I opened youtube this morning to see a big popup:
Ad blockers are not allowed on YouTube
- It looks like you may be using an ad blocker.
- Ads allow YouTube to be used by billions worldwide.
- You can go ad-free with YouTube Premium, and creators can still get paid from your subscription
Ad blockers are not allowed on YouTube
- It looks like you may be using an ad blocker.
- Ads allow YouTube to be used by billions worldwide.
- You can go ad-free with YouTube Premium, and creators can still get paid from your subscription
Comments
Until YouTube starts injecting ads into the video stream (like Twitch), it's not going to be effective at all. There's no way to do a client-side anti-adblock and not have it bypassed.
And TBH: since YouTube is not doing that, I think they might've decided the cost of that solution outweighs the projected revenue so they've chosen a cheaper solution.
In Twitch's case, more of the audience might be techy, so ad injection ended up being the more optimal option.
This is, in my opinion, shortsighted. It's straightforward to create ads that you can't block on the client so long as you are the server of the ads yourself, as Google is. I'm not going to detail how since I don't want anyone on HN to get any ideas and build a business of it, but I'm sure it will happen eventually. For the time being I suspect it's cheaper to keep the current tech running since it brings in enough revenue, but if that ever stops being the case, I expect things not to end well for people who don't like ads. Google search is a good example of this, ads are literally intertwined into the search results, if you take this a few steps further you have ads that you literally can't block on the client.
By lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2023-10-0618:152 reply > Google search is a good example of this, ads are literally intertwined into the search results, if you take this a few steps further you have ads that you literally can't block on the client.
I'm not sure about your "few steps" so this may be moot. Is there no sufficient workaround of this nature?
Google might detect that the element was removed; ad blockers use CSS shenanigans to hide the element. Google might detect such shenanigans; ad blockers are forced to change. And so on. Is there really a way for Google to end this cat/mouse game in their favor?document.querySelector('.waste-of-money')?.remove();By HDThoreaun 2023-10-0623:36 I think the issue here is that it might take the adblockers longer to update than it takes google. If google has a team of people doing anti adblock then I suspect it would take them less than a week or maybe even a couple days to update the app to counteract whatever the adblockers come up with. And with each iteration the adblockers have to become more creative.
> Is there really a way for Google to end this cat/mouse game in their favor?
Yet another "update" to the web extension manifest.
By lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2023-10-0618:391 reply That will affect a large number of users but if word gets out that this weird fork of Firefox[0] will allow them to view YouTube with no ads, Google is suddenly forced to enable browser attestation such that only versions of Chrome will allow people to use YouTube. That will likely affect those in the US but EU authorities sometimes like to curb these antitrust behaviors. I also get the feeling that such a change will cause them to lose American business to competitors. Amazon seems primed to start eating their lunch with Twitch; they would mostly need to start building and promoting more video on demand features.
0: It sends a "this is totally Chrome" user agent and possibly includes other APIs that YouTube will use.
> Amazon seems primed to start eating their lunch with Twitch
That seems extremely unlikely, Twitch has already destroyed a lot of the goodwill they had with creators. Policy changes (or attempts) regarding baked-in ads, revenue splits, forced exclusivity, there's probably more.
By lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2023-10-0716:16 All good points and I do agree. What I mean is that they have the compute infrastructure to manage it, assuming Youtube makes some colossal mistake with the goodwill they have with viewers.
I used to work in ads, and I agree this is an arms race that the advertisers could win, at least in cases like YouTube where they control the whole stack. I don't think it would be trivial, but YouTube could do it if they decided to.
Are there any workarounds for smart tv apps (browser, player)? They probably already "won" there and the user experience is horrible.
By lanuk 2023-10-0620:03 SmartTube for Android TV
By HenryBemis 2023-10-0914:08 If it is Android, try NoRoot Firewall app.
By xnx 2023-10-0619:29 I see the future of streaming video ad avoidance being something like an AI-empowered Tivo, possibly as an HDMI dongle.
By nine_k 2023-10-0618:25 As someone who doesn't like ads, I just pay for a premium YouTube subscription for my family.
It's not the case with Google search, though, they don't offer me a way to pay. I will rather pay Kagi instead.
Sponsorblock already exists as infrastructure to slice out ads embedded into the video streams themselves. Of course, the sponsor segments weren't put there by youtube, but the same (or similar) solutions would apply if they were.
It's much easier for anything non-live.
By bentcorner 2023-10-0618:112 reply Sponsorblock would be easy to work around if ad-breaks were randomly selected. Whenever you upload a video YT could process the video and "search" for good ad-break locations, at display time client bits get pushed ads randomly, making time-code blocking useless.
They could even upsell to content creators by giving them the means to dynamically replace sponsors in old videos using the same tech, maybe with some knobs and switches for content creators to select where sponsor breaks occur.
Maybe someone could use train a AI for something useful like skipping advertisement? Switching from time to content id, i.e. like they use for copyright strikes, would work even better than status quo.
By xnx 2023-10-0619:31 Sponsorblock tagged videos would serve as excellent training data for an ad-detecting AI.
By kzhe 2023-10-151:16 I guess something could detect if the frame shown is a frame from the video and if not skip
By WaxProlix 2023-10-0618:07 The ads don't always have to be injected into the exact same parts of a video, and YT can also choose not to stream any more bits until it thinks something's been "watched".
Sponsorblock only works because YT allows you to skip anywhere in a video.
This. It's why in-stream ads were so straightforward to implement for Twitch too. Can't fast forward a live stream.
Even if they try to prevent that, with a modified client, you can skip anywhere in a video and there's nothing they can do about it.
That requires them to pre-serve you the bits for the part of the video after the ad, which they aren't going to do.
Unless they want to completely break the ability to seek in the video timeline, regardless of ad placements, that's not going to work.
By hot_gril 2023-10-0619:12 It already behaves this way if you aren't blocking ads. If you seek too far ahead in a video with mid-video ads, it'll show an ad before playing at the timestamp you selected. If they want to prevent ad-blocking, they can do the same thing except not serve the video ahead of time.
The insidious aspect of this is the bait and switch YouTube did to consolidate their monopoly. A huge amount of videos were uploaded under the (idealistic and misguided) pretence they would be freely accessible without ads and so on. Had the YT UX been this way the whole time then the online video landscape would be much more competitive today.
By kmeisthax 2023-10-0618:14 There's several instances in which creators deliberately uploaded videos unmonetized under the understanding that this would comply with some kind of noncommercial licensing requirement[0] (e.g. NCommander's video on the MSWord 1.0 source). Such uploads are now retroactively illegal unless you're already partnered, since YouTube now only allows partners to disable monetization.
To be slightly fair to YouTube, they never added NC clauses to their Creative Commons declaration support, but I doubt that was evidence of a 10-year plan to demand monetization.
But on the other hand, they also made a huge stink about keeping Partner status out of the hands of people who shouldn't have it. That move now retroactively looks like YouTube trying to front-run smaller creators on ad revenue, especially if something they make goes 'viral' before they can make partner.
[0] For the purpose of this comment let's pretend that 'not monetized' satisfies whatever flimsy 'noncommercial' license declaration exists
By doctorpangloss 2023-10-0618:151 reply Hmm... the biggest category on YouTube is music, which until a colossal lawsuit was all pirated.
It has and was built on piracy.
Maybe you odn't believe me because it's "different" in your opinion today.
Look anywhere else in the world, it's piracy dude. For example, here's a search for "seinfeld s01e03" for video lengths 10-30m on Bilibili:
https://search.bilibili.com/all?keyword=seinfeld+s01e03&from...
I don't know. On the one hand, end users take from Google by blocking ads. On the other, Google takes from creators through piracy.
At the end of the day, the problem with video is the lack of business innovation that's anywhere near comparable to games.
By tomrod 2023-10-1413:27 > It has and was built on piracy.
Shiver me timbers, buckaroo. Won't someone think about the digital robber baron tycoons?
Most of the internet was built with public dollars and content is engaged with (not necessarily hosted) generally non-commercially. If we look at total harm, content users tend to get the worst of it either by having to wade through malevolent ads or user hostile design. Yet, we collectively put up with it because we recognize the Internet is not a zero-sum game. Tay-tay is making enough money from the free marketing channels the Internet enables, she doesn't need more from a Youtube stream.
This scam has happened with many sites and apps (Instagram). Build community and then sell it.
By wombat-man 2023-10-0618:082 reply How would youtube work without ads or subscriptions? Do you just not want there to be something like youtube?
By xigoi 2023-10-0620:46 Federated. Lots of people willing to host some videos on a server in their basement.
Where did it say or imply they'd be accessible without ads? YouTube has had ads since the early days (2008 specifically).
It used to be the case that you had to be a YouTube partner to monetize your videos. They changed it so that you now have to be a partner in order to demonetize your videos. So anyone who just uploaded a video in the ~12 years between YouTube having monetization and monetization being mandated got ads put on their work retroactively and without permission.
There's a difference between being monetized (i.e. creator gets money) and YT running ads. So are you saying that YT used to only run ads on monetized videos, and recently they started running ads on non-monetized videos too? Because I remember starting to see ads on clearly non-monetized videos quite a long time ago, like 2014.
And it doesn't seem like a big deal; they didn't promise to host your video without ads forever, nor is that a reasonable expectation.
By kmeisthax 2023-10-0619:25 Your memory might be hazy. YouTube made an explicit ToS change on June 1st, 2021 in order to allow them to monetize non-partner videos. They call this the "right to monetize": https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/110289140/updates-...
By mahogany 2023-10-0618:16 > 2008 specifically
Perhaps the parent comment is talking about pre-Google and you are talking about post-Google? I don’t know if the parent’s claim is correct about a bait and switch, but I can confirm that pre-Google YouTube did not have (video) ads and felt very much like a place for small independent creators.
And from my memory, widespread ads on every video did not come into existence for many years. Originally they were only on selected monetized videos.
By simonbarker87 2023-10-0617:539 reply This is where I get conflicted with ad blockers, on the one hand most website ads are trash, on the other hand there is great content on YT and I want those creators to make enough to carry on to get to the level where they proper sponsors. But, YT is so egregious with its ad insertions at times that it drives me mad and I don’t trust the creators will get fairly compensated if I go to premium.
By nickthegreek 2023-10-0617:543 reply The creators get more money per view from a premium member than an ad-supported viewer. So not only does being a paying member give you a better experience, it puts more cash in the pocket of those you watch.
By pests 2023-10-0618:11 It depends. The last numbers YT released was that they took a 45% cut and that they used watched minutes, not views. The obvious way is distributing the remaining 55% out porportionally based on what you watch.
If you watch twice as much, your profit/minute must be half.
By simonbarker87 2023-10-0617:564 reply Not arguing for the sake of it but is that confirmed? I assume the more I watch the less each creator gets? No idea what the algorithm is they use to share the money out
By coldpie 2023-10-0618:04 You can find lots of discussion with a quick web search, but yes, it seems to be pretty well supported.
Speaking more broadly, there's the simple fact that people deserve to be paid for the work they do. Many places don't allow you to pay with money, they force you to pay with ads. I find viewing ads to be an unacceptably high price, so I use an ad blocker, and I just go away if they turn me away for that.
But for places that do give a money option, like YouTube, I jump for it, as I find that to be a far more ethical business model[1]. I'm happy to support businesses that give me the option to pay by doing exactly that.
In other words, I wouldn't worry so much about the very fine details. And supporting your creators on Patreon will give them way more money than any amount of individual YouTube viewership.
[1] Yes, I know they're still tracking me. That doesn't bother me as much as viewing ads or supporting the ad-based clickbait attention grabbing business model, so I think it's still a win.
By apendleton 2023-10-0618:05 > I assume the more I watch the less each creator gets?
I think this is true, but it still works out such that given the amount the average Premium subscriber watches, creators' typical per-view revenue is still higher for Premium views. They can apparently see the breakdown (ad revenue vs premium revenue, etc., ad-supported views vs premium views, etc.) in the backend, and various people who make Youtube content for a living have reported this to be the case. See, e.g., https://twitter.com/hankgreen/status/1513177490730061829 .
By squeaky-clean 2023-10-0618:29 I don't think there's any explicit youtube rule that guarantees they will make more money from premium viewers, but it's confirmed by creators who have showed their income reports, or at least talked about their income breakdown. And Premium views always pay better.
Another anecdote I've heard from several creators is that much longer videos (like a 5 hour livestream recording) are now much more profitable because of premium viewers. With ads they either need to include an ad every 10 minutes, which means 30 ads in one video and turns people away. Or they only include a few ads in which case people do watch it, but it's far less profitable than a 10 minute video with a midroll ad.
By Dylan16807 2023-10-0618:00 I think they sum up global watch minutes, despite the bias that causes.
By HDThoreaun 2023-10-0623:40 Is this how you define fair though? I tend to think more about the revenue split percentage.
Louis Rossman has been saying that he gets much more money if you purchase something from his store rather than from ads, and that for this reason he doesn't care if viewers use an adblocker or not. This is just a single data point though, other youtubers have a different stance on this matter.
Presumably he would care if users used an ad blocker that deleted his ads for his store, given that he appears to be using YouTube as a way to advertise his real business.
He is using YouTube to promote what he does, but AFAIK not in the form of YouTube ads, instead he publishes content about what he does in the form of videos on his channel.
But ad blockers are happy to edit videos to remove sponsorship segments, so they'd also be happy to remove his self promotion. Ad blockers don't care about the exact form of ads, right? They just want to get rid of all of them leaving the content.
I think you're not familiar with Rossman's videos, he doesn't have sponsorship segments.
I know, but what I mean is that he must obviously inform people about his shop in some way, and so ad blockers can just remove those references. With modern AI they could theoretically even re-render his videos on the fly to write out any indication he's selling anything.
The point here is either you're OK with ad blockers in which case, you accept all your work is charitable and unmonetizable (because you can't even advertise what you're selling directly), or you have to accept ads in any form.
By GTP 2023-10-0814:33 On his YouTube channel, he mostly cares about the bigger picture of right to repair rather than talking about its shop. I'm also quite sure he doesn't see his videos as a source of revenue. But saying "it's ok to remove ads from videos" doesn't imply saying "all the work I do is for free, including repairs". Those are just two different things. In discussing ad blockers you're also talking about how they could potentially work in the future, but there's no indication that what you talk about will happen. If it will happen that someone starts using AI to deeply modify a video, content crearors can re-evaluate their stance on the topic, as it would present a very different scenario than the current one.
I would also add that the real world isn't just black or white, one could totally be fine with a certain kind of ads and not with others, as long as is able to provide an argument for it.
YT is so egregious with its ad insertions at times
It's worse than broadcast TV. I'll usually sit through an ad at the beginning and maybe the end of a video because I want to support creators. But YT just sticks them into the middle of things, frequently ruining the experience of the surrounding content.
Meanwhile they promote absolute trash like Nikocado Avocado, which is my view is no different from shooting up heroin.
> they promote absolute trash like Nikocado Avocado
I have never had one of his videos promoted to me. You may have a different filter bubble / reccomendation algorithm pushing it towards you because you watch similar content?
By anigbrowl 2023-10-0621:52 I personally don't, because for potentially sketchy content I watch it logged out or in a private browser. But just the fact that the guy has millions of subscribers and they monetize is his videos at all is bothersome to me. I can't see any qualitative difference between him and a fentanyl aficionado.
By NovemberWhiskey 2023-10-0618:05 For the creators I really care about, I make Patreon donations and the creators generally publish ad-free videos for their supporters - just take YouTube out of the mix altogether from the funding perspective.
By toastercat 2023-10-0618:29 > there is great content on YT and I want those creators to make enough to carry on to get to the level where they proper sponsors
Just donate to their Patreon/Kofi or click the big "Thanks" button under their video.
I don’t feel like there’s any conflict.
The ad blockers want a free ride.
We all know what would happen to YouTube if 100% of its users were able to block ads. It would become paid-only or go out of business. The only reason it’s tolerated by so many websites is because only a small sliver of users know how to install ad-blocking software.
These are real people spending real time and money making content. On the YouTube corporate side of things, the people who make YouTube what it is are real people with real families to feed with their salaries. They work full time and then some to keep the site running and lots of resources (computers, energy, etc) are used to serve the content.
It’s funny to me how the software engineering community seems to be the most enthusiastic about stealing the fruits of their own labor. I see people on HN all the time advocating for forever licenses of software, pushing back against the service business model. It’s like you all want a lower salary.
You’d rarely find other types of professionals and artists trying to advocate for their own customers finding ways around paying for their work.
YouTube Premium is a great product and one of the few streaming services I’m enthusiastic about.
I will admit, I do use an ad blocker, but I’ve got as much right to do that as a website has the right to cripple my experience if they detect that I’m using it. In those cases, I just turn it off and add the site to my exceptions, or I don’t return to the website. It’s not a big deal.
> It would become paid-only or go out of business.
Fantastic. Then people would have to host their videos elsewhere, perhaps on PeerTube.
By HDThoreaun 2023-10-0623:41 Who do you think would donate all the bandwidth to replace youtube? How would legal complaints and other ops costs be handled? OSS is great until the government shows up and arrests you and you can't afford lawyers.
By isoprophlex 2023-10-0617:59 Yeah, I'm in the same boat. There's some quality content on YT, but A) I don't trust that more than a millionth of my YT premium free goes to these creators, B) normal YT is so intensely terrible that I don't feel good about rewarding google for their practices of pushing me towards premium and C) by paying for YT premium, I can't shake this vague notion of me enabling the further closing down of the internet by getting everything interesting locked up behind paywalls and monthly fees.
By 3seashells 2023-10-0617:591 reply Calculate what a creator earns per view. Donate or buy merch with that money.
This is a nice idea, but it's like all those open source projects out there that you use that could use donations, but few remember to actually donate (or buy merch). Long-term subscriptions of one form or another (e.g. Patreon) are really the only way to ensure sustainability.
By Hizonner 2023-10-0618:28 My approach to that is not to try to donate a few bucks to every project I use, but to randomly choose a few about quarterly, especially among the ones I use the most, and make larger donations to those. Otherwise it is too hard to remember to donate, and just plain too much work.
If a lot of people do that, it'll even out.
I'd like to have an automated way to make my choices more random, and to weight the probabilities better toward the projects that give me the most value, or are the most generally underfunded compared to the global value they produce. At the moment, I do that more or less by guessing. Unfortunately it sounds Hard(TM) to do it right.
It'd also be nice if you didn't have to go searching for how to donate to every project.
