YouTube is Losing The War Against Adblockers

Brkdncr , 2 hours ago

lol no they arent.

SaharaMaleikuhm , 4 hours ago

I’d rather not watch YouTube videos at all than videos with ads.

polle , 4 hours ago

Smarttube stopped working some weeks ago for a day. I tried watching YouTube with ads, the experience was so fucking insane to me. Like multiple, non skipable ads before the video starts + more ads during the video. It just was unwatchable. Its just unusable.

WeebLife , 3 hours ago

Try grayjay

Vathsade , 3 hours ago

Newpipe still works (Google may break it, but the app is usually updated in a couple days and it works again)

linearchaos , 2 hours ago

Here’s my current lineup.

Newpipe Freetube Greyjay Tubular Brave

They get through all those, I’m just going to surf peertube or odysee

communism , 2 hours ago

The sickos “haha yes” meme

chemicalwonka , 3 hours ago

Worse part of the problem is knowing what part of the ad profit YouTube uses to pay MrBeast and his stupid content.

Kongar , 10 hours ago

I’ll never understand the entitlement of these companies when it comes to ads. You send the content freely to my computer along with BS ads. It’s my computer. I’ll display what I want using programs I want.

If you want me to pay for that content with $ or by watching ads - then put up a hard paywall and stop sending the content for free. You can’t get uppity and complain about ad blockers - it doesn’t make any sense…

The real problem is your content sucks and nobody is willing to pay for it. And that’s your problem - not mine.

Here’s some free apples. There’s a newspaper ad stuffed in there as well. Oh you ate the apples without reading the newspaper? Foul ball! /facepalm

Edit: never mind the fact that many ads have been served that are downright malicious code…

timewarp , 10 hours ago

“Your content sucks… And I can’t stop watching it. I also got herpes by watching too much brain rot”

Toribor , 8 hours ago

I was paying for Google music until they took it away from me and told me it was Youtube Premium and then raised the price twice.

Not exactly what I’d call a great value proposition.

Vlyn , 7 hours ago

That’s a weird way to look at it, obviously you’re watching the content.

I’d rather see it like this:

• Free tier with ads
• Subscription without ads (and better quality)

You are currently on the free tier. Yes, you can block ads (just like you can pirate movies), but that’s not the deal you were offered. I’m using an ad blocker myself, but I can understand the corporate side too.

They absolutely could add a hard paywall, but why should they if there are plenty of users who want to watch for free by paying with ads?

Kongar , 7 hours ago

No, I’m on the “you’re freely posting content to the internet - some of which I want to consume(videos), others not so much (ads)” plan. I never asked them to post anything, never entered a contract, etc.

If they lock the content up, and stop freely posting it, then fine, I’ll stop consuming and go elsewhere. If I can’t live without the content, then I can decide to pay up. It’s their content - they can do whatever they want with it. But they can’t get mad at ad blockers if they put their stuff out there for free.

Vlyn , 7 hours ago

Totally fine by me! But by your logic you can’t get mad at them if they block you from watching due to using an ad blocker. Which brings us back to square one?

Kongar , 7 hours ago

Agree 100%. IF they figure it out - which they won’t for more than a day or two. They know the only real solution is to lock their content up and protect it, but they don’t, and then they get bent out of shape. The companies get weird about it - not the users.

Vlyn , 7 hours ago

I still hold the opinion that they could absolutely block you out. I use uBlock Origin and there was actually a time where I got blocked/warnings every day. Even with upgrading my plugin / refreshing all block lists.

At some point I finally gave in and grabbed YouTube Premium, not because of the ads (I’d rather stop watching than watch with ads), but because I needed their music service (Used Amazon Music before, the app sucked. Music quality was the highest out there though. Also cancelled Prime for a double whammy).

For example the moment an ad gets triggered they could just refuse to send you video data. And if the ad is an unskipable 15 seconds, block playback for 15 seconds. Done. Even if you block this, you get 15 seconds of nothing and will soon be pissed off enough to either start watching ads, buy Premium or leave (no longer costing them bandwidth).

Kongar , 7 hours ago

You may be right, but I can’t imagine how they’d actually pull it off. The internet as a medium just doesn’t work that way - there’s always going to be a flag or a call for me to go pull ad data from somewhere else, and someone somewhere will write code that ignores that command.

Great for them if they figure it out, but the medium doesn’t work in their favor. They want the frog to be an elephant, and when it proves to be a poor elephant they cry to the govt. to fix it with laws and dmca takedowns and whatnot. That’s just a waste of taxpayer money, and annoys people on the medium.

Vlyn , 7 hours ago

Just the way I described, I’m a software developer, it would be easy as hell.

Your browser requests the video, YouTube decides you have to watch an ad. The ad has 15 seconds unskipable. So the easiest thing they could do is not send you video data for 14 seconds (add a spare second for buffering to not piss off users who do watch ads).

Doesn’t matter if you call some endpoint, load the ad data, whatever. You’re not receiving any video for a while, which would piss people off enough to leave.

Kongar , 6 hours ago

But you’re describing something like a hard paywall. I have to do a thing BEFORE they publish the video. Fair game. Weird that they don’t do that, but then bitch about me using an ad blocker.

I think we’ve reached the point of “violently agreeing”. :)

Good chat.

I think if companies put effort into reasonable amounts of ads, and tried hard at keeping the malware in check - people would be more willing to let the ads through and let them make money. If they make money, I get content - win win.

JovialMicrobial , 7 hours ago

They make more money via ads than they ever will with a hard pay wall. The innumerable advertisers paying google/youtube will always pay more than individuals paying for a subscription for no ads.

That’s why people who paid for no ads will eventually end up with ads again, despite paying. They don’t care if we pay or not. They want that sweet sweet ad revenue.

The sad fact of the matter is that we live in an ad based economy. Advertising is more profitable than selling an actual product. Having a platform to sell infinite ad space is a money making machine, plus people making free content for them to lure in more people to watch said ads. It’s super fucked up on youtubes part.

YouTube now exists as a billboard first, content second or third.

conciselyverbose , 6 hours ago

They definitely couldn’t add a hard paywall. It would collapse the system overnight.

Vlyn , 6 hours ago

Collapse what exactly? It would actually reduce strain on their servers and provide a better experience for paying users. Obviously they won’t do it because there’s a ton of users who watch ads (think of the average guy who plays YouTube on their phone or TV, with zero adblocking).

conciselyverbose , 6 hours ago

Just the revenue of paid subscribers will not pay the bills of any content creator that actually has employees or spends money creating content.

They won’t do it because all of their content would have no alternative but to disappear.

Vlyn , 6 hours ago

It would be a huge gamble, but it could pay off. Seriously, how many people are watching YouTube every day? Hours of their favorite content creators.

Imagine a rug pull, YouTube is now a pay only service. No ads, but everyone has to pay $5 a month to access. I’d bet with you that a surprising amount of people would just pay that to continue using it.

How many? Nobody knows, but it would certainly be 30% or higher. Now imagine 30% of users paying just $5 a month how much money that would be.

It can be done, YouTube just doesn’t do it right now as they still earn plenty with ads. If suddenly everyone started to use an ad blocker then things would change very quickly.

conciselyverbose , 6 hours ago

Nobody knows, but it would certainly be 30% or higher.

This is an insane pipe dream.

Vlyn , 6 hours ago

You underestimate how addicted people are to YouTube. There is no alternative to it.

Twitch is streaming focused, the vods absolutely suck. Kick? Same.

What else is there? TikTok? Instagram? Neither of which provide long high quality videos.

After all we are talking about YouTube literally blocking everyone and putting up a banner: $5 a month or you’re out of luck. If someone already happily pays $18 a month for Netflix, what is 5 bucks?

conciselyverbose , 6 hours ago

30% conversion rate of people already not paying to paid subscriptions is astronomical.

Expecting 10% would be delusionally optimistic.

Vlyn , 6 hours ago

Amazon has around 310 million active users. Amazon has 230 million Prime subscribers, even though it costs up to $15 a month. Yes, those include cheaper student subscriptions of course, but still.

Of course 30% is optimistic, but the average people I know happily watch those fucking ads. And don’t even complain about unskipable double ads. They don’t like them, they’re still too lazy to install an ad blocker as long as they get their content. Each one of them would absolutely shell out 5 bucks to continue watching (it’s less than a single beer when you go out).

conciselyverbose , 5 hours ago

The comparison would be Amazon just removing non-prime purchases. It’s not possible they’d convert 8 million of those 80, let alone 24mil. The people who aren’t members have already decided Prime isn’t worth buying.

30% isn’t optimistic. It’s impossible. 10% is “optimistic”. They’d be more likely to net a drop in subscriptions when some creators announced that they were going to be forced to stop making content than they would to somehow convert 30% of people who aren’t willing to pay for YouTube.

yessikg , 3 hours ago

Amazon includes a bunch of services with that price, I don’t see Google matching that

x00z , 3 hours ago

They kept trying to ruin my experience so I’ve switched to Invidious and Odysee.

Invidious only for the content creators that don’t crosspost to Odysee yet.

dsilverz , 5 hours ago (edited 5 hours ago)

I was looking at the comment section from the article and the following comment made me laugh loudly, thinking on how bizarre our current world is:

https://thelemmy.club/pictrs/image/237792b6-21c1-4b52-bbe7-722927c1127f.png

So a platform that is blocking adblockers is delivering an ad piece advertising an adblocker. Ha! That’s an ad I’d love to watch 😂

asexualchangeling , 4 hours ago

I wanna see that ad

simonced , 3 hours ago

You need to deactivate your ad blocker for that 😆

asexualchangeling , 3 hours ago

They’d have to pay me

x00z , 3 hours ago

Every video ad needs to have the video uploaded to YouTube afaik. So it’s possible to find it, although I’m not sure if it also works for private videos.

0x0 , 6 hours ago

potential account suspension.

What account?

WhyJiffie , 3 hours ago

But to be serious, this might be at actual risk to those who are logged in. They were locking out users of their whole google accounts for less, including their emails and the uploaded files to drive.

WhyJiffie , 3 hours ago

• Despite these measures, many users are leaving YouTube or finding workarounds, leading creators to seek alternative revenue streams off-platform.

That is the best part of it! A very welcome change! Basically the first step of becoming an independent creator, and to being able to abandon youtube for any of them.

HappyTimeHarry , 5 hours ago

Gotta love when the article saying adblock-blocking doesn’t work is itself preceded by a notice to disable your adblocker

Chozo , 4 hours ago

They don't even believe themselves.

gloriousspearfish , 10 hours ago

Once upon a time Google used few and non-intrusive ads. The ads were soo well-placed and relevant, that they almost seemed like a service to the user, rather than being forced upon you. Some of us even added exceptions for Google ads in our ad blockers, so we would not miss out.

I miss those days.

limerod , 10 hours ago

That was almost a decade ago or even before. I remember adockers recommending white listing search engines or recommending to disable non-instrusive ads to support websites.

timewarp , 10 hours ago

I don’t know of any day where I unblocked ads and felt good cause they were targeted directly at me

Rentlar , 10 hours ago

There are some ads that I’m fine with, but they have to be clearly an ad, and related to the content on the site, not based on my previous interactions, nor using tricks to disguise ads as part of the content.

On documentation pages: sure just have a thing related to CS courses, on pirating and streaming sites advertise VPNs, on horny sites advertise horny stuff, and casinos and sports advertise gambling and sports betting. But DON’T make the ad look like a section in the documentation, like another download button, like another horny video on the site, like another casino game or segment of the sports analysis. If I want to explore the ad I will, stop trying to trick me else I will try to block and avoid you entirely! If I figure out that are you spending more effort trying to trick me the less interested I will be in the product you offer.

MangoPenguin , 9 hours ago

Meanwhile these days every time I happen to use Youtube without an adblocker I get the same car insurance ads that I’ve gotten for the last 4 years.

SlopppyEngineer , 9 hours ago

Then they killed the competition and there was nobody left to stop them doing to you with ads what the farmer does with geese to make foie gras.

satanmat , 8 hours ago

I forgot where I heard this::: If there are fewer, more relevant ads, Google and YouTube should be able to make more money with fewer ads.

The advertisers though want more ads even though they are less affective. As it forces the cost per ad down.

It is totally backwards…. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

vext01 , 8 hours ago

The ads are so obnoxious and frequent. It just kills it for me.

I know the reply I’m gonna get…

SomeGuy69 , 4 hours ago

Then google got greedy and ruined it’s own ad service. Imagine google would’ve stopped at this early point. A single, non flashing banner ad would generate as much as 5 multiple second video ads do now. But ads got used more and more inflationary, to the point where we are now.

timewarp , 10 hours ago

Sounds like users are trying to end up in the find out phase.

YouTube… “We provide these APIs and make our apps and privacy policies more accessible than most, but we still can’t give everything away for free.”

Users… “Haha scum of the earth we think we’re beating you and that you have no way to stop us from circumventing your ads without paying.”

billiam0202 , 9 hours ago

My dude, white knighting a company that had almost $60 billion in profit in 2022 and $73 billion profit in 2023 isn’t a good look.

Source.

timewarp , 9 hours ago

My dude… There are 100s of legitimate things about Google to complain about, but you pick the weakest argument and then say I’m white knighting them. YouTube doesn’t owe you cause they made profit… you’ve been able to still bypass their ads for this long, and so now users are complaining that they were able to circumvent something easier in the past?

billiam0202 , 6 hours ago

There are 100s of legitimate things about Google to complain about

But you’re not. You’ve made several comments on this post criticizing the people who 1. want control over their own devices and 2. are sick of ads being forced into every aspect of their lives.

you pick the weakest argument

And I happen to think that a company throwing such an entitled fit over money, when they are making an immoral amount of profit that is increasing YoY, is super relevant when discussing the profitability of one of their services.

YouTube doesn’t owe you cause they made profit

Pretty sure I didn’t say they did.

you’ve been able to still bypass their ads for this long, and so now users are complaining that they were able to circumvent something easier in the past?

People always complain when their convenience is removed from them. Welcome to the human condition.

timewarp , 6 hours ago

But you’re not. You’ve made several comments on this post criticizing the people who 1. want control over their own devices and 2. are sick of ads being forced into every aspect of their lives.

They have control over their devices. You’re not making sense and can’t even articulate how they don’t have control. If they want even more control, they can install GrapheneOS or a plethora of third party ROMs that removes all Google services. Apple users can’t even do that. No one is making them use YouTube either. Google allows third party apps that blocks ads. It isn’t like a… “Ha, Google you’re idiots we are smarter than you cause you are too stupid to block ads.” Seriously, what kind of dumb person takes this attitude?

And I happen to think that a company throwing such an entitled fit over money, when they are making an immoral amount of profit that is increasing YoY, is super relevant when discussing the profitability of one of their services.

Dumb users are the ones throwing an entitled fit. Why is making profit immoral? If you want to say, “I’m anti-capitalist and don’t think the world should be about money…” then just say that. It is a much stronger argument and one that should be discussed more, but singling out Google is dumb. In terms of ethics, they are still way better than most companies, including Apple & Microsoft… In what realitydoes it make sense to attack the more ethical companies before going after the least ethical?

YouTube doesn’t owe you cause they made profit

Read your previous comment.

People always complain when their convenience is removed from them. Welcome to the human condition.

Not always. If I go to a coffee shop and they give me a free one out of convenience… I don’t go back and demand they keep giving them to me for free cause they did it once.

LainTrain , 4 hours ago

Please rewrite this to make sense and we’ll get back to you in 3-5 working days.

MonkderVierte , 7 hours ago

Meh, paywalling some videos behind Google+ (or whatever the current iteration is) would’ve been the honest option. But they chose ads and tracking for everything (makes more money), i can understand why people circumvent them.

timewarp , 7 hours ago

I can understand why people circumvent them too. I can’t understand why they’d claim… “Hey Google, you suck at blocking ads. You can’t stop us from doing it.”

Seriously, fuck people that do this. Google knows people use third party apps that block ads. They might as well say… we’re not happy not having ads. We want Google to block it entirely so we can be even more pissed off.

LainTrain , 4 hours ago

My brother in Christ you really think we’re using APIs?

Please consult the image:

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/416bf304-cc66-471e-b049-e39beb08e3eb.webp

legendaryhero , 5 hours ago

Very noice

JustARaccoon , 6 hours ago

Until they start properly filtering ads they accept they get auto disabled in my side. No weird crypto or porn ads for me, thanks.

towerful , 6 hours ago

Even the shitty mobile ads of “someone watching prerecorded gameplay and commenting it”.
How obvious can you be?! “Oh wow, these 2 different people playing EXACTLY the same and saying almost the same thing”.
That’s not an ad.
Never mind that the gameplay in the ad is an extremely minor part of the game. The rest is some sort of city-builder with mtx shortcuts.

It’s just whaling

Desistance , 7 hours ago

Good.