get suggest there's a vigorous war going on in the background.
Re:So they want to get less viewers? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So they want to get less viewers? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've got an ad blocker. I noticed YouTube was very slow, I guess this is why. It's still way better than the ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame YouTube... blame creators who use mid-roll ads in their monetized videos.
None of my videos have mid-roll ads so you can watch 20-30 minutes of content with only 2 pre-roll ads and, if you hang around, 2 post-roll ads.
I believe in a fair "value exchange" between myself and those who watch my videos and that means I can't justify including mid-rolls.
For the time being, the choice of whether to litter a video with mid-roll ads remains with the creator if their channel is monetized -- so don't go bl
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a creator [youtube.com]. I'm not eligible for monetization. Whenever I watch my own videos without an ad blocker, the ads are just terrible.
Since I'm not eligible for monetization, this is all on YouTube. I have zero say in the matter. I believe, though not sure, that my longer videos even have mid-video ads.
Re: (Score:2)
The enshittification continues. When I got the full block, I logged out and deleted cookies and continue ad-free unabated. Their recommendations had gotten worse and worse, so nothing of value was lost. The near daily updates to Adblock Pro that I get suggest there's a vigorous war going on in the background.
I never log in to YT, yet when the first wave of anti-adblock spam messages started, I also found that nuking the cookies fixed the broken behaviour. (In fact, deleting cookies another piece of Google misbehaviour: the "prove you're human" bullshit they try to enforce when I keep refining search queries to get around their search engine's dumbing-down.
Interestingly, I haven't noticed any slowdowns while using yt-dlp, which I do fairly often. In a similar vein, I wonder how their new tactics will affect serv
Re: (Score:2)
That's right. They give an option to remove all advertisements and if it's not worth that money to you or the content is not worth sitting through the advertising then it's not worth watching obviously.
Plenty of creators also have Patreons and platforms like Nebula exist as well so there are alternatives.
Re: So they want to get less viewers? (Score:2)
Plenty have Patreon, AND have ad revenue turned on, AND DON'T use another service.
If I want to see content from some of favourite creators, they are forcing me to use YouTube.
It's a viscous cycle.
Re: (Score:2)
And if I want to watch shows on Netflix I have to pay for Netflix, like we used to have to pay HBO to watch things on their network. Is the content worth the price they are asking or not is really the question
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming the people who produce the content for Netflix are fairly well compensated for their labor. At least if I subscribed to Netflix I'd know that my subscription is at least in part going towards providing a good living for the people who are producing the content I'm enjoying.
YouTube's business model is a bit more sketchy. The vast majority of YouTube content creators are doing so as a hobby. The top content creators who are actually making a living from the site? Well, it's obvious some folks
Re: So they want to get less viewers? (Score:4, Informative)
It's a viscous cycle.
It's a thick, liquid cycle?
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a way to detect the slowness, to at least tell the users this is happening to them? Can ad blockers add something that tells me this?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be real here. People absolutely cannot live without their service which is why they keep jumping through hoops to try to block the ads. They *really do* want to watch Youtube. Youtube isn't going to lose the battle over freeeloaders.
Re: (Score:2)
I watch youtube for entertainment; youtube with ads is not entertainment.
Thus the only reasonable options are to quit youtube, to pay them not to deliver ads, or to let them deliver ads and have my computer which I control display it as I choose (ad free). They really have no way to force ads into my eyeballs nor detect their failure to do so, even if they make the most convenient way to watch their content free to download the video instead of streaming it.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. I think I never went to YouTube for anything not entertainment.
Re: (Score:2)
The greedy assholes at YouTube may think people cannot live without their service, but that is, obviously, not true.
Is it? Based on the effort people put into blocking ads on Youtube vs just not using it, it would seem quite a few cannot get by without it, or just don't want to.
Re: (Score:2)
The greedy assholes at YouTube may think people cannot live without their service, but that is, obviously, not true.
Is it? Based on the effort people put into blocking ads on Youtube vs just not using it, it would seem quite a few cannot get by without it, or just don't want to.
It's a cat and mouse game. I do watch a lot of Youtube, but I can find other things to do if it becomes not worth the hassle.
Best Strategy to Kill Youtube (Score:3)
So all they will do is reduce viewership.
That's almost guaranteed with this strategy. If you block the video and tell people why then they at least know why they can't watch the video and they at least consider the possibility of either watching the ads or paying for premium, even if most just upgrade their ad blocker (assuming they know how).
If you just make your site perform badly people will assume that your site is overloaded and can't handle the load. That's a much worse outcome because it kills your reputation while, at the same time, ma
Re: So they want to get less viewers? (Score:3)
Fewer
Re:So they want to get less viewers? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Internet companies are simply reaping what they sowed. They destroyed competitors by offering things for free. Now people have come to expect it. I have zero sympathy for Google.
If they'd made YouTube paid from the start and tried to compete with real TV stations or streaming services on a fair playing field, then maybe. But they didn't do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. I'm not ever going to pay YouTube whatever ridiculous amount they want for their premium subscription. I'm happy to pay for Nebula though.
People dislike being the victim of bait and switch schemes. Shocking.
Re:So they want to get less viewers? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole piracy argument makes sense when you're dealing with IP holders who have a monopoly over the distribution of their content. If you want to watch Star Wars - The Galactic Cash Grab Continues, you're doing it on Disney+ for whatever they've decided to charge for the service, or you're taking to the high seas. However, with YouTube, Google doesn't own the content. The individual content creators are the ones at fault for continuing to host their videos on a site that has become user-hostile.
The co
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the "exodus theory" is that all of the big name YouTube content creators are staying put. Most of them gave up trying earn a meager living with YouTube ad revenue a long time ago, and they make their money with 3rd party product placement and/or merch sales. As long as Google doesn't mess with their cash cows, they're mostly comfortable where they are.
When the small timers try to leave YouTube and go to places like Rumble or Odysee, the viewers rarely follow them and they end up with just a
Re: (Score:2)
Who is interested in "big name" YouTube creators? Had a look at a few, never been so bored.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is interested in "big name" YouTube creators? Had a look at a few, never been so bored.
Which ones did you look at? If you just went by popular on the front page while not logged in or channels with the most subscribers, I could understand, but there are plenty of great science and maker youtube channels that I'd count as "big name" content creators.
Re: (Score:2)
it doesn't affect Google's bottom line one bit
A lot of videos get shared by people who use ad blockers to people who don't. So yeah, it does impact the bottom line. I don't use YouTube often enough for it to have an impact.
Re: (Score:2)
The entitled viewers who feel that they can consume a product for free without ads seem to be pretty hooked on it, based on the tantrum throwing that's been going on. A video streaming platform that operates for free without ad revenue would never last. Someone has to pay the bills. Google's response to thwarting ad blockers is not only expected, it's perfectly reasonable considering how much it costs just to operate the site. If they lose viewers who previously weren't seeing ads and ragequit because their ad blockers don't work anymore it doesn't affect Google's bottom line one bit, since YT Premium subscriptions and ad viewership is what pays their bills. Loss of those viewers only hurts the monetized content creators who make money based on views. So whose side are you on here?
Exactly. YouTube made money with ads to support the platform, it never was free any more than OTA TV. Od course, there is a subset that wants the content but doesn't want the ads so they block them, and YouTube responds accordingly. Google will no doubt look at the usage statistics and see the impact this has on them and either say "good riddance" or change their stance. I'm betting on the former, even if it isn't a popular opinion on /.; neither is yours as evidenced by the "Flamebait" score. Hell, i
Re:So they want to get less viewers? (Score:4, Interesting)
Hell, if teh numbers are good tehy may even make it more of a PTA to use an adblocker to get rid of most of the users who use them.
It's also entirely possible that YouTube wants to start getting out of the user-created content hosting biz and is heading towards being a consumption-only video portal of commercially-produced content.
Re: (Score:2)
The entitled viewers who feel that they can consume a product for free
Where do the people who don't mind ads but are respponding fit into your charactarization? How does YT adding more ads, more unskippable ads, being arguably something that lead to a rise in adblock usage fit into your charactarization?
Re: (Score:2)
The entitled viewers who feel that they can consume a product for free
Where do the people who don't mind ads but are respponding fit into your charactarization? How does YT adding more ads, more unskippable ads, being arguably something that lead to a rise in adblock usage fit into your charactarization?
I was watching a simple short video some time ago that started with an ad, played for a minute then an ad, then a couple seconds later, another ad. There were more ads than video. If not wanting to be served 75 percent ads, 25 percent content makes a person "entitled" as poster writes, what is their plan I wonder? The idea that the consumer is entitled because they don't want ads is putting Descartes before the horse.
Adblocking came about because ads often give us unwanted gifts. Anyone here remember wh
Re: (Score:2)
a) exposure is a thing
b) so are viewer numbers
c) I sometimes leave comments, giving them data
There really are no "bad" viewers for a platform like YouTube.
yt-dlp (Score:4, Informative)
yt-dlp still works. And when that stops working, bye YouTube!
Re: (Score:3)
And also several open source third-party YouTube apps.
https://newpipe.net/ [newpipe.net]
https://f-droid.org/en/package... [f-droid.org]
https://libretube.dev/ [libretube.dev]
https://invidious.io/ [invidious.io]
ToS (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't recall ever agreeing to that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually... I did. According to our law here, I cannot wear a mask in certain situations.
Try a different analogue because that one doesn't hit the mark.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ToS (Score:5, Insightful)
Drive-by-contracts are part of the new reality. First it was shrink-wrap contracts, but now simply visiting a site may result in you being held to their ToS. Until the courts stop agreeing that signature free mostly unread one sided documents that require a legal degree to understand can be considered a legally binding contract, we are just stuck this way.
What I'd like to see is some malicious folks start adding first-born clauses to their web sites to highlight just how insidious and ridiculous all of this is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll never understand the advertisement industry (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, pre-video ads are a huge source of income for the service
How is that even possible?
Advertisement is almost universally despised. How would Youtube users who massively choose to block ads, when forced to watch the damn things, generate any revenues at all? How likely are people who are forced to watch something they don't want to watch to click on the ad and purchase whatever is being advertised?
I for one vow never to buy anything from any company that force-feeds me advertisement: I might be interested in their products in they don't, but I'll go out of my way to buy from their competitors if they do.
If I was an advertiser, I wouldn't feel great paying Google to be Clockwork-Oranging my ads to unwilling users. So I don't even understand how Google can command more money from advertisers when they do that.
Re: (Score:2)
The old expression was "I know I am wasting half of my advertising dollars, I just don't know which half."
A few years ago there was a wave of companies who stopped or scaled back a lot of their banner ad sales, and other web based ads with claims of zero impact to their sales. That noise dissipated and advertising has barreled forward at full speed. Somehow companies have evidence ads are ineffective, yet they just keep pouring ad dollars in. It boggles the mind.
Re: I'll never understand the advertisement indust (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's just all the marketing graduates having to justify their useless job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube gets paid per ad that gets crammed down your throat, not by how often you actually buy junk hawked there.
And Youtube couldn't give less of a fuck whether you actually buy any of that shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube gets paid per ad that gets crammed down your throat, not by how often you actually buy junk hawked there.
Yeah I get that.
What I don't get is why advertisers pay Google to cram their ads down people's throats. Surely even they realize it's counterproductive to piss off potential customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Because of the old saying "50% of your advertising money is wasted. Problem is, nobody knows which 50%".
That way they can get a lot closer to that elusive information. At least they know a portion of the money that is wasted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, Google gets paid for generating sales, not for some sort of digital circlejerk. Otherwise they would have already "accidentally" gotten server farms to download ads by the billion. Various companies measure the short-term effectiveness of their ad campaigns, and if they notice a 90% drop in sales per ad they will be asking for a 90% drop in cost per ad, or cancelling their business with Google.
Google's thing was high-effectiveness targeted ads, so either they're sacrificing their $/ad for short term ga
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, I'm hearing impaired, all I hear is "we challenge you to come up with a better blocking tool".
Re: (Score:2)
Your notion that YouTube users massively don't get served ads is false. Your boycott of everything is silly, not buying something you want because a company uses standard advertising practices will not change an
So if you're blocking ads and not paying them (Score:3)
I mentioned this on another thread but we're going to see more and more of this across the entire economy. It's not s
Re: (Score:2)
The only advertising that I'll admit has worked on me are the ones for food. I don't need your VPN service, overpriced luxury EV I'll never be able to afford, dating site, insurance (yeah, I've seen a million ads with that damned gecko, I still use a different company), or male enhancement pills, but if you show me a picture of a delicious looking lobster roll, I'm hopping in my car and getting to your restaurant as fast as the traffic laws allow.
Don't panic! (Score:2)
New, smarter, ad-blockers will be released in the next few hours...
Re: (Score:3)
Actually it'll be an evolution in ad blocking technology.
Gen 1 ad blockers are those that redirect whole ad serving sites to nothing.
Gen 2 ad blockers looked at url patterns and cookie patterns. And effectively blocked the requests.
Gen 3 ad blockers will take a deeper look at the page and artefact contents to rewrite code in the browser.
We are entering into the Gen 3 era. These ones will be outright blocked from the browser as addons. As the game of whack a mole will be rapid. As new ad blockers pop up i
evidence of monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
the only way this could ever work is with a monopoly, ie, if there were reasonable options, this would only serve to drive customers to those options
and should a viable competitor ever show up, watch YT start to play nice again
greedy bastards can't help but eviscerate their golden goose
We spent the last 40 years (Score:4, Insightful)
Stopping all of this would require a drastic sea change in politics where people put aside nonsensical culture War issues to focus on economics and I just don't see that happening in the current climate. It is way too easy to push people's buttons with just a little bit of propaganda and there is so much more than a little bit of propaganda out there. I mean I literally just saw a video from some wackadoodle railing against vitamin k shots given to babies to prevent them from dying of vitamin k deficiency related bleeding. That's the level we're at right now. So I think we can safely say we've got a snowball's chance in hell of getting antitrust law enforcement through
Don't be evil (Score:2)
has been long long forgotten!
Re: (Score:2)
The Fourth Alternative (Score:2)
Ads suck (Score:3)
You are simply a cog in the machine.
This affects much more than YT (Score:3)
Millions of sites include inline videos linked back to Youtube. The average user will wait no more than 5 seconds during a buffering and consider the video pooched and move onto the next site. It won't be long until other major sites start complaining to Google about their fuckery.
Re: (Score:2)
Millions of sites include inline videos linked back to Youtube. The average user will wait no more than 5 seconds during a buffering and consider the video pooched and move onto the next site. It won't be long until other major sites start complaining to Google about their fuckery.
The average user probably doesn''t use an ad blocker either...
So what's gonna be the result? (Score:2)
Instead of loading one video after another, people will open multiple tabs to preload as many videos as possible. Whether they eventually watch those videos or not.
Yeah, smart move, Google...
Tough choice... (Score:2)
Hmmm, wait an extra 5 seconds for a webpage to load, or watch multiple 15+ second advertisements in a video?
Which will I choose...
101 (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
they are probably betting on the fact that they have no real competition. yet. and not for lack of trying.
the whole thing is indeed a bit fishy, but remember users are not the customers, advertisers are. i figure they have a strong incentive to assure them that they care about those ads actually reaching a target.
Did anyone ever notice any of that? (Score:2)
I use Youtube fairly often but I neither see ads nor any nagging that I should do so.
Re: (Score:2)
I do use very frequently too and only very occasionally get bugged by their anti-adblocker antics. When I do they're trivially easy to circumvent with incognito mode, but it's rare. I'm guessing they do that in batches or waves and it probably depends on variables like region, type of content, and probably user profiling. They probably know already I'm not interested in any stupid crap they might want to offer.
I would actually pay if they asked for a reasonable fee, just like I regularly donate to the Inter
I did not mind the ads at first (Score:2)
Meanwhile, CISA and the NSA recommend ad-blockers. (Score:5, Informative)
Meanwhile, CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) specifically recommends the use of Ad-Block technology to prevent system infection via malvertising (links to a PDF file):
CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT GUIDE - Securing Web Browsers and Defending Against Malvertising for Federal Agencies [cisa.gov]
Note the target audience for CISA here: Federal Agencies. Their focus is in protecting those (including themselves) so I'm willing to put a little more weight behind their recommendation.
Re: (Score:2)
And with good reason, malvertisment is a considerable source of malware. If advertisers would vet their customers better, we could ponder allowing them in, but unfortunately, a nontrivial portion of them is simply and plainly crooks.
And I'm not even talking about normal marketing people here.
Embedded videos seem fine (Score:2)
I have youtube premium (Score:3)
I have noticed slowing as well, even after paying
No ad blocker (Score:3)
But I do have strict tracking protection turned on. That seems to be what the ad supported sites bitch about.
Yes, you can show me some ads. No, you cannot commoditize my browsing history.
History repeating itself (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No, no, no. Network TV understood ads, and structured their shows to have ad breaks. Sometimes, they'd even go to commercial at a dramatic moment.
Youtube? You will watch ads when I SAY you will watch ads. Even if it's mid *WORD*.
You would think a company like Google could use some form of, I don't know... machine learning.... to determine a reasonable place
Would you like to buy a car? Do you need healthcare? Is your vagina Itching?
to put a fucking ad, but no.
Still no match against uBlock Origin. (Score:3)
The latest update to uBlock Origin, Version 1.54, is not really affected by this change. And the Open Source developers behind uBlock Origin are updating the filters constantly as I type this to thwart YouTube's latest efforts.
Wait a second ... (Score:3, Informative)
According to Bleeping computer it was a bug cause by the Adblocker itself, not YT.
Afterall, it only affected Adblock and Adblock Plus which have the same product base.
Overheating (Score:3)
As it turns out, this is so bad on my MacBookPro from 2019 that simply having a YouTube tab loaded -- at all -- will frequently result in a runaway process in Safari and overheat the laptop, while precipitously draining the battery. And it gets hot. Not like a little toasty, we're talking full-on "Penis Panini" mode over here!
So. Guess YouTube is serving malware now. Time to up my blocking game or ditch them entirely.
Forcing won't work.. (Score:3)
If a user has gone out of their way to install and use an adblocker and you force then to turn it off you're just going to make them angry.
These users are absolutely not going to start buying any products they see advertised in this way, they're more likely to actively boycott the brands they see, so the net outcome from all this is going to be negative.
I know that for me, the more obnoxious and forced the advertisement is the less likely i am to buy the product. Even if the product seems useful, i will actively look for a competing supplier if i remember especially obnoxious advertising.
Re: So nationalize it or something (Score:2)
YouTube get greedy, and increases the number of ads, puts as breaks in videos (often in the middle of a word, FFS!), forces unstoppable ads, starts playing greater numbers of ads before and in videos.
More people use and blockers
YouTube: wtf? Why would you do this to us?
Re: (Score:3)
So stop watching? With anything else in your life if a company raises the cost of a product too much for you do you steal it? Or do buy another product at a cost that is acceptable to you?
Re: (Score:2)
With anything else in your life if a company raises the cost of a product too much for you do you steal it?
Steal? No. Violate the terms of the content producer's exclusive distribution agreement, sure. Sell access to your content for its fair market value and don't make me jump through hoops (no, I don't want to sign up for yet another streaming service that I'll have to remember to cancel just to watch a single series), or it's a trip to the high seas.
Stealing is always the wrong terminology to use when you're talking about gaining access to content which can be freely copied. If you stole my car there'd be
Re: (Score:3)
It's an allegory, it's to get people to frame the idea.
I got no problem morally with people using adblock or pirating media.
What I don't get is the indignity of "how dare they", it's unearned entitlement we wouldn't apply to most other forms of consumerism.
I certainly pirate stuff, I know I am not entitled to that and I know morally I should pay for it so I am not surprised at efforts to curb that behavior, just like nobody here should be surprised that Youtube is trying to curb adblock nor would I be indig
Re: (Score:2)
Way more than you do, I'm much better at it.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube get greedy, and increases the number of ads, puts as breaks in videos (often in the middle of a word, FFS!), forces unstoppable ads, starts playing greater numbers of ads before and in videos.
More people use and blockers
YouTube: wtf? Why would you do this to us?
You are correct. It's a classic positive feedback loop.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube isn't any essential service any more than any other internet service. It is used while it lasts and if it croaks, the only thing people will say is NEXT!
Re: (Score:2)
If you think email isn't essential, you don't do much of anything.
YouTube is a juggernaut in social media just like Facebook and therein is the problem. Everyone else uses YouTube (including a number of paid services), so it is very difficult to avoid using YouTube. Unlike Facebook, there are alternatives to YouTube, so it is possible to vote with one's eyeballs.
No, people will say they need their fix of LOLcats videos, or the YouTube How-to that appears at the top of their Google Search results. Peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Is Email important? Yes. I any Email provider important? Hell no.
There is a difference between a particular provider and a generic function. Just because I don't think GMail, YouTube or Steam are important doesn't mean I don't think EMail, video streams and gaming platforms aren't.
People will use whatever is most convenient to them. Video rentals and TV became insufferable, people went and downloaded them from TBP. Streaming services offered a convenient, easy and fairly cheap alternative, people switched t
Re: (Score:2)
I pay for Youtube Premium because I enjoy a lot of content on there, more than Netflix or Prime so to me it's an easy choice, I get my value from it.
I tend not to watch content creators who make their living by producing YouTube videos. Most of them don't release videos on a regular schedule and/or aren't playing all of Google's required games to remain monetized. I hate the idea of giving Google money knowing it's helping pay for obnoxious clickbaity crap content that I can't stand to watch (MrBeast, I'm looking at you).
For the stuff I like to watch, the problem is just that Google's pre-roll video ads are just too obnoxious. I'd be more than happy
Re: (Score:2)
I mean isn't that part of the creator economy though, artists get to work on things as they like without big studios and executives getting in the way? I think it's far that it comes with a bit of instability. On the same token I was really digging season 2 of "Invincible" but Amazon has decided to do that dumb thing where they split the season into two parts so now I gotta wait for some reason.
At the same time I don't watch much of the stuff on Youtube that is popular, like Mr Beast but if we only purchas
Re: (Score:2)
What I meant to say was that most of what I watch are videos from small-time people who aren't playing Google's games to get a cut of the money. So why should I feel obligated to give Google money when it's just going to be passed on to creators producing stuff I don't watch? It's basically the old argument against bundled cable TV channels.
Re: (Score:2)
If they aren't interested in money then the obvious answer is for them to publish elsewhere or open a pattern or something. They are obviously on YouTube for the reach and capability. I suppose if you entirely consume non revenue share media, it's an interesting question if adblock is "ethical" at that point. I might lean that direction in that instance.
For the cable analogy though wouldn't this be one channel and it's lineup rather than an entire bundle? The issue with cable at the time is there was n
Re: (Score:2)
Only fools in this thread at the people that think they will get to watch Youtube ad free forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Pithy, but worthless. Do better.
Re: (Score:2)
Not watching ads is akin to not paying for a meal when you go to a restaurant.
IMO there is a lot wrong with this analogy, from the actual time needed to pprepare the food being spent already to the payment being mandatory vs ads not being watched (9whether blocked, or letting them run but not actually watching them by turning away) the content is still delivered.