> Skip sponsorships, subscription begging and more on YouTube videos. Report sponsors on videos you watch to save others' time. [0]
[0]: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-y...
If you can't make a profit from your content because you're giving it away with blockable ads then you should stop doing that and do something else.
If I went to a Ferrari showroom and they said "Here's a free Ferrari, but you have to keep that advert we've put on the windscreen. If you take it off we'll have to stop giving Ferraris away.", then I am driving a beautiful ad-free Ferrari around now and the showroom can't do anything about it.
They are solving it, over and over, for the past 20 years. The way so far is to find new ways to shove ads down enough peoples throats. And the internet can't stop complaining about them doing so, understandably.
> Honestly, that's not my problem.
So, yeah, maybe it kinda is. A state of war is mostly a lose-lose situation.
It's not lose-lose though. The creator loses, but I don't. If I don't care about a specific creator (and I obviously don't if I don't pay them and I block their ads) then I'm only losing access to the content they produce, which I value at essentially zero. So, really, I'm not losing anything. I just move on to the next YouTube video/podcast/whatever.
So I could argue that by using blockers I'm reducing the amount of advertising the populace will take and increasing the value of a given, lower level of advertising.
Buy our service and get no ads. 5-ish years later, just like OTA.
NY Times ('81) https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-inv...
Satellite radio, mostly no ads. Tune to the "laugh" channels ... tons of ads.
That said, if Person A buys an LTT water bottle and block all ads and Person B watches all ads and never buys anything, then Person B needs to watch thousands of ads to make up the same revenue from that single merchandise purchase.
I agree with Linus that skipping ads is piracy, but if you finance it in better ways should you care?
For reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jUxOnoWsFU
I'm not sure why people got absolutely butthurt about that.
My version was that adblocking damages revenue in very quantifiable ways* and you can work around that.
* I am almost sure that YouTube's recommendation algorithm does not counts watched ads as a metric, that is maybe watching ads increases the total watch-time of the video but otherwise an ad-full view is counted the same as a ad-free view. But this belief is not based on anything.
If this happened to be wrong then an adblocker could exponentially hurt a channel growth and that might equal quite a few water bottles.
Because they where offered up for free? And only now are charging?
There is absolutely no point in me watching those because I couldn't buy anything even if I wanted to
If the sponsored segments get irritating, and in some cases they have, I just go elsewhere. If I don't want the content enough to put of with the sponsor segment then I simply don't want the content enough.
Like you I object to adverts that are targetted by stalking me as I go about my daily life, or buying & selling information gleaned about me by an entity performing such stalking. Targetting based on what I'm actively doing right now seems fine.
(and away from the targetting question, I also object to other dark patterns like pop-ups/-unders, auto-playing audio & video, etc.)
Regardless of how the ad was made, I will do anything to avoid it, just as I would any other ad.
The internet has not been broken by ads. It’s been broken by data harvesting and monopolies. Contextual ads are no problem IMO, and can sometimes be a helpful (economic) signal. Without ads how can challengers get some awareness?
So yes for targeted ads, but only if it does not require personal data. Contextual ads can be targeted without engaging in use of personal data.
To offer the alternative, to me ads are the fundamental problem. As much as I don't want to be tracked and avoid providing my information in any way possible, I just assume I am being tracked. It does not "annoy me" while consuming some content.
On the other hand, any random ad / paid promotion that gets through the blocking does annoy me immensely and I do consider nearly any form of advertisement harmful.
the Mr Robot scandal for better or worse, was implemented almost like this
No, a million times no. A targeted ad requires my personal information being collected, and the resulting assumption of my needs may be offensive and even dangerous.
I prefer a random ad. Or better, a place where I can just search the product I want in detail.