My biggest issue is that ads around the internet have just gotten horrible. I don't mind ads, but extremely intrusive ads just ruin the experience of everything so I just use an ad blocker whenever I can.
I'm not keen on paying premium as many contents still have commercials by content creators. If I'd pay, that would mean 100% no ads. No matter what the case is.
If youtube is gonna block adblock and they don't find new loopholes, there will be browser extensions or scripts to mute, black out and automatically press skip buttons. There is no world where youtube could ever win this.
@@republicansarepedos7 there are ads for crypto games, those fake games that steal your data. There are nft and crypto scams..my father gets scam ads because he is old and believes that there are business opportunities if ya send them money. There are 5 min music videos on music videos. There is a guy in front of a Joe Rogan backdrop selling supplements( guess what, he was never on Rogan ) i kept getting ads for opposing political campaigns, even though i blocked and reported all of them. Halfway i stared counting abd it was over 30 political ads, so about 60 ads that i actively blocked. There are the peta ads, you know, those guys that kill dogs. Oh and the religious ads of that pair doing a podcast and talking about your sins. There is that fake ai woman telling you to buy from a fake online store. And of course RAID SHADOW LEGEND
They can also be repetitive. On Crunchyroll back when I used to watch anime, I would sometimes get the same freaking ad multiple times in a row in the same ad break! Was the tipping point that made me get an ad blocker. I have UA-cam Premium, but I still use an ad blocker on other sites.
Ads have been getting more and more obnoxious while my favorite creators keep getting demonetized for the most random reasons. If they don't change their ways I don't see why should anybody not use AdBlock in the platform, because at this point is more of a protest than a convenience for many users.
I wouldn't be all that sad if YT fell off. I'm not really a fan of what Alphabet has done to the internet in general. It'd just suck not having it for DIY projects, but there are plenty of ways to learn that outside of YT
@@1337Jogi people should not accept ad revenue, these companies are excersizing soft power, we should be isolating ourselves from them. I am happy with text-based content
Yeah, considering most ad services nowadays can be abused to promote scam content and even promoting malicious software, I can confirm that the use of adblockers is very important for safety browsing I always use adblocker for browsing after someone gave us a warning of a malicious fake Discord and OBS studio app which are spreading via Google ad services earlier this year
@@theloniuspunk383 Why are you here then? I hate Ads as well but I do not see why I should have the right to consume a service and argue I should not pay for it.
The issue is that youtube's ad system is just very user hostile. There appears to be no quality control on ads, with many being for outright scams. The need to skip ads, rather than limiting advertisers to a reasonable runtime, achieves nothing more than irritating the user. The content recommendation algorithm, while not directly related to ads, is manipulative, rewards clickbait and sensationalism, and is very hard to properly avoid. People just won't pay for such a user-hostile product.
@@kayaguvendi Most do, but Google doesn't give a shit. That's why they need to be fined for everything they're worth, so those fuckers learn the lesson.
@@kayaguvendi A lot of these scams fall into legal gray areas; Bogus training, opaque dropshipping, etc. These areas typically fall into civil enforcement because the subjective nature of the violations makes establishing the high standard of criminal law difficult. And, as other commenters mention, requiring youtube to do full due-diligence for all advertisers would impose large costs that would likely shut out smaller operators. Google really just needs to have a human team doing basic approval of ads; Most of the scams are blatantly obvious, and google has the right to select which ads run on its platform.
I didn't used to block ads while they were silent sidebar kinds of things and I'd often see something I was interested in and click on it. I started using ad block when video ads with loud sound started becoming a thing, not to mention Flash ads that were served from an ad server and therefore sometimes contained malware because the ad server didn't bother vetting them.
@@-alexanderhosch-4828 Do you also go think you have the right to sneak into the cinema and watch for free just because you are low income? Is that a valid argument? Because actually it does not really cost the cinema owner anything to filll up empty seats with non paying customers. It does cost UA-cam quite a bit to stream to you.
I allowed ads for a long time, but UA-cam putting them on channels that aren't even monetized is the straw that broke the camel's back for me. It certainly doesn't help that they've dramatically increased in number and even taken away the Skip Ad button on lots of them as well.
So they should delete all demonitised videos? And those users can pay Vimeo to host their shit. Like YT isn't a charity... Hosting video that can be served instantly anywhere in the world isn't free or easy to do. Pay Vimeo then.
UA-cam was what MADE me get adblocker because I was so tired of getting an ad every minute. I never used one before that and it has opened my eyes. I will genuinely stop watching UA-cam than watch ad's. They treat their creators like shit, they don't punish people who falsely copyright strike, they remove dislikes so now you cant tell if a video is a scam or not. They don't deserve my money.
Before YT Premium was a thing, I tried my best not to use ad blockers just to try and support the creator. But then there was a period where some malicious pre-roll adds were literally breaking the video player, preventing you from watching the video without refreshing and hoping the ad doesn't play again.
problem is, youtube doesnt get a cut of that money, if the creators were paying the platform to exist that would be fine but they're not, and youtube is a very money hungry service to run
The main problem with ads on youtube, is that it's not just some passive ad that is plastered AROUND the content, it's directly interrupting the content and getting in your face about it. The whole adblocking movement has primarily been for getting rid of intrusive ads. I'd be absolutely fine with banner ads and such that exists around the sides of the main content, but sooooo many companies insist on full screen, in your face, "YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT OUR ADS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AS IF IT WAS THE ONLY CONTENT WE HAVE HERE PLEASE BUY OUR PARTNER'S SHITTY GARBAGE PLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASE" and this lack of respecting the end users to such a massive degree has instigated the severe backlash that we see with adblockers nowadays. If we could agree on a simple non-intrusive method of advertising, then people wouldn't fight so hard to remove ads. Oh, and the history of viruses in ads is absolutely atrocious! I've had to help so many people in my 30+ years of life get rid of viruses because "oh, shiny ad says x thing and I must do what they say!" VET YOUR FUCKING ADS BEFORE DISPLAYING THEM.
Fully agreed, if it was just a billboard advert that didn't go full screen and blare out audio 3 times louder than the source video, I wouldn't be blocking ads.
@@SteveSunny The whole point of good advertisement is to lure your target audience in. If your ad is so dull that a banner ad doesn't draw in any attention, then you need to rethink your ad. It doesn't need to hold you at gunpoint to be a good ad. We've had decades of internet market research, there's no excuse for these ad companies to be incapable of drawing the eye to a banner ad except absolute laziness, and pure desire to annoy the living shit out of people.
@The Program Honestly if there was just always a skip button from the start that'd be fair. Think about what this would do. Creators would try to match up with ads people don't skip to not lose revenue and advertisers race to the most obnoxious ad would be immediately squandered.
@@SteveSunny This I believe shows a fundamental misunderstanding. People avoid ads and come up with strategies to avoid looking at them because the ads are annoying and awful. This is no ones fault but the websites and platforms that did this. By taking away user control advertisers make exceedingly obnoxious ads because in the short term it sells better and beats out competitors but in the long term people stop paying attention and even devote significant mental energy to find ways to ignore it. Ad blocking is just the technological conclusion to that. It's the advertisers fault because they're too greedy.
Worst thing that's gonna happen is making it harder to use an adblocker for some consumers because it's now requiring you to hide the ad blocker. But there will be a way.
there is ways but i wont give YT any ideas. If i tell YT that i fart alot they will send me ads about "fart hiders" that hide the fart with a smell of roses...
@@whatisahandle_69yes there are some absolutely brilliant modified UA-cam apps on Android and Chromecast TV. I cannot say anything bad about them. I donate to the devs each year as they have saved probably 500+ over the years
@@whatisahandle_69there are third party UA-cam clients for iOS that can be installed by abusing the mechanism intended for developers to test their apps before publishing to App Store
I don't mind some adds, but there are multiple problems with the current model. For one, there are numerous adds out there that are essentially malware. They seriously need to deal with that issue. Having an adblocker is kind of a necessity nowadays. The other problems is that there are numerous websites that have way too many adds, to an extent that it makes a website almost unusable. I've also got absolutely no tolerance for anything flashing that is obviously trying to get my attention in the most obnoxious way possible.
Google's (and other Ad providers') extreme insistence on not screening their ads whatsoever is why ad blockers proliferate. Between the computer hazards, the hearing hazards, the stalking, and the complete inability to use some webpages, people just don't want to put up with it. I wouldn't mind having to deal with banner ads if I could *trust* them to not infect my computer with malware. Atleast pop-ups were just annoying...
THIS. The amount of ads I see for mobile games that are just absolute dogs*** is ridiculous. And I've seen straight up misinformation in UA-cam ads. Some of the ads are just absolutely predatory... And UA-cam doesn't care.
this is big problem while using mobile to read articles on news site. half of the screen is taken up by ads and there will small area of 4 lines to read. you have to keep scrolling and some point you are going to click on a godforsaken link which opens which will keep redirecting.
UA-cam created this issue. The only reason I ever started using AdBlock was BECAUSE of UA-cam's obnoxious and excessive advertising. They got greedy and it exacerbated the issue for themselves.
This is really the whole problem. Ads will always only get worse. Ad blocking has provided a filter for those users who receive it poorly and don't buy shit out of an ad. I believe UA-cam just feels it's time it can rid itself of avid Ad Block users because it can focus on it's ad watching core. It's going to get bloody. But remember that if they're doing this it also means UA-cam as a platform is gonna became basically just shitty targeted TV. You won't want to stay.
I mean you can't really pinpoint what started it. It's the chicken and the egg paradox Did it start with users getting adblock and UA-cam increasing ads in response? Or did it start with UA-cam increasing ads and users getting adblock in response? I got UA-cam premium when 99% of the ads were shippable in 5s and got it because of university discount and got rid of Spotify in the process. Not going back now.
@@joseluislopes3956 While not direct evidence we do have the history which is that ad blockers initially were a direct response to flagrant unadulterated shitty advertising like popups, flashing banners or sound blaring Adobe Flash ads. Not to mention the amount of just pure fraud and scams. It's also proof that ad blocker and/or large ad platforms have had a moderating effect on ads. You can see that with AdBlock Plus but you can also see that with Google Ad Sense. However my opinion on it is that the only reason Google Ad Sense was reasonable is because it's the obvious competitive edge when you have the volume to be the standout better experience compared to other ads. Now that these huge ad platforms like Google are the only ones around we see more ads reminiscent of "the old days" which to me is clear evidence of which way this "paradox" leans. Consider the fact that some people just aren't that receptive to ads. That could be because they aren't impulsive consumers, don't have the money or just find the ad experience repulsive. Never the less the ad isn't convincing them. So what's the point in showing them? Social media networks however benefit from better data and connections with other people who will buy things through the ads so having them on the platform is important even if they block ads. To me it's much less likely that ad blocking got just "too bad" as if most people blocking them were going to buy anything anyway. It's that Google no longer needs us and it's time to kick us out. UA-cam is being digitally gentrified.
@@Furiends i still don't get how this is true. How can ads get worse if no one likes them? Who the fuck is paying for ads? i mean: to pay for ads it means some people are fking clicking them or companies wouldn't pay to run them I'm agreeing with you btw, i just don't get how it came to this
@@AdamBorseti I think it's a fair trade. You pay with your time and attention to receive otherwise free videos. Or you pay actual dollars and don't have to see any ads.
@@0106johnny One could argue it's not a fair trade, because UA-cam has a quasi monopoly & doesn't compensate it's creators fairly anyway, beside all the bs they pull with them, which they cannot do anything about and are dependent on the arbitrary decision making of YT, despite them being the drivers for the platform. Also their subscriptions are egregiously priced. Paying 12 bucks a month (or 18 bucks, if you are on a family subscription) or watching ads for a service where creators aren't compensated properly anyway doesn't seem fair to me. Monopoly aside, I think if YT would adjust their pricing, their ad and company policies regarding certain things, more people would pay for the service or watch ads. I used to watch ads, until they started playing ads on unmonetized creators (is that fair?) and playing an obnoxious amount of ads on all other videos. I think other people mentioned a lot of other problems as well, so making it seem like a simple "this or that" does not do it justice in my opinion.
Internet Historian is a creator who actually makes his sponsorship ads entertaining. If ads were actually interesting to watch, less people would complain about them. Or at least make them less obnoxious
Same, with JaysTwoCents and their sponsor ad specifically for iFixit. I already use their products and I *still* watch his ad every time because it's so fucking funny!
But then they are for scams. Like Nord VPN. Nord VPN doesn't provide the functions shown in the ads. It's gross IMO. Best VPNs are ones that don't pay for advertising and you probably don't need one still.
I just fear that overtime this 'creativity' will drain out for people and it starts being as annoying as before. There's a case to be made for ads being fundamentally against your interest right there right then for people's valuable time when you're watching/consuming a piece of content and don't want to be distracteed in any way.
@@0106johnny People are, just look at Netflix. There is a clear divide between pre-Netflix, peak Netflix and post Netflix torrenting. Problem is: people don't have money. We are all out of here having to count pennies. Then every company wants to offer their own exclusive bullshit service, that is worse than before and costs more. Well, now no one gets any money. Like Luke said, if they do block ad blockers on youtube, they aren't going to roll back ads, on the contrary. Ads will keep being as intrusive and frequent as today, and if they find out that they can push even more, they 100% will, because you have no other option.
@@ggwp638BC I think YT is making the non premium so invasive to drive up premium subs, sorry you can't give me a shitty experience just to charge me for the fix. Maybe they need to start charging successful creators instead of trying to just be supported entirely by the viewers.
Luke, when you said that you could let the ads play while getting the tools to fix the dishwasher I laughed inside. Skippable ads on UA-cam require you to press the skip button, even if you let them play out. And if you have two ads in a row, now you get to watch another one after getting your tools.
Luke, to me at least, seems like the most passive employee who does what Linus says no matter what. He often just doesn't seem to have a voice of his own.
@@FlexinJC You are correct. On the TV platform, that is correct. On mobile, that is not how it works. Most people use mobile or the web version, and that is what my comment was talking about. Sorry for the confusion, I should have specified the platform that I was talking about.
The ads were the price of admission *before* UA-cam premium became a thing. Not anymore: they are now deliberately made to annoy the user into paying to get rid of them. Exhibit A: ad length and frequency increases dramatically when YT premium became a thing. The gradual worldwide roll out made this quite obvious, with countries where premium hadn't launched yet having less aggressive ads. Exhibit B: even of you turn off all of Google's privacy settings and lay bare your life to them, YT ads are almost never relevant.
I would still argue that the price of admission _is_ that they are incredibly annoying. Not saying that is good at all, but it is still a price you pay to consume the service. That being said, I 100% agree with you on A and B. They have made strides (either intentionally or just to maximize a statistic) to make the ad experience as incredibly annoying as they can.
@@chlorophyllphile i have a friend who has used it for 2 years, you don't get banned. It's mostly for mobile since as locker doesn't work in the UA-cam app
They made ads worse, more frequent, longer, unskipable, and then stopped curating what ads get shown. We the users responded to these negative changes the only way we could by circumventing them while asking the changes be reverted and UA-cam's response was to make ads worse and more unavoidable while demonatizing and censoring content across their platform entirely to service MORE ADS Somehow IM supposed to feel like it's MY fault???
I love linus and all but since he has financial interest, he is all for UA-cam to block ads and get more people to pay for premium because for every user that is premium user that is more money for LTT, and users who cant bypass ads is more money for LTT, while he wants to act and portray it like anyone with adblock is some filthy pirate and these remarks"more people block ads more draconian it be", he is also nitpicking on less legitimate responses, its same thing twitch streamers do, they ignore the valid ones and just argue points that easy to win on, they even go on and pick some crapy "legitimate" response that are trash and barely consider valid someones said towards them try make it sound like they being balanced, but you can see the demeanor, the thing is he thinks its the consumer who is the problem, and some how UA-cam and google is not, i personally don't agree with linus in regards to this topic and its only thing i ever disagree with him on, each to there own, no matter what UA-cam and google thinks they can do regarding ads and data mining there will always be plugins and browsers that will shut it all down no matter what UA-cam and google think they capable of doing, i would rather have a black screen for 20seconds then see an ad, and no i won't keep paying out of the ass for services constantly, eventually Prime netflix disney Plus gonna start shuving ads down my eyes like cable tv and ransom us to pay for more to turn it off "cough" netflix, its all greed and idea of forever increasing stock prices but that's biggest problem never enough, they can never accept that there is population limit a consumption limit and they cannot get more "new" users" same issue Facebook had, accept the plateau and invest in ways to fix your own problems UA-cam and not make it everyone else's problem. use your billions to make cheaper space, cheaper servers better products, better UA-cam PREMIUM SERVICE sell us the service don't ransom us, its clearly to me premium doesn't offer enough other then the adblock, give us discounts gives us value and features, simple as that market and sell us a good premium product.
@flavourfulz8147 I mean, why does seeing what using adblock can do in the long run require financial interest? They have ads, people block them, they make up for it with more ads. It's a vicious cycle where both parties have some fault
@@flavourfulz8147 At the end of the day, Linus is a CEO with a financial incentive to side with UA-cam. It's zero surprise that he does, but the arguments he makes are still shitty and condescending. Every time he opens his mouth about this issue people start respecting him less and less, because he not only sides with UA-cam (that's fine), he intentionally misrepresents people's grievances both with UA-cam and ad blocking. If they start blocking ad blockers, I'm just gonna stop using UA-cam.
@@PontschPauPau3451 they can't block adblockers because plugins and browser's will just continue update to bypass it, plus Firefox is not chrome, so they would have to go as far as blocking none chromium browsers and that is anti competitive and not gonna fly with governments, so its always gonna be a back and forth until eventually Firefox becomes defacto adblocking Browser.
capitalism gravitates anything towards monopolies and oligoplies. Because they abuse their market position to keep away competition through lobbyism, unfair business practices, operating at a loss for a while thats not sustainable for competitors (youtube is very well known for this because they have alphabet mothership to supplement them with funding. Furthermore WHEN they can not provide a similiar product with MORE funding what they do is they buy out this product. Amazon buying up twitch, Facebook buying instagram and whatsapp. And these smaller companies would be stupid to refuse a 2 -3 billion buyout. Every single owner would be set for life while workers can remain in the company and work for someone else but on the same product. Its inherently anticompetitive because capitalism wants to eliminate all competition.
@@shriekinambassador5042 That was the point. Go somewhere else if the water is too wet here, but don't complain if your search for dryer water is futile. ^^
The problem isn't that there are ads, its that there are too many ads that are implemented poorly. 1 or 2 ads midway through the video are not bad, its expected; the problem is when there are multiple unskippable ads before the video that may or may not even give revenue to the creator. This problem wouldn't exist if they didn't demonetize half of the platform and decide to start piling ads ontop of eachother so that there are more ads then content for some videos.
What I hate is the fact that UA-cam decides to attack Ad-blockers, instead of giving viewers a better ad viewing experience Since last year I have been getting a significant amount of ads that are 1. Investment scams (Invest Rs 10 now, get Rs 2000 back in an hour) 2. Crypto scam ads 3. VPN ads with inappropriate pictures/video 4. Video chatting apps with inappropriate pictures 5. Betting site ads and I use this account to watch lectures and tech related stuff, rarely any other video If UA-cam put as much effort into Advertisement checking and false copyright checks as it does on hammering down content creators for saying a single bad word in their video, people wouldn't use much adblock as they do
And the most ironic thing is the video complaining about those scam/inappropriate ads are instantly deminitized (and in some cases, age restricted) when those ad itself don't
You hit the nail right on the head! Piracy and people leaving in droves are not causes, but rather they are symptoms. There are several key boxes a company has to tick in order to have a happy, thriving community. This includes making your product accessible, affordable, convenient (user friendly), a good quality product overall, to have a solid reputation with your consumer base, and to maintain this. This is by far the most effective method to fight piracy and desertion if you are a company. If you can build a good relationship with your clients and create a quality service that is worth spending money on, then the money will come and people will feel like they're getting what they paid more, perhaps then some! While the outlawing of adblocks was bound to occur, UA-cam (and countless other services, including Google itself as a company) are making no progressive strides in fixing all of their glaring problems while improving the user experience and keeping everyone safe (from malware, viruses, etc.).
I strongly agree that if ads were high quality and provided value instead of being malicious (in terms of content or in actual security risk as in serving malware) I would be more inclined to stop using ad block. Spots like the sponsored sections that Dennis runs are so fluid and enterntaining that I am aware its an ad but still watch, as I see there's effort and care put in, not just "give me ad rev because theres this random thing flashing in the way of the content for 2 minutes".
is it just me or are the "targeted" ads, that google, facebook etc happily collect our data for, not that targeted? Not to mention they keep showing the same ad over and over again, like guys what makes you think I'm going to buy your stupid product after already clicking "not interest" on your damn ad, stop showing it to me
@@GameCyborgCh I was saying this for years. Google should know me pretty well by now... or amazon, or whoever. But the only thing they learn is what i bought and then i get ads for what i just ordered. Brilliant.
I was forced to buy yt premium because when my kids would be watching something, or I'd be watching something late at night since I've disabled targeted ads I would be literally given ads for adult content, or incredibly suggestive/ "rent a girl" type services. I totally lost it when my 18 month old on a Ms Rachel video was served an ad about "find what you're looking for here" with a scantily clad lady and moans in the background. I have all my settings set for privacy, and sure I could have enabled targeted ads, but that wouldn't change the fact that on white noise videos for sleeping google would always serve me the *loudest* commercial possible. It almost felt intentional.
The question is why did you buy Premium then? I ask this rhetorically. Most of us don't have alternatives. But consider Premium isn't some panacea for creators it's like business class on airlines. The whole platform is still an ad based platform just like airlines make money on business class by making everyone else miserable.
For a long time, I didn't use an adblocker because I believed that it was important to support creators. It was a bit annoying having the ads, but I dealt with it. What caused me to install an adblocker was when the double ads started. I'm fine with some ads, but I'm not fine with excessive ads. And from what I've heard, they've only gotten more common since.
I remember when I was a kid, way back in the 80's and early 90's, you would get a 5 minute (or thereabouts) ad segment between shows. Then, somewhere in the late 80's or early 90's, we got a new TV station that would also put an ad segment in the middle of a movie. Which was OK, because it allowed you to take a quick toilet break while someone with a bigger bladder went to the kitchen for more snacks. Then it became two. Then three. Now I don't even know, but I think we're on three ad segments per episode of a TV show, perhaps more. So god knows how many per movie. And it sucks the entire momentum out of the narrative. I was lucky enough to have downloaded Firefly (which wasn't available over here when it first aired) and I loved that show. But when it finally aired on TV, I turned it off shortly after the first ad segment, because thanks to the ad segment right after a tense scene, the pacing of the show was just... gone... Meanwhile, the ads themselves also changed. As kids, we LOVED the ad breaks, because the ads were creative, funny, or sometimes just beautiful. Not all of them, but enough to make ad time fun time. We had our favourite ads, and we actually talked about them on the school yard the next day. Just like we discussed all the cool scenes from Rambo or whatever action movie was aired that week. But advertisers have gotten lazy. Nowadays, very few ads are creative or fun. Most are just obnoxious and annoying. If you want me to watch your ads, make it worth my time.
@@Dead_Hitori most of the times it's not a creator fault. (Although there probably are such people who intentionally put a ton of add in video). If creators didn't put ad breaks themselves then youtube does it instead. And it puts an abnormal amount of ads when it can. You can see it on old videos, videos on abandoned channels, or even demonetised videos.
@@EvenTheDogAgrees Ugh, a few years ago I tried watching a movie with some friends and family, there was an ad segment literally every 15 minutes. The ad segments themselves were longer than the snippets we gotto see from the movie. After that horrid experience I swore off watching TV, if there's one thing I hate, it's my free time being wasted.
@@LadislausKallig with demonetised videos it's often the copyright holder that filed the copyright notice who puts in all the midroll ads, as any ad revenue on that video goes to them instead. I see that a lot on long music mixes. Everyone yelling at the uploader, who's helpless in the matter.
I watched a 42 minute video with adblocking disabled. The creator says explicitly that this video was an experiment, to see just how many ads UA-cam would insert on it's own. Two pre-roll 15 second unskippables. EIGHTEEN double mid-roll ads, all of them fifteen second and almost all of them unskippable, and two end-roll 6 second ads. That's SUPER aggressive. And they want us to turn off adblockers, or are going to now strong-arm us into doing so. Okay. Fine, but if you're going to do that, back off on the number you throw at us. A lot more people are going to see your ads so you can do your part and cut the number you serve.
I *was* paying for UA-cam Premium until the moment they hid the dislike count from the end user. I stopped paying for the service because as the end user that is the only thing I can do; to vote with my wallet. Now the subscriptions feed is getting littered with the damn "shorts" and there is no option to hide that trash. UA-cam is getting a lot worse wether you pay for the premium or not. Paying for the service is no longer an option for me, so I suppose I'll just have to find better use for my free time if I can no longer block ads.
there is a way to get rid of the shorts section. on my youtube home page, where shorts are on show, there is a x in top right corner to hide them for 30days. i just click it every time shorts show up as i dont understand why they are popular, usually useless info on them or movie/tv clips.
One thing that is incredibly frustrating about streaming services for me is that you can't browse them without subscribing, it feels insane that I have to resort to a third party website to check whether they have the content I want available in my country. My instances of piracy are usually when I can't figure out who the fuck gas the rights to it, if I could just open netflix and search what shows they have before I pay I'd be way less likely to do that
This is what Gabe Newell (the founder of Valve) talked about in his quote about piracy. He said that piracy is usually used as a last resort because the Pirate will offer a better service than the Branded Provider, and not because people hate to pay for things. If I want to buy a game or a movie, I will find the money for it. But if it's region locked or is outrageously expensive, then I will go to my various pirating sites and just get it there for free. The companies drove me there, I didn't choose to go there until my patience had finally run out.
@Devil seriously, why would I pay for multiple services when I can find a streaming site that offers everything all them combined have and more all in one place? The thing is, the likes of Netflix actually reduced piracy by making it more convenient to go legit. But because of everyone wanting jump on the bandwagon and fracture the content, it's now more convenient to pirate again so here we are again with yet another piracy revolution.
@@_Devil Region lock and fragmentation of content is what gonna kill streaming services. Nothing is more annoying that wanting to watch something and "Ups. You can't watch it on your country. Better got an get a VPN" or the "Show not available anymore. X streaming services it buy it so got to X and PAY FOR THEIR SUBSCRIPTION and come back to Y" I'm tired of having shows all across multiple streaming services. Nowadays i would be forced to pay for subscription to watch ONE SINGLE THING on those services. This is why Piracy would always be king. They offer a much better services without region locks or fragmentation
What we need are STRICT regulations on what ads show, how many can show, when they show, and how long they can be. Also, we need to stop double ads. At this point, suspend ALL YT ads until the malware risk ones are removed.
I’m confident that UA-cam is a big enough deal that many men far more intelligent than myself will always devise new, ever-more ingenious ways for me to continue blocking ads on YT.
They know, but just like the military. They know making powerful deterrence will mean a more ingenious way to try to outdone them. Yet most countries still have their military units. Also, giant tech companies hired many talents. So they can play this cat & mouse game. Information security is already like that anyway, so they're used to it.
Witnessing the birth of yet another tech arms-race gives me a very bittersweet feeling. I'm glad to see resistance to tech platforms making arguably poor decisions but resistance breeds harder crackdowns.
And - as per usual - UA-cam has no chance of winning this one. Any time UA-cam updates their detections adblocker will race to see who will be the first to circumvent it - probably in minutes.
I skip every single ad on my TV - especially the unskippable ones - by clicking on the video then immediately clicking the back button when I see a commercial, then again clicking on the video then clicking the back button as many times as needed till the video I want to see starts. It usually works within two tries. For the iPhone as soon as the commercial starts click the X to close the video then click on the video you want to see again. Repeat till the commercials are gone. Some may think it's dumb to do that but I think it's kinda' fun.
@@zerorig experience is BETTER with Adblock, for example Revanced moved shorts to their own little tab keeping them out of my feed unless I go look for them specifically. I also often have limited bandwidth, so being able to directly download videos with a single button tap while I'm around public wifi for later viewing is also very helpful. And ads always play in 1080pHD which destroys my bandwidth caps so I'm saving money as well. That's an important improvement. As someone who spends upto 8 hours a day on this platform sometimes AD block is a necessary thing. End of.
I'm sure if they invest a proper amount of dev time (as they are probably doing right now), ad-blocking could become a lot harder. It's not hard to imagine a system that validates users based on what they see on the back-end, or one that bakes the ad into the content's stream. Not hoping for it, but I'm absolutely expecting something like this in the not-so-far future.
The problem I had was the frequency and length of ads. Watching one 15 second ad before a video was fine. But about a month ago it became two 15 second ads before the video, and another one or two ads every 5-10 minutes of the video. I valued my time enough to go buy an Android device, connect it to my TV, and run an app on it that blocks ads for me.
When I wasn't on premium, the thing that shocked me the most (aside from things other have listed like them being obnoxioualy loud) is how LONG they would be! Like longer than the content I'm watching! I've had adds almost and hour long interrupt the middle of a 15 minute video and yes it was skippable after a time but if I'm cooking or busy it's really disruptive to deal with.
If youtube started blocking ad-blockers, I'd probably get back into gaming instead of spending way too much time watching youtube... And no Linus, I'd just look up the service manual for the dishwasher and RTFM....
My first step is always finding the manual and RTFMing... and yet I am always apalled about how amazingly useless they always are. Maintenance/repair/troubleshooting is rarely even a section, and if it is it's sparse at best, and usually not even about the product in question (for some reason most things are shipped with older models manuals instead of writing up a new one (or some kind of shared manual for multiple models) - and sometimes simply a different model, period.). And yet, youtube pretty much always have a guide identifying what your issue is, how to fix it, and how to maintain so it doesn't appear again. So no, I completely agreed with what they said about youtube being the best source to look up such things. Just... stick to the third-party videos if available :/ First party either has same issue as manual, or is meant as a promo video so you don't actually see anything beyond the most beautifying angles possible hiding the actual part that's an issue.
@@MaverickBlue42 yes, it is online that I find them. Rather, more often than not there are no physical copies. Even when there are physical copies of warranty info in a huge multitude of languages... :/ But even online is rarely the correct model etc all that I mentioned before.
The thing about these anti-adblock efforts is that the developers for adblockers have always won out, part of that might be the sheer hatred a lot of people have for ads as they become more invasive. Also, another thing I see people say is something along the lines of "well, they have to make money somehow." Ok? Why should I care that a massive company is making less money because of these ad blockers? That's their problem that they caused by going overboard with ads in the first place.
@@Drenwickification my problem as well as what I would think is other people's problem is that they'll block the ad blocker and tell you to buy premium but they won't lower the price of it. If something like UA-cam premium include something like UA-cam music then provide me a service that is purely ad removal without all the fluff at a lower cost.
@@jforce321 youtube music is just music on youtube, it's a simple and low cost value add for them, why should that mean you shouldn't pay the extravagent $8 a month on a service you apparently care enough to comment on videos on...
My problem with YT ads is that 1st, I have never purchased anything simply because I saw it in an ad. 2nd, I very seldom see an ad that is in any way related to anything I'm interested in.
People would be more willing to whitelist platforms that don't go overboard with the ads and/or serve ads from questionable at best sources. Adblock didn't become popular just because people don't like to sit through ads. It is a defense against abuse from bad ads and platforms
@@miciso666 Yeah, I remember the dark ages of seizure-inducing banner ads and ear-shattering sounds on webpages. The perfect mix of "questionable at best sources" and "going overboard"
I L-O-V-E it every time that midroll ad comes in blasting at a much higher volume than the content I was watching, forcing me to reach for the device to turn it down before I can even skip the legit HOUR LONG ad.
Honestly I don't think Linus cares that much about sponsor block, he's said in the past that he specifically makes all of his sponsored segments almost exactly 10 seconds long as that's the default length of the shortcut skip forward on UA-cam
@@bosstowndynamics5488 well those are exactly the kind of ads sponsor block is perfect for. Because it automatically skips past it without you having to take your phone out of your pocket to hit the skip button.
@@michaelcorcoran8768 What I'm getting at though is that Linus is going out of his way to make them as skippable as possible. If he was losing sleep over people skipping them he'd make them all different lengths at random
For more than a decade, It has been practically impossible to surf the web without a working adblock; now a working anti-adblock block is becoming a requirement as well. Next, we'll be needing an anti-"anti-adblock" blocker. It truly is ridiculous.
The secret is to stop using platforms created by the same people making the ads/anti adblockers. Guys run around on Chrome and wonder why everyone knows your blocking ads...
"For more than a decade, It has been practically impossible to surf the web without a working adblock" I'm not certain what Internet you've been using, but it isn't the one I and many other non-users of adblock are on.
@@somdudewillson They are definitely over-exaggerating that part. While I would agree that for the past decade, browsing the web has been significantly better with an adblock, its not impossible to browse without it. The only times I would say that it is ABSOLUTELY necessary to use one, is when browsing torrent sites or other nefarious corners of the internet.
@@zenyax69 Hard disagree, poisoned ads outside of those corners of the internet isn't *that* uncommon. I would cheerfully accept a reasonable amount of ads from any site won't share PII with third parties and that agreed to take full liability for any damage ads served by their site causes or any PII leaks from the data they harvest. If they won't agree to that deal then they have no confidence in the ads they present and neither should you.
The amount of adds I've seen on YT that outright breach New Zealand law is the reason I am glad I primarily use YT on my PC with certain additions rather than my phone.
Ad block is a key part of most people’s anti-virus suite (remember Forbes putting malware vectored through ads?), so even with UA-cam premium, I still run ad-block concurrently lol.
Yep I run adblock for general browser safety but also pay for the premium version of every service I regularly use if an ad-free option exists. If you really must have something for free, ironically peer to peer piracy is a better option for all parties since you're only denying potential revenue, not consuming resources without paying like using an ad blocker on a streaming platform.
One major issue with the youtube ads are that they are obnoxious and extremely disruptive to the content, especially since youtube likes serving ads which are effectively long videos shilling a scam product. For example, it is not uncommon to see a preroll, midroll, or endroll ad that is a 20+ minute video that is being served as an ad. While you can skip it after a few seconds, the problem is that it requires you to babysit the app or website. I can't start a podcast and work on something while listening to it. I can't start a watch later playlist with multiple videos lines up and clean the house or wash dishes because I will be part way into a video and encounter a 20 minute ad that I will not be in an ideal position to skip. And the watch later list is useless with ads because you will end up with more ads than content if you can't easily skip them. For example, with multiple 10-20 minute videos, you are likely to encounter 2 preroll ads where if you do not skip them, will run for around 3-20+ minutes depending on what youtube selected, then you will encounter at least one midroll ad that can be 30 seconds, to 20+ minutes if you do not skip it (some sub-1 minute ads cannot be skipped), then after the video ends, you can encounter 2 end roll ads that can run for 3-20+ minutes, after which the watch later list moves to the next video which will have its own 2 3-20+ minutes of preroll ads, and the cycle repeats itself. The end result is 2 ads at the start of the list, then midroll ads, then 4 ads in a row before the next video in your list starts. I have seen many people who resisted adblocking for a long time in order to support channels they like, be forced to use them because the site became unusable due to the ads.
On the few time I try watching a video in the YT App on my phone or tablet (both on Android and iOS/iPadOS) - I tend to have to cancel out of the video 5 or 6 times to get YT to stop shoving 2x 3min+ adds in my face for a 2min video.
Agreed. I don't like ads in general at all, but I could live with them because there isn't much I do that requires me to leave UA-cam unmonitored. Yes, they are extremely obnoxious, but I would still watch UA-cam content because I love the content on this platform and the communities I am a part of. But the one thing I cannot use with ads is music, or more specifically, UA-cam Music. I listen to dozens of songs each day, and the amount of ads I would get would be unbearable. For that I have to use an adblocker.
Ad Block-Blocker-Blockers have existed for years now. The problem is the same as the piracy problem, if you go too hard trying to force people who will never pay you just end up making the legitimate product worse than the pirated one, directly incentivizing users to stop paying for a better experience. You can replace "pay" here with "watch ads", but it equates the same.
As long as they don't put the ads directly into the video stream, users will always find a way to block them. And if they are integrated into the video, you can simply fast-forward them.🤷♂
@@yasminesteinbauer8565 if they are integrated in the video stream, then they could also just not allow fast forwarding at whatever time the ad happens to be
You know. It was a throw away line in "Ready Player One": "We can sell 80% of the screen without causing seizures." Heck, even in the tabletop game, Starfinder. There are literal items/tools you need to use that Universe's version of the Internet. And if you don't use these tools. The unwanted ads and pop-ups WILL KILL YOU. Thus, I refer back to that quote from "Ready Player One". All for this gameplay use.
Two arguments: Ads don't always pay the channel anything considering that demonetized channels still have ads just no profit from them. I don't want to view 4 minutes of unskipabble ads in a 10 minute video that don't profit anyone but UA-cam, it's a different topic when you are watching monetized channels that get revenues from ads, but the latter is that you have a sponsorship to hear about and watch embedded ads. I used to have UA-cam premium because I hated seeing ads, but I had to cancel out of financial reasons. Now I will fight this with every possible illegal way just out of spite.
UA-cam hasn't made a profit since its creation Turns out storing pentabytes of video for completely free is not a valid business model, who would have guessed It's the same shit as uber and everything else. *As long as we grow infinitely long everything is fine* Unfortunately there aren't infinite many people in the world
About the idea that using adblockers makes UA-cam to push more ads. Here is a little thought experiment: Imagine a large amount users stops using adblockers on UA-cam and starts watching ads. Will Google reduce amount of ads? Of course not! When more people find ads tolerable it sends a signal to Google that they haven't reached the critical point yet and can still place more ads without alienating viewers. As you can see, UA-cam has pretty much no incentive to reduce the amount of ads in both cases.
I agree with you, but I must point out that your argument does not work. You're assuming what behavior google would have, and using that assumption as a proof for your argument. Maybe in your example youtube would reduce the number of ads or increase the payout for content creators -- they likely won't, but you can't know for sure
@@shadamethyst1258 Ah yes, Google. Such a trust-worthy company to put blind faith into. And yes, we do know for sure. They took away video responses, customizable channel pages, dislikes, so many things and you STILL trust them to not do something stupid?
The end of that tunnel would be UA-cam removing higher quality video like 1080p even from the free tier until the cost of running the service outweighs the revenue it generates. Every adblocked video they play is a net loss for them.
My brain is just wired differently. Never bought anything off an ad to my recollection and seeing ads always makes me question the quality of the product, as in "if they have to push this so hard it really has to suck pretty bad"...
if it isn't as easy as installing an extension, people will give up too. We'll win the fight but they'll win the war in the long run, since the more people give up on making more complex adblocking solutions, the more niche it'll become to do so. Then again, they can't really fight it wholeheartedly without losing a fair bit of the userbase so it's a lose-lose situation no matter what side
The best paid engineers in the world backed by 1 trillion dollars company VS engineers working for free with occasional donations. It will end like Twitch, most adblockers even uBlock Origin will get outdone by the $1T parent company.
@@Alacod19 Yeah. That's the whole point. UA-cam needs to pay a massive amount of money to get talented people, adblockers and other popular open source projects get them for free. Millions of people could in theory work on adblockers, while such a number of developers would ruin any company. There is a reason why Linux is objectively better than Windows for entreprise level servers, or that Google recent leak shown real concerns over open source AIs.
A problem I've had with UA-cam ads has been the fact that they always make me do something - mute my audio, wait a few seconds and push a button, and then raise the volume again, which is _great_ when you're trying to rest. On mobile especially, it is very tedious. There's also the sheer level of *shut the fuck up* I'd feel about the ads I'd get - horrid mobile games, products I'll never buy, media I'll never watch, actual targeted harassment in the form of "The Real Cost" anti-vaping ads (which you can neither skip nor tell youtube to stop showing you).
Not to mention the auto-degrading quality of streams. I had to install an extension to stream 4k content on my 4k display with a gigabit connection to my very high end pc. All because youtube wants to save on streaming bandwidth, and confirmed this happens to premium users too.
the "shut the fuck up " part is the real one. i had so many of the same stupid ad that i installed ad block Specifically to get rid of it because it was just that annoying
The excessive ads thing reminds me of how video game companies add antipiracy crap like Denuvo. It actually devalues the game and makes people pirate more and punishes the people who do the legitimate thing. Google is just biting themselves in the ass. The whole reason ad blockers have become so common is because they're annoying, and people have legitimate safety concerns about ads. The day I put ad blockers on my computer is the day I stopped getting viruses. I never looked back. What they're asking me to do is put my computer at risk. I'll just find another way to waste my time. Linus saying people will just come here is hubris. Facebook used to be the top social media platform, but people got sick of their shit and moved on. Videos are convenient, but there's just as many websites I will prefer to use because, surprise-surprise, they removed the dislike button so I can't even put a cursory amount of trust in help video anymore. That argument is now invalid. Also, anyone says they'll reduce the number of ads if more people can't use ad-blockers is delusional. Once a company sets a standard for monetization, they almost never step it back unless there's backlash. Also, there's no way UA-cam will pay the channels more. They've already set THAT rate a long time ago. Papa Google will be keeping nearly every extra cent they get from these ads. By the way, when Luke argues about the traffic going away being a good thing; it isn't. UA-cam won't be able to claim certain levels of traffic on the site, thus advertisers won't want to pay as much. The advertisers will pay less for ads on UA-cam and will pay more for the platform people spend more of their time on. What will likely happen is either a giant backlash like with the remove for "free" 4K, or you'll see traffic from UA-cam plummet. It's as simple as that.
A small correction: Denuvo has been basically uncrackable for the last few years. If a game has been using it since ~2018, the game probably hasn't been cracked. Only a handful have been cracked due to private key leaks. It's annoying, but man, it does seem to work.
Your DRM software analogy doesn't really work unless there are people without adblockers that are still getting shown the anti-adblock popup, which I haven't heard anything about. I'm a Premium user, and have not been affected at all by this stuff. > What they're asking me to do is put my computer at risk. They're asking you to pay for the content you're consuming in some manner. Premium still exists, nobody's forcing you to look at ads. > UA-cam won't be able to claim certain levels of traffic on the site, thus advertisers won't want to pay as much Advertisers don't care how many people are on the site, they care about how many people are looking at their ads. Are you suggesting that UA-cam is currently lying to advertisers about how many people view their ads? I'm pretty sure that would be fraud. Any UA-cam partner can check UA-cam Analytics and easily see the huge gap in ad revenue between desktop and mobile viewers.
Creators making their sponsor content engaging makes me think of two very different ways I've seen it done: 1) Evan & Katelyn use skits with wacky recurring characters, plot lines, and gags 2) Hacksmith and Donut Media put audio-only ad reads over interesting video content like testing footage or montages that people will enjoy watching. I think both are great ways to improve the value and effectiveness of sponsor spots for the creator.
Let's also not forget the creators who do dedicated ad read segments but who actually integrate the ad into their editing style. *Looks at Internet Historian*
@@ericl1421 UA-cam isn't the only player here. There's also the creators. Lots of creators think highly of YT because it's the best they've ever had. But you can say the same of Amazon. Most creators are on YT because everyone else is on YT.
I speak for just about everyone when I say the whole reason we started using adblock in the first place is because ads are out of control. They can also have malware, tracking and so on. If they can make ads simple and safe again, and place them anywhere that isn't directly interrupting our content (such as trying to watch a video, the unskippable full screen ads are the most annoying thing ever) then alot of people would be willing to stop using adblockers
I installed ad blockers for myself and all the computers I support as part of safe browsing practices and honestly I didn't even think about it blocking UA-cam ads for the longest time. When I realized it did block UA-cam ads my first thought was that it probably kinda sucks for the content providers and I'd be happy to have a reasonable number of ads back on the videos. That said, what I consider reasonable and what UA-cam (and content creators) considers reasonable are probably very different things. Speaking for myself, I'll probably stop watching random videos (as these seem the most prone to having more ad content than actual video content) and keep watching my preferred content providers, unsubbing from them if I get annoyed with the number of ads, potentially reaching a point where I stop bothering with UA-cam all together except for when a video comes up when I'm searching for a specific topic. I support providers earning money off their efforts, but I won't stick around if I'm being annoyed more than I'm entertained/informed.
I have two major problems with UA-cam ads: 1. The volume. For instance, I'm listening to this video at a certain volume, which results in a pleasant, coherent experience. If an ad popped up - and because UA-cam ads are at an outrageous volume - it would have startled me. Honestly, when these things happen (on other websites, where I don't have an ad-blocker for videos and where I rarely ever watch any video) - I literally feel an unpleasant sensation throughout my body (primarily in the legs; fight-or-flight response, I assume). That's not only unpleasant, but likely unhealthy too. 2. Most UA-cam content is short (I guess something like 5-10 minutes on average) and the way most people who use an ad-blocker choose whether to view a certain video is by watching the first 10-20 seconds of it and deciding if it's more interesting to them than whatever UA-cam suggests to them on the right side of the page. If you took away the ad-blocker, you'd force the user to do much more planning in deciding what to watch. That can - and probably will - drive people away from UA-cam. I mean, I have a Netflix subscription that I rarely use, because I usually enjoy stuff on UA-cam more. But if finding an interesting-for-me video will take substantially longer, that might drive me back to Netflix (whose modus operandi is very, very different). UA-cam can do whatever they want in this respect - it's their platform and their decision. But, in my opinion, if they want to avoid risking losing a substantial portion of their users (mostly in the form of having many users using UA-cam much less than they currently do), they need - before removing the option for ad-blockers - to change how their advertisements work, primarily in terms of volume and frequency (no lame pun intended).
They could offer a less expensive version of UA-cam Premium with less of the benefits like free movies and such. Or one that makes it so you can skip all ads or lessens the frequency by alot.
What's funny is I used to never block Ads on UA-cam. I only started after their Ads got so horrendously pervasive. I honestly will just stop watching anything on UA-cam if I have to go back to 15 Ads per 10 minute video. Yes, I know that could be an exaggeration, but it honestly felt like I was watching more Ads than content.
The Internet Historian is a great example of a UA-camr that makes ads enjoyable to watch. Been a premium member for a while cuz I cannot stand the many ad breaks in the vids I watch
They've rolled it out. I use adblock because I'm sick of UA-cam's lack of oversight with ads, because they will consistently allow ads for blatant scams on the platform.
the internet is unusable without AdBlock these days. almost every website is full of more ads than content... it does my head in. The longest ad ive seen on youtube was 45MINUTES... insane.
Yeah it's insane especially for slow connections. You have advertisers all wanting to send their HD content when you have a limited connection and it's slow as shit. In those scenarios you pretty much HAVE to use an adblocker
@@total_epicness6776 Set up Brave for the ahem Elders. went on to check if there were any essential updates for it opened the browser for a basic speed test.... 587GB saved since install. Time saved 48 hours.
two hours. unskippable. it was at hte end of a video thankfully. but it was about twice the length of the video i was watching. it was insane. it was literaly just really loud music a black background, and yellow text zooming in and out. not even to the beat of the music. this was more than *ten years ago* and the adds have gotten *worse* since then. that was the last straw for me.
Why is it the consequences of our actions and not the consequences of their actions for advertisers that we turn to ad-blockers in the first place, shoving as many ads as they can in our faces at every opportunity, if only they would do it in moderation but they're literally incapable, maximising profits at our expense.
I've also yet to skip a sponsor segment; I genuinely enjoy the way some have incorporated sponsor segments into their content. I'd consider LTT's method to be the baseline of doing it well, and someone like Mern (he Skyrim mods) or FlashGitz (e.g. The fate of all weebs) to be the benchmark of doing a phenomenal promotion. Otherwise I adblock everything everywhere. It's extremely sad that adblock is the ONLY reason I haven't been pwned once in the last 20 years, which is extremely telling of Google's complete lack of vetting.
I always skip unless it's dbrand just because they make genuinely entertaining segments.. eh I'd also watch any that that one hot guy does, but he doesn't do them basically ever
i will use adblock daily, but i always watch sponsor segments. i feel obligated to give the channel my view time since i'm blocking yt ads on their videos, but also sponsor segments aren't actually malicious or annoying; they don't stop me from viewing the content and don't last ages, and i know for a fact it's just one. i don't have to worry about am i going to get 1, 2, or 5 sponsor segments in a row.
It can be both, and it is. I use Adblock, but i'm under no illusions that what i'm doing is refusing to pay the cost which is being asked, it is somewhat similar to piracy. Anyone who uses adblock but refuses to accept that they are just consuming something which asks a price, and refusing to pay that price, is deluding themselves and frankly it's pretty childish. Own it!
@SSH God, imagine if shopkeepers did this irl. "Give me $12 a month in exchange for my crappy products you can't buy any where else or I'll secretly take all my information about you online and sell it to corporations for ad revenue!" Legally it might be valid, ethically it is not.
It's not and likely never will be "privateering". Privateers are (were) private ships / sailors that are takining military action against specific flagged vessels / crews unter the written authorisation of a government. For using ad blockers to become "privateering", a government would need to issue letters of marque to every single individual or company authorising the specific action of using ad blockers against a specific nation. Pirating on the other hand, is individuals taking what they want because they can. Long live Captain Jack...
@Sounder The point you're missing is that you're not being held ransom, you're choosing to use the service, then refusing to pay either of the prices offered. I don't like ads either, I don't particularly like UA-cam, but until something better comes along I'll pay the price asked to watch the thing that brings me joy
@SSH I think a lot of us feel a little entitled about a simple platform that became a platform through us (the users) then got sold to the highest bidder to change into a ongoing consumption machine. As long as it technically is legal, but arguably imoral, what makes it different to what youtube is doing that is also technically legal, but arguably imoral?
The problem with youtube ads right now, at least in my opinion, is that watching 30 seconds of ads for each video without the option to skip in most cases is just frustrating. Especially since not once have youtube ads ever shown me something that might be interesting or useful. To be fair that is my experience on mobile since i have ad-blocker on my PC but i don´t think it would be much different on there. Personally had i always the option to skip all of the ads after 5 seconds i would be much more open to this change. Especially since ads are extremely loud (way louder than the video i am watching) and that just pisses me off like nothing else...
The other thing I've noticed is that I'll get two ads at the start, then one minute in the same two ads. Then probably those two ads again later in the video. Guys, you're making this experience worse to send a message you've already sent - if I didn't want the product the first time you're unlikely to change my mind.
Not to mention even if you're paying for UA-cam premium, you still have to watch three or four ads from in video sponsorships, self-promotion and sometimes the entire videos are sponsored.
@@coryvallad7578 Yeah, you are 100% correct, especially since i have no background in programming and app development my personal power in this situation is zero. But i do agree with the people saying that this will become a race between youtube and people who develop the apps.
I used to have a plugin that automatically pressed ‘skip ad’ and closed the pop up ads. Then during the time when the ads were straight up scams, fraud or adult content I said “stuff you” and enabled uBlock Origin. If UA-cam stopped me from using an adblocker it would honestly do me some good. I watch too much UA-cam. Definitely agree with the philosophy of make ads content. I will watch a Denis or Martincitopants sponsor segment all the way through.
I absolutely agree with this. The problem is youtube isn't meant to give users a choice it's meant to addict users so they watch more ads. Premium is just business class for airlines. It's only there because everyone behind you is suffering. Give me a platform where I can how many hours the recommender will feed me videos per week.
Ironically this might just be me but when ads pop up on UA-cam it honestly makes me want to buy the product even less. Especially if it's a sponsor segment in the video then I especially don't buy it. May just be me though.
That’s probably quite common as the ad / company is causing you an inconvenience and it feels like a nuisance - therefore triggering not a positive feeling.
Bad products need to be visible for the consumers, good products not because the users know they are good. That’s the fact, and you don’t want to buy bad products.
Same here. And even if I see an ad for something I might be interested in, I'll go out of my way to find an alternative product from a company that didn't shove an ad down my throat. And yeah, I realise that's a bit silly. I mean, if I didn't know of a particular type of useful product before, and only learned about it through an ad, why would I want to punish the company that brought it to my attention? Well, honestly, because I don't want to add to the "annoy people with ads, make more money" positive feedback loop. I know I'm not making much of a difference. But if everyone thinks "I'm not making any difference" and just goes along, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
UA-cam still hasn't quite hit the mark yet for me but there were 8 unskippable ads on a 10 minute video yesterday which started making me consider stopping watching UA-cam. My solution is that I don't use ad blockers but I also don't use a website if the ads are annoying enough to me to want to use an adblocker. Pretty much I look for pages with the least ad annoyance.
8 on one video and you are not there yet? omg you are either insanely patient or or the biggest sheep ever... that's insane... that's like 1 ad per 1 minute of video... a 10min video should have 1 ad in the beginning AT BEST... and nothing else...
I stopped using AdBlock on UA-cam for several years, when they started stacking multiple ads at the beginning of videos I went right back. UA-cam brought this on themselves. I'm sure people will find ways around this, and I'll be first in line when a solution arrives. I watch UA-cam significantly less than I used to, so it really wouldn't be difficult to cut out if it comes to it.
People can only find so many workaround solutions to avoiding ads before the UA-cam web developers find a draconian method to stopping 99% of attempts of blocking ads.
I think Linus seriously under estimates the people willing to look elsewhere for the information that they need to do a repair job. UA-cam isnt the only place to search.
Block ads everywhere, not being slammed with a sales pitch for something all the time is good for your mental health going back and watching broadcast tv now is just mind numbing
Yup. Can't even follow the narrative anymore because they keep interrupting it with obnoxious crap that totally pulls you out of the experience and breaks the pacing. Just as the show gets some momentum going, on comes the emergency brake and the whole thing comes to a screeching halt.
Yeah Everytime I'm around people watching free TV it actually makes me physically unwell to have to suffer through the ads. It's like the opposite of quitting a drug; once you're out of the constant bombardment by ads you can't really get back into it without feeling the equivalent of withdrawal symptoms
@@that_heretic you should be responsible for compensating UA-cam for the data they serve YOU from their servers. You can do that by watching ads or paying for Premium.
This whole situation is just like... seeing who can have their hand on top last, they're just slapping each other in an endless cycle until someone gets tired of it
UA-cam gets a hefty cut from channel membership, supechat and now from paid comments. Ads are not their only source of revenue, no matter how they try to push the idea that it is an indispensable necessity for their existence. Also, there is a better way to do this: allow the viewer to decide on what creator's video they want to see ads.
But it costs UA-cam money to serve you that video regardless of if you care enough to watch ads. It costs UA-cam a very small amount of money but they also make a very small amount of money on you watching the ad so it balances out. Servers, hard drives, developers and engineers aren't free. Web hosting isn't free and hosting video definitely isn't free. Public companies legally have to act in the interest of their shareholders and if UA-cam isn't making a profit then Google will be legally forced to shut it down eventually. The days of running on investor dollars and figuring out how to make money later are over. Tech companies need to be sustainable to continue to exist.
@@drabberfrog Let's say you order a custom furniture. It will be made of x amounts of wood, y amounts of screws, hinges, etc. But to get that amount of wood, the shop would need to buy a bigger piece, then cut it down, screws may bend, and be unusable, the tools will wear down. You need to pay for all of that, plus the cost of work and energy bills. That is understandable. Now, if that same woodworking shop were to be run by UA-cam, they would first look at what car you drive, what kind of other furniture you have at home, how frequently you buy furniture, how you shake their hands. Put a price tag on that, then they would go to the previous shop, have your furniture made at a discount price, then resell it for you. The honeymoon phase of a startup company is long over for UA-cam. They have figured out how to make money years ago. Now what they want to figure out is how much more they can make. If you are not signed in, you get more ads. If you sign in, they would sell your data and habits. It doesn't really matter if you turn off targeted ads, you will still get them, only based on less data (like watch history and location information, language settings, etc.). If you watch the videos on a smart Tv, you get the most ads, then you get less on your phone, less then that on your tablet, and the least on your PC. They also measure how many seconds of ads you have watched and how long has been since they have last played an ad on that device, then you will get served an ad based on that data - that's how you will end up with a mid-roll ad, even if the creator have turned it off. If you put the app in the background, the timer resets, and you are more likely to get an ad prematurely. On mobile you are more likely to get unskipable ads when you are on a wi-fi network, and they generously let you have skipable ads, when you are on mobile data. On PC, you will get banner ads on videos, while they are playing (extra annoying if you need subtitles), while you will get banner ads and clickable videos ads on your phone inserted into your recommended list, masquerading as video thumbnails. My point? They have figured out how to finance themselves from ads long ago. Then they added superchats, then premium subscription, then channel membership, then paid comments. While they also put ads on videos of creators, who are not affiliates and are not eligible for a cut on ads. The "cost" of people using adblock have been figured into the numbers since the beginning. They had all the numbers and metrics to set their prices appropriately. Fore example, the companies to whom they farm out their work, get a cut from ad revenue based on how many seconds you watch after the five second mark. What they are trying to do with blocking adblock is as if a woodworking shop would build your furniture and try to force you to pay separately for all the bent nails and screws, the excess wood they had to cut, as if it was not already included in the original price they set. So, is it "theft" if I watch a video with adblock? Yes and no, as I am not paying for it, but someone else have already "paid" for it once. This whole debacle is not about their survival or their ability to pay the creators appropriately. It is about their greed.
I didn't use adblockers for a while but started to notice a few fake ransomeware and outright scams so it became a legit security concern because of the kind of scripts that can run annoying as it is youtube can do as they please, my concern is the dodgy websites and scammers using the same tactics to manipulate people into installing malware
I turned my adblock on when the amount of ads and unskippable ads became horrible, if the situation with ads became better I would turn my adblock off again, and I'm talking in general not only youtube, I would turn my adblock off if the ads situation became better If I had to pay youtube premium for whatever reason in order to have an enjoyable experience on the platform regardless of the video I would consider changing platform all together (like floatplane, nebula and all that)
I am a very big youtube watcher but if they implemented this, I would just wait until the ad blockers catchup, but if that's not possible then I would just go else where like twitch. Wouldn't surprise me if a similar situation to twitch happens, where another huge multi-billion dollar company like stake starts to take off with private financal backing, there are actually plenty of supplymentary income streams that are possible to support the platform, they just don't want to consider them because ads have been working since it's inception.
I mean, if it were going to be 2 x ads at 5 seconds, i would turn off the adblocker, but nowadays they are up to 16-20 seconds and non skipable.. that is just annoying even more. Heard last year, Google were experimenting with 10 x 5 seconds ads which in turn are totally insane - UA-cam Premium is $17.39 here in Denmark, i rather have the adblocker on for now.
The thing with ads, is there’s way too many scummy ads on these platforms for BS business opportunity gurus, scam products, and even scams pretending to be MrBeast, and I’m talking about the actual ads not the bot comments. I wouldn’t have a problem seeing ads if these weren’t a thing. They don’t care though they will take money from whoever pays them.
It has gotten to the point where I automatically report an ad as a HYIP scam if Elon's face appears in the first 3 seconds. I used to try to report it as trademark infringement: but apparently only Tesla is allowed to do that.
Kind of ironic when chrome has a built in adblocker for "intrusive ads" And their help page even mention that this includes "Ad walls before you can content", looks like their products are exempted from that rule. (Help page can be found by searching "See a site by turning off Chrome's ad blocker") There probably will be a countermeasure to their blocking, I see blocking adblocker as a good incentive to finding a countermeasure, since it's an interesting technical challenge and I'm definitely not giving any money to a service that is trying to be obnoxious to me. I feel like if the ad business model was to be paid when the ad lead to a purchase instead of when its viewed, we may had have less annoying ones. Sponsor in video for instance aren't generally annoying, they tend to be at the beginning or the end of the video, and if you're not interested in the content of the ad you can just skip forward. If all ads were similar, I'm sure adblock would be way less prevalent. Well youtube in particular has a lot more reason to be hated, thay may make you reticent to support them in anyway.
well YT is owned by Google but still operates as its own entity, Chrome blocking ads, and YT blocking ad blockers seems to make sense as far as I can tell. This makes Chrome better, and YT more profitable, so it's really the opposite of ironic. It's exactly what one would expect from a business. Chrome doesn't care about the profits of websites it doesn't own, why should they? Those sites can block ad blockers too if they really want.
Fun fact as long as ads were not obnoxious I didn't use an adblock, that was for like 15+ years of using the Internet. As long as a video has a banner on the bottom, as long as every 4-5 videos there is a 3-5 seconds add with video and sound, as long as a web page has non-adult ads on the sides but does not interrupt the content, as long as scrolling a supposedly family friendly platform like UA-cam does not tries to invite you click on adult websites I'm ok. The moment any of that goes above the threshold like I am forced to use an adblock. Besides I actually asked many creators "how much do you earn per each viewer that doesn't use adblock? I'll give you twice that" it turns out that is roughly a couple of dollars per year per creator... Soooo the 16 dollars per month for UA-cam is actually unreasonable.
The issue with the biggest companies on the planet doing things to avoid being unsustainable is that they are always sustainable and more importantly, their profit margins increase every year. It reminds me of top companies increasing prices in order to “fight inflation” even tho their profit growth in one year greatly exceeds inflation. What’s really interesting is these companies reaching all time highs even after you accounted for Inflation
One of the things about capitalism I never understood, really. As long as a company earns enough profit to break even, after deducting all desirable expenditures (wages, R&D to improve their products, advertising, facility management, legal, ...), it's healthy as far as I'm concerned. I can even understand the desire to make some decent amount of profit, so the company can build up reserves to survive an economic downturn, or to prepare to grow, within reasonable bounds. What I don't understand is this mentality that "making profit year after year is not good enough; every year we need to make more profit than the last".
@@EvenTheDogAgrees capitalisms sole goal is simply exponential growth. they don’t give a flying fuck about how unsustainable that is. they’ll just keep trying to grow, making things worse for the customer, until they abandon them for something better and they go bankrupt. and then the cycle continues. except now because we’re all so broke and the wage gap is exponentially increasing that cycle goes faster and faster and soon enough america is going to die purely from corporate greed.
@@EvenTheDogAgrees Its primarily because of public trading and stock market. They have a duty to investors to try to keep growing and are punished otherwise. Not being sustainable doesn't matter and ethics only come into play if its serious enough and noticed enough otherwise company "ethics" are just to get whatever targeted group to approve and buy more of their stuff for example Disney with their support for LGBT. Its not like they actually care, they just are making enough minor efforts to make it seem like they care enough so people will consume their products.
@@EvenTheDogAgrees It's definitely a major flaw of the system. The simplified reason is that, especially for publicly traded companies, stocks are valued by multiples of their earnings based on their growth rate. Tech companies are typically valued as "high growth", or high multiple companies. However, this is a double-edged sword, because if they stop growing, even if they're still profitable, their multiple will be diminished. Going from a 20x multiple to a 10x multiple means shareholders have their wealth cut in half. Since shareholders vote on how a company operates, this effectively means the growth can never stop, even if it's pointless and even if it's unsustainable.
I would be fine with unblocking ads for the sake of the creators but after realizing that barely any of the money goes to creators and most ost it goes to UA-cam, I stopped feeling bad about blocking ads.
I'm not vouching for ads, but UA-cam shares something like almost 50% of their ad revenue with their creators which absolutely dumps on any other platform's revenue sharing
@@ardishco for "watch page" (non-shorts) videos, 55% of ad revenue goes to the creator, youtube keeps 45%. this is listed on the youtube help page titled "UA-cam partner earnings overview" under "What's my revenue share?" > "Revenue share rates" > "Watch Page Monetization Module"
to the people saying creators don't get paid fairly on UA-cam you have to remember the creators don't pay -engineers -maintenance -hardware -electricity -bandwidth -marketing - support etc... The fact that they get paid at all is amazing and UA-cam is the highest or one of the highest paying platforms. Yes the creators make the content, but this should not be taken as a secure career path because it can go downhill just as fast as this bubble started to grow. There's other platforms they can go upload their stuff to, and I guarantee you it wont generate them anything near what UA-cam does. UA-cam created an opportunity for them so they should be grateful and they get paid their fair share. Walmart would of been most of their careers path anyways
@@NeptuneSega Yeah, that's kind of a risk you have to take when you start a multi-billion dollar video-hosting service that is (at least partially) kept afloat through trust funds. But hey, maybe all those pesky content creators should just switch platforms, _then_ it wouldn't cost UA-cam so much to host all these parasites, right?
if they do it like twitch does it. or the way twich did it before i left that site. then it is unlikely anyone can get around to blocking ads. twitch make the adds part of the stream it basically like hijacking a streamers live stream and injecting ads in the video.
My biggest issue is that ads around the internet have just gotten horrible. I don't mind ads, but extremely intrusive ads just ruin the experience of everything so I just use an ad blocker whenever I can.
I'm not keen on paying premium as many contents still have commercials by content creators. If I'd pay, that would mean 100% no ads. No matter what the case is.
If youtube is gonna block adblock and they don't find new loopholes, there will be browser extensions or scripts to mute, black out and automatically press skip buttons. There is no world where youtube could ever win this.
Yes, the good old days when it was blinking flash ads
@@jothain But they have sponsors because people are blocking ads lol You're mad at the wrong person.
@@BillyBob-oi9kl that's obvious, but it's still issue that would have to be sorted for me get that premium.
If the ads had never started to become loud, numerous, unskippable, constant, and a malware risk, I wouldn't be using an ad blocker.
UA-cam ads are not a malware risk. You are being disingenuous.
But they are on other sites. Also, UA-cam ads are sometimes straight up scams, so in the end they can go to hell
@@republicansarepedos7 there are ads for crypto games, those fake games that steal your data. There are nft and crypto scams..my father gets scam ads because he is old and believes that there are business opportunities if ya send them money. There are 5 min music videos on music videos. There is a guy in front of a Joe Rogan backdrop selling supplements( guess what, he was never on Rogan ) i kept getting ads for opposing political campaigns, even though i blocked and reported all of them. Halfway i stared counting abd it was over 30 political ads, so about 60 ads that i actively blocked. There are the peta ads, you know, those guys that kill dogs. Oh and the religious ads of that pair doing a podcast and talking about your sins. There is that fake ai woman telling you to buy from a fake online store. And of course
RAID SHADOW LEGEND
@@republicansarepedos7 They said ads, not youtube ads, prob talking abt ads in general bro
They can also be repetitive. On Crunchyroll back when I used to watch anime, I would sometimes get the same freaking ad multiple times in a row in the same ad break! Was the tipping point that made me get an ad blocker. I have UA-cam Premium, but I still use an ad blocker on other sites.
Ads have been getting more and more obnoxious while my favorite creators keep getting demonetized for the most random reasons. If they don't change their ways I don't see why should anybody not use AdBlock in the platform, because at this point is more of a protest than a convenience for many users.
thats cause youtube dont want to pay creators
and advertisors making worse quality then ever before or to fully misleading ads to literal scams
I wouldn't be all that sad if YT fell off. I'm not really a fan of what Alphabet has done to the internet in general. It'd just suck not having it for DIY projects, but there are plenty of ways to learn that outside of YT
The use of adblockers is mandatory for safe browsing.
The amount of headaches I avoided after only installing an adblocker on friends and family.
True - but you can also whitelist pages.
@@1337Jogi people should not accept ad revenue, these companies are excersizing soft power, we should be isolating ourselves from them. I am happy with text-based content
Yeah, considering most ad services nowadays can be abused to promote scam content and even promoting malicious software, I can confirm that the use of adblockers is very important for safety browsing
I always use adblocker for browsing after someone gave us a warning of a malicious fake Discord and OBS studio app which are spreading via Google ad services earlier this year
@@theloniuspunk383 Why are you here then?
I hate Ads as well but I do not see why I should have the right to consume a service and argue I should not pay for it.
@@1337Jogi uhh I'm here to destroy the system bud
The issue is that youtube's ad system is just very user hostile. There appears to be no quality control on ads, with many being for outright scams. The need to skip ads, rather than limiting advertisers to a reasonable runtime, achieves nothing more than irritating the user. The content recommendation algorithm, while not directly related to ads, is manipulative, rewards clickbait and sensationalism, and is very hard to properly avoid. People just won't pay for such a user-hostile product.
I don't understand why governments don't criminalize running scam ads.
@@kayaguvendi Most do, but Google doesn't give a shit. That's why they need to be fined for everything they're worth, so those fuckers learn the lesson.
@@kayaguvendi likely due to the amount of tax revenue being made.
@The Program Would it be that bad if smaller companies could not air ads? It would mean fewer ads total and no scam ads.
@@kayaguvendi A lot of these scams fall into legal gray areas; Bogus training, opaque dropshipping, etc. These areas typically fall into civil enforcement because the subjective nature of the violations makes establishing the high standard of criminal law difficult. And, as other commenters mention, requiring youtube to do full due-diligence for all advertisers would impose large costs that would likely shut out smaller operators. Google really just needs to have a human team doing basic approval of ads; Most of the scams are blatantly obvious, and google has the right to select which ads run on its platform.
I didn't used to block ads while they were silent sidebar kinds of things and I'd often see something I was interested in and click on it. I started using ad block when video ads with loud sound started becoming a thing, not to mention Flash ads that were served from an ad server and therefore sometimes contained malware because the ad server didn't bother vetting them.
I used to whitelist UA-cam and Twitch for years, but the ads became so aggressive and intrusive that I had to block them.
You didn't have to block them, you chose to block them. You could have chosen to pay for the content also
@@maxafc4695 Never going to pay UA-cam to block adds. I just use an Adblocker. I already pay enough for other services.
I'm low income and Ads soak up time I could use to actually enjoy my life.
Be honest, you aren't doing shit with your time.
@@-alexanderhosch-4828 Do you also go think you have the right to sneak into the cinema and watch for free just because you are low income?
Is that a valid argument?
Because actually it does not really cost the cinema owner anything to filll up empty seats with non paying customers.
It does cost UA-cam quite a bit to stream to you.
I allowed ads for a long time, but UA-cam putting them on channels that aren't even monetized is the straw that broke the camel's back for me. It certainly doesn't help that they've dramatically increased in number and even taken away the Skip Ad button on lots of them as well.
They'll put adverts on demonitized videos and make money off them.
So they should delete all demonitised videos? And those users can pay Vimeo to host their shit.
Like YT isn't a charity... Hosting video that can be served instantly anywhere in the world isn't free or easy to do. Pay Vimeo then.
@@cabobs2000 They were perfectly fine with hosting demonetized videos before.
Agreed. I saw ads on my videos. I'm not monetizing. In options i disabled them, but they are still on.
@@leviticus2001 when before? Because UA-cam was hemorrhaging money for years and has just recently become profitable
UA-cam was what MADE me get adblocker because I was so tired of getting an ad every minute. I never used one before that and it has opened my eyes. I will genuinely stop watching UA-cam than watch ad's. They treat their creators like shit, they don't punish people who falsely copyright strike, they remove dislikes so now you cant tell if a video is a scam or not. They don't deserve my money.
there's extensions that show likes and dislikes, FYI
Before YT Premium was a thing, I tried my best not to use ad blockers just to try and support the creator. But then there was a period where some malicious pre-roll adds were literally breaking the video player, preventing you from watching the video without refreshing and hoping the ad doesn't play again.
problem is, youtube doesnt get a cut of that money, if the creators were paying the platform to exist that would be fine but they're not, and youtube is a very money hungry service to run
@@Jvk1166z literally don't care.
@@Jvk1166zUA-cam is worth running at a loss for google just to keep their market share
Ads breaking the video player? That definitely sounds strange and even Google would be upset about it.
@@Jvk1166z UA-cam absolutely did get a share of ad revenue…..they take about 45% or revenue generated from ads and the rest goes to the creator.
The main problem with ads on youtube, is that it's not just some passive ad that is plastered AROUND the content, it's directly interrupting the content and getting in your face about it. The whole adblocking movement has primarily been for getting rid of intrusive ads. I'd be absolutely fine with banner ads and such that exists around the sides of the main content, but sooooo many companies insist on full screen, in your face, "YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT OUR ADS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AS IF IT WAS THE ONLY CONTENT WE HAVE HERE PLEASE BUY OUR PARTNER'S SHITTY GARBAGE PLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASE" and this lack of respecting the end users to such a massive degree has instigated the severe backlash that we see with adblockers nowadays. If we could agree on a simple non-intrusive method of advertising, then people wouldn't fight so hard to remove ads.
Oh, and the history of viruses in ads is absolutely atrocious! I've had to help so many people in my 30+ years of life get rid of viruses because "oh, shiny ad says x thing and I must do what they say!"
VET YOUR FUCKING ADS BEFORE DISPLAYING THEM.
Fully agreed, if it was just a billboard advert that didn't go full screen and blare out audio 3 times louder than the source video, I wouldn't be blocking ads.
Bro if they were only using banner ads literally no one would look or care about the ad. Lol
@@SteveSunny The whole point of good advertisement is to lure your target audience in. If your ad is so dull that a banner ad doesn't draw in any attention, then you need to rethink your ad. It doesn't need to hold you at gunpoint to be a good ad. We've had decades of internet market research, there's no excuse for these ad companies to be incapable of drawing the eye to a banner ad except absolute laziness, and pure desire to annoy the living shit out of people.
@The Program Honestly if there was just always a skip button from the start that'd be fair. Think about what this would do. Creators would try to match up with ads people don't skip to not lose revenue and advertisers race to the most obnoxious ad would be immediately squandered.
@@SteveSunny This I believe shows a fundamental misunderstanding. People avoid ads and come up with strategies to avoid looking at them because the ads are annoying and awful. This is no ones fault but the websites and platforms that did this. By taking away user control advertisers make exceedingly obnoxious ads because in the short term it sells better and beats out competitors but in the long term people stop paying attention and even devote significant mental energy to find ways to ignore it. Ad blocking is just the technological conclusion to that. It's the advertisers fault because they're too greedy.
Worst thing that's gonna happen is making it harder to use an adblocker for some consumers because it's now requiring you to hide the ad blocker. But there will be a way.
there is ways but i wont give YT any ideas. If i tell YT that i fart alot they will send me ads about "fart hiders" that hide the fart with a smell of roses...
@@lokelaufeyson9931there are products to hide bathroom smell
I've read you can just disable adblock, reload the page and then re-enable it.
Or use a 3rd party app on Android. Apple users are kinda SOL.
@@whatisahandle_69yes there are some absolutely brilliant modified UA-cam apps on Android and Chromecast TV. I cannot say anything bad about them. I donate to the devs each year as they have saved probably 500+ over the years
@@whatisahandle_69there are third party UA-cam clients for iOS that can be installed by abusing the mechanism intended for developers to test their apps before publishing to App Store
I don't mind some adds, but there are multiple problems with the current model. For one, there are numerous adds out there that are essentially malware. They seriously need to deal with that issue. Having an adblocker is kind of a necessity nowadays. The other problems is that there are numerous websites that have way too many adds, to an extent that it makes a website almost unusable. I've also got absolutely no tolerance for anything flashing that is obviously trying to get my attention in the most obnoxious way possible.
Google's (and other Ad providers') extreme insistence on not screening their ads whatsoever is why ad blockers proliferate. Between the computer hazards, the hearing hazards, the stalking, and the complete inability to use some webpages, people just don't want to put up with it. I wouldn't mind having to deal with banner ads if I could *trust* them to not infect my computer with malware. Atleast pop-ups were just annoying...
THIS. The amount of ads I see for mobile games that are just absolute dogs*** is ridiculous. And I've seen straight up misinformation in UA-cam ads. Some of the ads are just absolutely predatory... And UA-cam doesn't care.
Well me too, but if I open a site and it has lots of ads, I just close it immediately, and add it to my block list. No content is worth that.
this is big problem while using mobile to read articles on news site. half of the screen is taken up by ads and there will small area of 4 lines to read. you have to keep scrolling and some point you are going to click on a godforsaken link which opens which will keep redirecting.
ads*
UA-cam created this issue. The only reason I ever started using AdBlock was BECAUSE of UA-cam's obnoxious and excessive advertising. They got greedy and it exacerbated the issue for themselves.
This is really the whole problem. Ads will always only get worse. Ad blocking has provided a filter for those users who receive it poorly and don't buy shit out of an ad. I believe UA-cam just feels it's time it can rid itself of avid Ad Block users because it can focus on it's ad watching core. It's going to get bloody. But remember that if they're doing this it also means UA-cam as a platform is gonna became basically just shitty targeted TV. You won't want to stay.
I mean you can't really pinpoint what started it. It's the chicken and the egg paradox
Did it start with users getting adblock and UA-cam increasing ads in response?
Or did it start with UA-cam increasing ads and users getting adblock in response?
I got UA-cam premium when 99% of the ads were shippable in 5s and got it because of university discount and got rid of Spotify in the process. Not going back now.
@@joseluislopes3956 While not direct evidence we do have the history which is that ad blockers initially were a direct response to flagrant unadulterated shitty advertising like popups, flashing banners or sound blaring Adobe Flash ads. Not to mention the amount of just pure fraud and scams. It's also proof that ad blocker and/or large ad platforms have had a moderating effect on ads. You can see that with AdBlock Plus but you can also see that with Google Ad Sense.
However my opinion on it is that the only reason Google Ad Sense was reasonable is because it's the obvious competitive edge when you have the volume to be the standout better experience compared to other ads. Now that these huge ad platforms like Google are the only ones around we see more ads reminiscent of "the old days" which to me is clear evidence of which way this "paradox" leans.
Consider the fact that some people just aren't that receptive to ads. That could be because they aren't impulsive consumers, don't have the money or just find the ad experience repulsive. Never the less the ad isn't convincing them. So what's the point in showing them?
Social media networks however benefit from better data and connections with other people who will buy things through the ads so having them on the platform is important even if they block ads. To me it's much less likely that ad blocking got just "too bad" as if most people blocking them were going to buy anything anyway. It's that Google no longer needs us and it's time to kick us out. UA-cam is being digitally gentrified.
@@Furiends i still don't get how this is true. How can ads get worse if no one likes them? Who the fuck is paying for ads? i mean: to pay for ads it means some people are fking clicking them or companies wouldn't pay to run them
I'm agreeing with you btw, i just don't get how it came to this
+
my problem is that UA-cam has such a massive chunk of online videos that it might as well be a monopoly
So? Does that mean it should be cool to use the service without any kind of payment?
@@0106johnny Lets talk again when Google isn't one of the giants behind personal data collection and sales.
@@SoverineSR They literally collect data to sell more ads
@@AdamBorseti I think it's a fair trade. You pay with your time and attention to receive otherwise free videos. Or you pay actual dollars and don't have to see any ads.
@@0106johnny One could argue it's not a fair trade, because UA-cam has a quasi monopoly & doesn't compensate it's creators fairly anyway, beside all the bs they pull with them, which they cannot do anything about and are dependent on the arbitrary decision making of YT, despite them being the drivers for the platform. Also their subscriptions are egregiously priced. Paying 12 bucks a month (or 18 bucks, if you are on a family subscription) or watching ads for a service where creators aren't compensated properly anyway doesn't seem fair to me.
Monopoly aside, I think if YT would adjust their pricing, their ad and company policies regarding certain things, more people would pay for the service or watch ads. I used to watch ads, until they started playing ads on unmonetized creators (is that fair?) and playing an obnoxious amount of ads on all other videos. I think other people mentioned a lot of other problems as well, so making it seem like a simple "this or that" does not do it justice in my opinion.
Internet Historian is a creator who actually makes his sponsorship ads entertaining. If ads were actually interesting to watch, less people would complain about them. Or at least make them less obnoxious
Same, with JaysTwoCents and their sponsor ad specifically for iFixit. I already use their products and I *still* watch his ad every time because it's so fucking funny!
But then they are for scams. Like Nord VPN. Nord VPN doesn't provide the functions shown in the ads. It's gross IMO. Best VPNs are ones that don't pay for advertising and you probably don't need one still.
I just fear that overtime this 'creativity' will drain out for people and it starts being as annoying as before.
There's a case to be made for ads being fundamentally against your interest right there right then for people's valuable time when you're watching/consuming a piece of content and don't want to be distracteed in any way.
Dennis has been doing a good job of this with his recent sponsor spots, just need to see it more often
I'm gonna shout-out for Jay Foreman.
The ad based internet was a mistake. Adblock has massively reduced the amount of "pc no work right calls" i have to help family members with.
Well, people aren't willing to pay real money for stuff though
@@0106johnny People are, just look at Netflix. There is a clear divide between pre-Netflix, peak Netflix and post Netflix torrenting.
Problem is: people don't have money. We are all out of here having to count pennies. Then every company wants to offer their own exclusive bullshit service, that is worse than before and costs more. Well, now no one gets any money. Like Luke said, if they do block ad blockers on youtube, they aren't going to roll back ads, on the contrary. Ads will keep being as intrusive and frequent as today, and if they find out that they can push even more, they 100% will, because you have no other option.
@@ggwp638BC I think YT is making the non premium so invasive to drive up premium subs, sorry you can't give me a shitty experience just to charge me for the fix. Maybe they need to start charging successful creators instead of trying to just be supported entirely by the viewers.
@@ggwp638BC yea but look how that works when u have 50 different services even paying $1 per site would become unaffordable
@@0106johnny Well, that's because large majority of the content isn't worth a penny... and I'd be happy if it went away.
Luke, when you said that you could let the ads play while getting the tools to fix the dishwasher I laughed inside. Skippable ads on UA-cam require you to press the skip button, even if you let them play out. And if you have two ads in a row, now you get to watch another one after getting your tools.
Luke, to me at least, seems like the most passive employee who does what Linus says no matter what. He often just doesn't seem to have a voice of his own.
The second ad: *30 minutes*
I watch youtube on my tv. You do not have to skip an ad that you watched. They play and it goes back to the video. Just like watching ads on tv.
@@Dhruv-qw7jf I disagree, I think they are just similar people with similar opinions.
@@FlexinJC You are correct. On the TV platform, that is correct. On mobile, that is not how it works. Most people use mobile or the web version, and that is what my comment was talking about. Sorry for the confusion, I should have specified the platform that I was talking about.
The ads were the price of admission *before* UA-cam premium became a thing. Not anymore: they are now deliberately made to annoy the user into paying to get rid of them.
Exhibit A: ad length and frequency increases dramatically when YT premium became a thing. The gradual worldwide roll out made this quite obvious, with countries where premium hadn't launched yet having less aggressive ads.
Exhibit B: even of you turn off all of Google's privacy settings and lay bare your life to them, YT ads are almost never relevant.
I would still argue that the price of admission _is_ that they are incredibly annoying. Not saying that is good at all, but it is still a price you pay to consume the service.
That being said, I 100% agree with you on A and B. They have made strides (either intentionally or just to maximize a statistic) to make the ad experience as incredibly annoying as they can.
@@wile123456 You might as well block ads, you are probably less likely to get banned that way.
To play devils advocate: UA-cam has never been profitable. It makes sense they want to start making some money with it, and we are just spoiled.
UA-cam has never been profitable, and Adblock usage is increasing, so those without Adblock are having to watch more ads to make up for it.
@@chlorophyllphile i have a friend who has used it for 2 years, you don't get banned.
It's mostly for mobile since as locker doesn't work in the UA-cam app
They made ads worse, more frequent, longer, unskipable, and then stopped curating what ads get shown. We the users responded to these negative changes the only way we could by circumventing them while asking the changes be reverted and UA-cam's response was to make ads worse and more unavoidable while demonatizing and censoring content across their platform entirely to service MORE ADS
Somehow IM supposed to feel like it's MY fault???
I love linus and all but since he has financial interest, he is all for UA-cam to block ads and get more people to pay for premium because for every user that is premium user that is more money for LTT, and users who cant bypass ads is more money for LTT, while he wants to act and portray it like anyone with adblock is some filthy pirate and these remarks"more people block ads more draconian it be", he is also nitpicking on less legitimate responses, its same thing twitch streamers do, they ignore the valid ones and just argue points that easy to win on, they even go on and pick some crapy "legitimate" response that are trash and barely consider valid someones said towards them try make it sound like they being balanced, but you can see the demeanor, the thing is he thinks its the consumer who is the problem, and some how UA-cam and google is not, i personally don't agree with linus in regards to this topic and its only thing i ever disagree with him on, each to there own, no matter what UA-cam and google thinks they can do regarding ads and data mining there will always be plugins and browsers that will shut it all down no matter what UA-cam and google think they capable of doing, i would rather have a black screen for 20seconds then see an ad, and no i won't keep paying out of the ass for services constantly, eventually Prime netflix disney Plus gonna start shuving ads down my eyes like cable tv and ransom us to pay for more to turn it off "cough" netflix, its all greed and idea of forever increasing stock prices but that's biggest problem never enough, they can never accept that there is population limit a consumption limit and they cannot get more "new" users" same issue Facebook had, accept the plateau and invest in ways to fix your own problems UA-cam and not make it everyone else's problem. use your billions to make cheaper space, cheaper servers better products, better UA-cam PREMIUM SERVICE sell us the service don't ransom us, its clearly to me premium doesn't offer enough other then the adblock, give us discounts gives us value and features, simple as that market and sell us a good premium product.
@flavourfulz8147 I mean, why does seeing what using adblock can do in the long run require financial interest? They have ads, people block them, they make up for it with more ads. It's a vicious cycle where both parties have some fault
@@flavourfulz8147 At the end of the day, Linus is a CEO with a financial incentive to side with UA-cam. It's zero surprise that he does, but the arguments he makes are still shitty and condescending. Every time he opens his mouth about this issue people start respecting him less and less, because he not only sides with UA-cam (that's fine), he intentionally misrepresents people's grievances both with UA-cam and ad blocking. If they start blocking ad blockers, I'm just gonna stop using UA-cam.
@@PontschPauPau3451 they can't block adblockers because plugins and browser's will just continue update to bypass it, plus Firefox is not chrome, so they would have to go as far as blocking none chromium browsers and that is anti competitive and not gonna fly with governments, so its always gonna be a back and forth until eventually Firefox becomes defacto adblocking Browser.
This is the problem with monopolies. They have no competition so they can do whatever they want.
capitalism gravitates anything towards monopolies and oligoplies. Because they abuse their market position to keep away competition through lobbyism, unfair business practices, operating at a loss for a while thats not sustainable for competitors (youtube is very well known for this because they have alphabet mothership to supplement them with funding. Furthermore WHEN they can not provide a similiar product with MORE funding what they do is they buy out this product. Amazon buying up twitch, Facebook buying instagram and whatsapp. And these smaller companies would be stupid to refuse a 2 -3 billion buyout. Every single owner would be set for life while workers can remain in the company and work for someone else but on the same product.
Its inherently anticompetitive because capitalism wants to eliminate all competition.
Then go live somewhere where monopolies don't exist! ;)
@@chrisakaschulbus4903 the nature of capitalism means oligopolies and monopolies are bound to exist
@@shriekinambassador5042 That was the point. Go somewhere else if the water is too wet here, but don't complain if your search for dryer water is futile. ^^
@@chrisakaschulbus4903 since we are in global capitalism the key is to abolish global capitalism not "GO Somewhere else":
The problem isn't that there are ads, its that there are too many ads that are implemented poorly. 1 or 2 ads midway through the video are not bad, its expected; the problem is when there are multiple unskippable ads before the video that may or may not even give revenue to the creator. This problem wouldn't exist if they didn't demonetize half of the platform and decide to start piling ads ontop of eachother so that there are more ads then content for some videos.
What I hate is the fact that UA-cam decides to attack Ad-blockers, instead of giving viewers a better ad viewing experience
Since last year I have been getting a significant amount of ads that are
1. Investment scams (Invest Rs 10 now, get Rs 2000 back in an hour)
2. Crypto scam ads
3. VPN ads with inappropriate pictures/video
4. Video chatting apps with inappropriate pictures
5. Betting site ads
and I use this account to watch lectures and tech related stuff, rarely any other video
If UA-cam put as much effort into Advertisement checking and false copyright checks as it does on hammering down content creators for saying a single bad word in their video, people wouldn't use much adblock as they do
At this point of time, almost ALL UA-cam ads are scams.
That's by design: now that UA-cam sells ad-free YT it's in their best interest to make the ad watching experience as miserable as possible.
Don't forget hentai and cheap puzzle game ads
And the most ironic thing is the video complaining about those scam/inappropriate ads are instantly deminitized (and in some cases, age restricted) when those ad itself don't
You hit the nail right on the head! Piracy and people leaving in droves are not causes, but rather they are symptoms. There are several key boxes a company has to tick in order to have a happy, thriving community. This includes making your product accessible, affordable, convenient (user friendly), a good quality product overall, to have a solid reputation with your consumer base, and to maintain this. This is by far the most effective method to fight piracy and desertion if you are a company. If you can build a good relationship with your clients and create a quality service that is worth spending money on, then the money will come and people will feel like they're getting what they paid more, perhaps then some!
While the outlawing of adblocks was bound to occur, UA-cam (and countless other services, including Google itself as a company) are making no progressive strides in fixing all of their glaring problems while improving the user experience and keeping everyone safe (from malware, viruses, etc.).
I strongly agree that if ads were high quality and provided value instead of being malicious (in terms of content or in actual security risk as in serving malware) I would be more inclined to stop using ad block. Spots like the sponsored sections that Dennis runs are so fluid and enterntaining that I am aware its an ad but still watch, as I see there's effort and care put in, not just "give me ad rev because theres this random thing flashing in the way of the content for 2 minutes".
AGREED 100 %
is it just me or are the "targeted" ads, that google, facebook etc happily collect our data for, not that targeted? Not to mention they keep showing the same ad over and over again, like guys what makes you think I'm going to buy your stupid product after already clicking "not interest" on your damn ad, stop showing it to me
@@GameCyborgCh I was saying this for years. Google should know me pretty well by now... or amazon, or whoever. But the only thing they learn is what i bought and then i get ads for what i just ordered. Brilliant.
I was forced to buy yt premium because when my kids would be watching something, or I'd be watching something late at night since I've disabled targeted ads I would be literally given ads for adult content, or incredibly suggestive/ "rent a girl" type services. I totally lost it when my 18 month old on a Ms Rachel video was served an ad about "find what you're looking for here" with a scantily clad lady and moans in the background. I have all my settings set for privacy, and sure I could have enabled targeted ads, but that wouldn't change the fact that on white noise videos for sleeping google would always serve me the *loudest* commercial possible. It almost felt intentional.
Maybe you should not let your kids watch youtube in the first place if ads like that are there.
i hav no moni
i cant buy yt prem
i have to watch 600 trillion minute long ads midroll
@@villager736 maybe google should be more responsible for whatever ads they have on their platform
@@alcedob.5850 That, and a young child should not get full access to the internet yet
The question is why did you buy Premium then? I ask this rhetorically. Most of us don't have alternatives. But consider Premium isn't some panacea for creators it's like business class on airlines. The whole platform is still an ad based platform just like airlines make money on business class by making everyone else miserable.
For a long time, I didn't use an adblocker because I believed that it was important to support creators. It was a bit annoying having the ads, but I dealt with it. What caused me to install an adblocker was when the double ads started. I'm fine with some ads, but I'm not fine with excessive ads. And from what I've heard, they've only gotten more common since.
I remember when I was a kid, way back in the 80's and early 90's, you would get a 5 minute (or thereabouts) ad segment between shows. Then, somewhere in the late 80's or early 90's, we got a new TV station that would also put an ad segment in the middle of a movie. Which was OK, because it allowed you to take a quick toilet break while someone with a bigger bladder went to the kitchen for more snacks. Then it became two. Then three. Now I don't even know, but I think we're on three ad segments per episode of a TV show, perhaps more. So god knows how many per movie. And it sucks the entire momentum out of the narrative. I was lucky enough to have downloaded Firefly (which wasn't available over here when it first aired) and I loved that show. But when it finally aired on TV, I turned it off shortly after the first ad segment, because thanks to the ad segment right after a tense scene, the pacing of the show was just... gone...
Meanwhile, the ads themselves also changed. As kids, we LOVED the ad breaks, because the ads were creative, funny, or sometimes just beautiful. Not all of them, but enough to make ad time fun time. We had our favourite ads, and we actually talked about them on the school yard the next day. Just like we discussed all the cool scenes from Rambo or whatever action movie was aired that week. But advertisers have gotten lazy. Nowadays, very few ads are creative or fun. Most are just obnoxious and annoying. If you want me to watch your ads, make it worth my time.
some creators are trash as well, tries to watch a 15min of theirs and the video has like 20 ads on it, pathetic
@@Dead_Hitori most of the times it's not a creator fault. (Although there probably are such people who intentionally put a ton of add in video). If creators didn't put ad breaks themselves then youtube does it instead. And it puts an abnormal amount of ads when it can. You can see it on old videos, videos on abandoned channels, or even demonetised videos.
@@EvenTheDogAgrees Ugh, a few years ago I tried watching a movie with some friends and family, there was an ad segment literally every 15 minutes. The ad segments themselves were longer than the snippets we gotto see from the movie.
After that horrid experience I swore off watching TV, if there's one thing I hate, it's my free time being wasted.
@@LadislausKallig with demonetised videos it's often the copyright holder that filed the copyright notice who puts in all the midroll ads, as any ad revenue on that video goes to them instead. I see that a lot on long music mixes. Everyone yelling at the uploader, who's helpless in the matter.
I watched a 42 minute video with adblocking disabled. The creator says explicitly that this video was an experiment, to see just how many ads UA-cam would insert on it's own. Two pre-roll 15 second unskippables. EIGHTEEN double mid-roll ads, all of them fifteen second and almost all of them unskippable, and two end-roll 6 second ads. That's SUPER aggressive. And they want us to turn off adblockers, or are going to now strong-arm us into doing so. Okay. Fine, but if you're going to do that, back off on the number you throw at us. A lot more people are going to see your ads so you can do your part and cut the number you serve.
I *was* paying for UA-cam Premium until the moment they hid the dislike count from the end user. I stopped paying for the service because as the end user that is the only thing I can do; to vote with my wallet. Now the subscriptions feed is getting littered with the damn "shorts" and there is no option to hide that trash. UA-cam is getting a lot worse wether you pay for the premium or not. Paying for the service is no longer an option for me, so I suppose I'll just have to find better use for my free time if I can no longer block ads.
there is a way to get rid of the shorts section. on my youtube home page, where shorts are on show, there is a x in top right corner to hide them for 30days. i just click it every time shorts show up as i dont understand why they are popular, usually useless info on them or movie/tv clips.
@@douglasreid699 that is very useful information, but why on earth is it limited to 30 days?
@@douglasreid699 That is in the home page. I'm talking about the subscriptions feed.
@@nikore90
fair enough.
There are browser plugins to reveal the dislike count again though.
One thing that is incredibly frustrating about streaming services for me is that you can't browse them without subscribing, it feels insane that I have to resort to a third party website to check whether they have the content I want available in my country. My instances of piracy are usually when I can't figure out who the fuck gas the rights to it, if I could just open netflix and search what shows they have before I pay I'd be way less likely to do that
This is why piracy exists.
Netflix doesn't have your show anymore. That's the rule nowadays
This is what Gabe Newell (the founder of Valve) talked about in his quote about piracy. He said that piracy is usually used as a last resort because the Pirate will offer a better service than the Branded Provider, and not because people hate to pay for things. If I want to buy a game or a movie, I will find the money for it. But if it's region locked or is outrageously expensive, then I will go to my various pirating sites and just get it there for free. The companies drove me there, I didn't choose to go there until my patience had finally run out.
@Devil seriously, why would I pay for multiple services when I can find a streaming site that offers everything all them combined have and more all in one place?
The thing is, the likes of Netflix actually reduced piracy by making it more convenient to go legit. But because of everyone wanting jump on the bandwagon and fracture the content, it's now more convenient to pirate again so here we are again with yet another piracy revolution.
@@_Devil Region lock and fragmentation of content is what gonna kill streaming services.
Nothing is more annoying that wanting to watch something and "Ups. You can't watch it on your country. Better got an get a VPN" or the "Show not available anymore. X streaming services it buy it so got to X and PAY FOR THEIR SUBSCRIPTION and come back to Y"
I'm tired of having shows all across multiple streaming services. Nowadays i would be forced to pay for subscription to watch ONE SINGLE THING on those services. This is why Piracy would always be king. They offer a much better services without region locks or fragmentation
What we need are STRICT regulations on what ads show, how many can show, when they show, and how long they can be. Also, we need to stop double ads. At this point, suspend ALL YT ads until the malware risk ones are removed.
YES
I’m confident that UA-cam is a big enough deal that many men far more intelligent than myself will always devise new, ever-more ingenious ways for me to continue blocking ads on YT.
Truuue
They know, but just like the military. They know making powerful deterrence will mean a more ingenious way to try to outdone them. Yet most countries still have their military units. Also, giant tech companies hired many talents. So they can play this cat & mouse game. Information security is already like that anyway, so they're used to it.
And the _moment_ UA-cam starts blocking adblockers for me, I will go searching for that solution.
Witnessing the birth of yet another tech arms-race gives me a very bittersweet feeling. I'm glad to see resistance to tech platforms making arguably poor decisions but resistance breeds harder crackdowns.
And - as per usual - UA-cam has no chance of winning this one. Any time UA-cam updates their detections adblocker will race to see who will be the first to circumvent it - probably in minutes.
@@EvanOfTheDarknessYeah, with how popular UA-cam is there are probably 10x the amount of people at UA-cam working on circumventing the blocks.
@@phelan8385 however those people are there because of money, not passion, and they are limited by a bureaucracy that FOSS dev teams simply are not.
I think we have to draw the line here because companies like Google are determined to destroy what's left of the free and open internet.
Resist harder. Cat and mouse
I skip every single ad on my TV - especially the unskippable ones - by clicking on the video then immediately clicking the back button when I see a commercial, then again clicking on the video then clicking the back button as many times as needed till the video I want to see starts. It usually works within two tries. For the iPhone as soon as the commercial starts click the X to close the video then click on the video you want to see again. Repeat till the commercials are gone. Some may think it's dumb to do that but I think it's kinda' fun.
Anti adblock has been around since the advent of adblockers. It's nothing new. Adblockers always win in the end.
not always - but it can't be done without making the user experience worse.
@@zerorig ublock found a way around antiadblockers. I haven't seen an anti adblocker on any website with a few years since I started using ublock.
@@zerorig experience is BETTER with Adblock, for example Revanced moved shorts to their own little tab keeping them out of my feed unless I go look for them specifically.
I also often have limited bandwidth, so being able to directly download videos with a single button tap while I'm around public wifi for later viewing is also very helpful.
And ads always play in 1080pHD which destroys my bandwidth caps so I'm saving money as well.
That's an important improvement.
As someone who spends upto 8 hours a day on this platform sometimes AD block is a necessary thing. End of.
I'm sure if they invest a proper amount of dev time (as they are probably doing right now), ad-blocking could become a lot harder. It's not hard to imagine a system that validates users based on what they see on the back-end, or one that bakes the ad into the content's stream.
Not hoping for it, but I'm absolutely expecting something like this in the not-so-far future.
@@Steve30x "Unlock?" Do you mean uBlock? I can't seem to find this "Unlock" extension (or software)...
The problem I had was the frequency and length of ads. Watching one 15 second ad before a video was fine. But about a month ago it became two 15 second ads before the video, and another one or two ads every 5-10 minutes of the video. I valued my time enough to go buy an Android device, connect it to my TV, and run an app on it that blocks ads for me.
When I wasn't on premium, the thing that shocked me the most (aside from things other have listed like them being obnoxioualy loud) is how LONG they would be! Like longer than the content I'm watching! I've had adds almost and hour long interrupt the middle of a 15 minute video and yes it was skippable after a time but if I'm cooking or busy it's really disruptive to deal with.
If youtube started blocking ad-blockers, I'd probably get back into gaming instead of spending way too much time watching youtube...
And no Linus, I'd just look up the service manual for the dishwasher and RTFM....
My first step is always finding the manual and RTFMing... and yet I am always apalled about how amazingly useless they always are.
Maintenance/repair/troubleshooting is rarely even a section, and if it is it's sparse at best, and usually not even about the product in question (for some reason most things are shipped with older models manuals instead of writing up a new one (or some kind of shared manual for multiple models) - and sometimes simply a different model, period.). And yet, youtube pretty much always have a guide identifying what your issue is, how to fix it, and how to maintain so it doesn't appear again.
So no, I completely agreed with what they said about youtube being the best source to look up such things. Just... stick to the third-party videos if available :/ First party either has same issue as manual, or is meant as a promo video so you don't actually see anything beyond the most beautifying angles possible hiding the actual part that's an issue.
@@feha92 When it comes to home appliances, you need to locate the service manual online, not the instruction manual, those are useless...
@@MaverickBlue42 yes, it is online that I find them. Rather, more often than not there are no physical copies. Even when there are physical copies of warranty info in a huge multitude of languages... :/
But even online is rarely the correct model etc all that I mentioned before.
That's my man ill just download the video via some other site if i really have to watch it or theres always dns adblocking
Why would youtube care about you? You already dont make them any money so if you leave they could care less
The thing about these anti-adblock efforts is that the developers for adblockers have always won out, part of that might be the sheer hatred a lot of people have for ads as they become more invasive.
Also, another thing I see people say is something along the lines of "well, they have to make money somehow." Ok? Why should I care that a massive company is making less money because of these ad blockers? That's their problem that they caused by going overboard with ads in the first place.
Yea, the amount of hate some people have for ads including me is huge and I will go as far as I have to to get rid of them.
@@dadudeme would you pay for UA-cam premium to get rid of them?
@@Drenwickification my problem as well as what I would think is other people's problem is that they'll block the ad blocker and tell you to buy premium but they won't lower the price of it. If something like UA-cam premium include something like UA-cam music then provide me a service that is purely ad removal without all the fluff at a lower cost.
@@jforce321 youtube music is just music on youtube, it's a simple and low cost value add for them, why should that mean you shouldn't pay the extravagent $8 a month on a service you apparently care enough to comment on videos on...
@@nuggyfresh6430 you do realize it's 12 a month right?
My problem with YT ads is that 1st, I have never purchased anything simply because I saw it in an ad. 2nd, I very seldom see an ad that is in any way related to anything I'm interested in.
If double ads weren't a thing I bet more people wouldn't mind going without an ad blocker
People would be more willing to whitelist platforms that don't go overboard with the ads and/or serve ads from questionable at best sources.
Adblock didn't become popular just because people don't like to sit through ads. It is a defense against abuse from bad ads and platforms
If ads didn't look like videos. Sure. Or if ads didn't yell my ears out at 1am....
Or promote scams
@@miciso666 Yeah, I remember the dark ages of seizure-inducing banner ads and ear-shattering sounds on webpages.
The perfect mix of "questionable at best sources" and "going overboard"
I L-O-V-E it every time that midroll ad comes in blasting at a much higher volume than the content I was watching, forcing me to reach for the device to turn it down before I can even skip the legit HOUR LONG ad.
i just wanna say if Linus never complained about Adblock previously. I would've never figured out Sponserblock exists.
Honestly I don't think Linus cares that much about sponsor block, he's said in the past that he specifically makes all of his sponsored segments almost exactly 10 seconds long as that's the default length of the shortcut skip forward on UA-cam
@@bosstowndynamics5488 well those are exactly the kind of ads sponsor block is perfect for. Because it automatically skips past it without you having to take your phone out of your pocket to hit the skip button.
@@michaelcorcoran8768 What I'm getting at though is that Linus is going out of his way to make them as skippable as possible. If he was losing sleep over people skipping them he'd make them all different lengths at random
@@bosstowndynamics5488 he even segments them into their own chapters
For more than a decade, It has been practically impossible to surf the web without a working adblock; now a working anti-adblock block is becoming a requirement as well. Next, we'll be needing an anti-"anti-adblock" blocker. It truly is ridiculous.
The secret is to stop using platforms created by the same people making the ads/anti adblockers.
Guys run around on Chrome and wonder why everyone knows your blocking ads...
"For more than a decade, It has been practically impossible to surf the web without a working adblock"
I'm not certain what Internet you've been using, but it isn't the one I and many other non-users of adblock are on.
@@somdudewillson yeah, what websites he is using
@@somdudewillson They are definitely over-exaggerating that part. While I would agree that for the past decade, browsing the web has been significantly better with an adblock, its not impossible to browse without it. The only times I would say that it is ABSOLUTELY necessary to use one, is when browsing torrent sites or other nefarious corners of the internet.
@@zenyax69 Hard disagree, poisoned ads outside of those corners of the internet isn't *that* uncommon. I would cheerfully accept a reasonable amount of ads from any site won't share PII with third parties and that agreed to take full liability for any damage ads served by their site causes or any PII leaks from the data they harvest.
If they won't agree to that deal then they have no confidence in the ads they present and neither should you.
The amount of adds I've seen on YT that outright breach New Zealand law is the reason I am glad I primarily use YT on my PC with certain additions rather than my phone.
Ad block is a key part of most people’s anti-virus suite (remember Forbes putting malware vectored through ads?), so even with UA-cam premium, I still run ad-block concurrently lol.
Yep I run adblock for general browser safety but also pay for the premium version of every service I regularly use if an ad-free option exists. If you really must have something for free, ironically peer to peer piracy is a better option for all parties since you're only denying potential revenue, not consuming resources without paying like using an ad blocker on a streaming platform.
One major issue with the youtube ads are that they are obnoxious and extremely disruptive to the content, especially since youtube likes serving ads which are effectively long videos shilling a scam product. For example, it is not uncommon to see a preroll, midroll, or endroll ad that is a 20+ minute video that is being served as an ad. While you can skip it after a few seconds, the problem is that it requires you to babysit the app or website. I can't start a podcast and work on something while listening to it. I can't start a watch later playlist with multiple videos lines up and clean the house or wash dishes because I will be part way into a video and encounter a 20 minute ad that I will not be in an ideal position to skip. And the watch later list is useless with ads because you will end up with more ads than content if you can't easily skip them.
For example, with multiple 10-20 minute videos, you are likely to encounter 2 preroll ads where if you do not skip them, will run for around 3-20+ minutes depending on what youtube selected, then you will encounter at least one midroll ad that can be 30 seconds, to 20+ minutes if you do not skip it (some sub-1 minute ads cannot be skipped), then after the video ends, you can encounter 2 end roll ads that can run for 3-20+ minutes, after which the watch later list moves to the next video which will have its own 2 3-20+ minutes of preroll ads, and the cycle repeats itself. The end result is 2 ads at the start of the list, then midroll ads, then 4 ads in a row before the next video in your list starts. I have seen many people who resisted adblocking for a long time in order to support channels they like, be forced to use them because the site became unusable due to the ads.
On the few time I try watching a video in the YT App on my phone or tablet (both on Android and iOS/iPadOS) - I tend to have to cancel out of the video 5 or 6 times to get YT to stop shoving 2x 3min+ adds in my face for a 2min video.
Agreed. I don't like ads in general at all, but I could live with them because there isn't much I do that requires me to leave UA-cam unmonitored. Yes, they are extremely obnoxious, but I would still watch UA-cam content because I love the content on this platform and the communities I am a part of.
But the one thing I cannot use with ads is music, or more specifically, UA-cam Music. I listen to dozens of songs each day, and the amount of ads I would get would be unbearable. For that I have to use an adblocker.
Ad Block-Blocker-Blockers have existed for years now. The problem is the same as the piracy problem, if you go too hard trying to force people who will never pay you just end up making the legitimate product worse than the pirated one, directly incentivizing users to stop paying for a better experience.
You can replace "pay" here with "watch ads", but it equates the same.
This is very Good reason for developers, to make new better adblocker!
This will be a race
@Freddx L. And we know UA-cam will lose because we are persistent.
As long as they don't put the ads directly into the video stream, users will always find a way to block them. And if they are integrated into the video, you can simply fast-forward them.🤷♂
@@yasminesteinbauer8565 if they are integrated in the video stream, then they could also just not allow fast forwarding at whatever time the ad happens to be
everyone using ai do auto block each others blocker until it takes 5 hours to see a 2 minute video
You know. It was a throw away line in "Ready Player One": "We can sell 80% of the screen without causing seizures."
Heck, even in the tabletop game, Starfinder. There are literal items/tools you need to use that Universe's version of the Internet. And if you don't use these tools. The unwanted ads and pop-ups WILL KILL YOU. Thus, I refer back to that quote from "Ready Player One". All for this gameplay use.
Two arguments:
Ads don't always pay the channel anything considering that demonetized channels still have ads just no profit from them.
I don't want to view 4 minutes of unskipabble ads in a 10 minute video that don't profit anyone but UA-cam, it's a different topic when you are watching monetized channels that get revenues from ads, but the latter is that you have a sponsorship to hear about and watch embedded ads.
I used to have UA-cam premium because I hated seeing ads, but I had to cancel out of financial reasons.
Now I will fight this with every possible illegal way just out of spite.
When UA-cam/Google are worried about ad blockers that's when you realize they're in financial trouble.
I mean most YT employees ultimate goal is to make as much money as possible. They are fine IMO.
UA-cam hasn't made a profit since its creation
Turns out storing pentabytes of video for completely free is not a valid business model, who would have guessed
It's the same shit as uber and everything else. *As long as we grow infinitely long everything is fine*
Unfortunately there aren't infinite many people in the world
Do you realize how much money they make on a daily basis?
@@SamMaddie2 do you realize how ridiculously expensive it is to provide 8k video bandwidth to everyone for free?
GOOD.
About the idea that using adblockers makes UA-cam to push more ads.
Here is a little thought experiment: Imagine a large amount users stops using adblockers on UA-cam and starts watching ads. Will Google reduce amount of ads? Of course not! When more people find ads tolerable it sends a signal to Google that they haven't reached the critical point yet and can still place more ads without alienating viewers.
As you can see, UA-cam has pretty much no incentive to reduce the amount of ads in both cases.
I agree with you, but I must point out that your argument does not work. You're assuming what behavior google would have, and using that assumption as a proof for your argument. Maybe in your example youtube would reduce the number of ads or increase the payout for content creators -- they likely won't, but you can't know for sure
@@shadamethyst1258That's making a good-faith assumption out of google. We had decades' worth of precedent to show google does not care to be ethical.
@@shadamethyst1258 Ah yes, Google. Such a trust-worthy company to put blind faith into.
And yes, we do know for sure. They took away video responses, customizable channel pages, dislikes, so many things and you STILL trust them to not do something stupid?
@@DanielFerreira-ez8qd There's a reason they removed "Don't be evil" from their company rules. 😈
The end of that tunnel would be UA-cam removing higher quality video like 1080p even from the free tier until the cost of running the service outweighs the revenue it generates. Every adblocked video they play is a net loss for them.
My brain is just wired differently. Never bought anything off an ad to my recollection and seeing ads always makes me question the quality of the product, as in "if they have to push this so hard it really has to suck pretty bad"...
The open source community will just create better and better versions of adblocker until UA-cam gives up
UA-cam will never give up they pay people to find ways to work around adblockers. The people who make adblockers are usually doing it for free.
if it isn't as easy as installing an extension, people will give up too. We'll win the fight but they'll win the war in the long run, since the more people give up on making more complex adblocking solutions, the more niche it'll become to do so. Then again, they can't really fight it wholeheartedly without losing a fair bit of the userbase so it's a lose-lose situation no matter what side
they cant
The best paid engineers in the world backed by 1 trillion dollars company VS engineers working for free with occasional donations. It will end like Twitch, most adblockers even uBlock Origin will get outdone by the $1T parent company.
@@Alacod19 Yeah. That's the whole point. UA-cam needs to pay a massive amount of money to get talented people, adblockers and other popular open source projects get them for free. Millions of people could in theory work on adblockers, while such a number of developers would ruin any company. There is a reason why Linux is objectively better than Windows for entreprise level servers, or that Google recent leak shown real concerns over open source AIs.
A problem I've had with UA-cam ads has been the fact that they always make me do something - mute my audio, wait a few seconds and push a button, and then raise the volume again, which is _great_ when you're trying to rest. On mobile especially, it is very tedious. There's also the sheer level of *shut the fuck up* I'd feel about the ads I'd get - horrid mobile games, products I'll never buy, media I'll never watch, actual targeted harassment in the form of "The Real Cost" anti-vaping ads (which you can neither skip nor tell youtube to stop showing you).
Good point on the targeted harassment
Not to mention the auto-degrading quality of streams. I had to install an extension to stream 4k content on my 4k display with a gigabit connection to my very high end pc. All because youtube wants to save on streaming bandwidth, and confirmed this happens to premium users too.
I'll keep saying this: The Jazz Piano livestream that had ads every minute or 2 that were 5 minute long Rap music videos wasn't ruined by ad blocker
the "shut the fuck up " part is the real one. i had so many of the same stupid ad that i installed ad block Specifically to get rid of it because it was just that annoying
@@summushieremiasclarkson4700 you mind clueing us in on this extension name?
I feel like the type of person who would install an ad blocker would also never buy anything from an ad so as blockers aren’t a big problem
The excessive ads thing reminds me of how video game companies add antipiracy crap like Denuvo. It actually devalues the game and makes people pirate more and punishes the people who do the legitimate thing.
Google is just biting themselves in the ass. The whole reason ad blockers have become so common is because they're annoying, and people have legitimate safety concerns about ads. The day I put ad blockers on my computer is the day I stopped getting viruses. I never looked back. What they're asking me to do is put my computer at risk. I'll just find another way to waste my time.
Linus saying people will just come here is hubris. Facebook used to be the top social media platform, but people got sick of their shit and moved on. Videos are convenient, but there's just as many websites I will prefer to use because, surprise-surprise, they removed the dislike button so I can't even put a cursory amount of trust in help video anymore. That argument is now invalid.
Also, anyone says they'll reduce the number of ads if more people can't use ad-blockers is delusional. Once a company sets a standard for monetization, they almost never step it back unless there's backlash. Also, there's no way UA-cam will pay the channels more. They've already set THAT rate a long time ago. Papa Google will be keeping nearly every extra cent they get from these ads.
By the way, when Luke argues about the traffic going away being a good thing; it isn't. UA-cam won't be able to claim certain levels of traffic on the site, thus advertisers won't want to pay as much. The advertisers will pay less for ads on UA-cam and will pay more for the platform people spend more of their time on.
What will likely happen is either a giant backlash like with the remove for "free" 4K, or you'll see traffic from UA-cam plummet. It's as simple as that.
Pretty much this, The argument Linus and Luke are trying to bring up is so out of touch and so far from what reality really is.
Wtf are you doing where you were getting viruses from ads? That's literally impossible bruh
Most people that use UA-cam don't even know about ad blockers so ... Lmao
A small correction: Denuvo has been basically uncrackable for the last few years. If a game has been using it since ~2018, the game probably hasn't been cracked. Only a handful have been cracked due to private key leaks. It's annoying, but man, it does seem to work.
Your DRM software analogy doesn't really work unless there are people without adblockers that are still getting shown the anti-adblock popup, which I haven't heard anything about. I'm a Premium user, and have not been affected at all by this stuff.
> What they're asking me to do is put my computer at risk.
They're asking you to pay for the content you're consuming in some manner. Premium still exists, nobody's forcing you to look at ads.
> UA-cam won't be able to claim certain levels of traffic on the site, thus advertisers won't want to pay as much
Advertisers don't care how many people are on the site, they care about how many people are looking at their ads. Are you suggesting that UA-cam is currently lying to advertisers about how many people view their ads? I'm pretty sure that would be fraud. Any UA-cam partner can check UA-cam Analytics and easily see the huge gap in ad revenue between desktop and mobile viewers.
Creators making their sponsor content engaging makes me think of two very different ways I've seen it done: 1) Evan & Katelyn use skits with wacky recurring characters, plot lines, and gags 2) Hacksmith and Donut Media put audio-only ad reads over interesting video content like testing footage or montages that people will enjoy watching. I think both are great ways to improve the value and effectiveness of sponsor spots for the creator.
Let's also not forget the creators who do dedicated ad read segments but who actually integrate the ad into their editing style.
*Looks at Internet Historian*
@@cursedbeats9934 Or Rayconman.
i tried running youtube without an adblocker last year for half a year
i went straight back to an adblocker after the experiment
Blocking ads is not privateering, it is making UA-cam actually useable.
Pay for premium.
@@Ryan-093 no and go to hell
agreed
youtube makes money of premium, or it makes money of ads.
There is no world where youtube can't make money and still exists.
@@ericl1421 UA-cam isn't the only player here. There's also the creators. Lots of creators think highly of YT because it's the best they've ever had. But you can say the same of Amazon. Most creators are on YT because everyone else is on YT.
It's a problem with how ads are served. UA-cam ads are immersion breaking and intrusive.
I speak for just about everyone when I say the whole reason we started using adblock in the first place is because ads are out of control. They can also have malware, tracking and so on. If they can make ads simple and safe again, and place them anywhere that isn't directly interrupting our content (such as trying to watch a video, the unskippable full screen ads are the most annoying thing ever) then alot of people would be willing to stop using adblockers
I installed ad blockers for myself and all the computers I support as part of safe browsing practices and honestly I didn't even think about it blocking UA-cam ads for the longest time. When I realized it did block UA-cam ads my first thought was that it probably kinda sucks for the content providers and I'd be happy to have a reasonable number of ads back on the videos. That said, what I consider reasonable and what UA-cam (and content creators) considers reasonable are probably very different things.
Speaking for myself, I'll probably stop watching random videos (as these seem the most prone to having more ad content than actual video content) and keep watching my preferred content providers, unsubbing from them if I get annoyed with the number of ads, potentially reaching a point where I stop bothering with UA-cam all together except for when a video comes up when I'm searching for a specific topic.
I support providers earning money off their efforts, but I won't stick around if I'm being annoyed more than I'm entertained/informed.
I have two major problems with UA-cam ads:
1. The volume. For instance, I'm listening to this video at a certain volume, which results in a pleasant, coherent experience. If an ad popped up - and because UA-cam ads are at an outrageous volume - it would have startled me. Honestly, when these things happen (on other websites, where I don't have an ad-blocker for videos and where I rarely ever watch any video) - I literally feel an unpleasant sensation throughout my body (primarily in the legs; fight-or-flight response, I assume). That's not only unpleasant, but likely unhealthy too.
2. Most UA-cam content is short (I guess something like 5-10 minutes on average) and the way most people who use an ad-blocker choose whether to view a certain video is by watching the first 10-20 seconds of it and deciding if it's more interesting to them than whatever UA-cam suggests to them on the right side of the page. If you took away the ad-blocker, you'd force the user to do much more planning in deciding what to watch. That can - and probably will - drive people away from UA-cam. I mean, I have a Netflix subscription that I rarely use, because I usually enjoy stuff on UA-cam more. But if finding an interesting-for-me video will take substantially longer, that might drive me back to Netflix (whose modus operandi is very, very different).
UA-cam can do whatever they want in this respect - it's their platform and their decision. But, in my opinion, if they want to avoid risking losing a substantial portion of their users (mostly in the form of having many users using UA-cam much less than they currently do), they need - before removing the option for ad-blockers - to change how their advertisements work, primarily in terms of volume and frequency (no lame pun intended).
They could offer a less expensive version of UA-cam Premium with less of the benefits like free movies and such. Or one that makes it so you can skip all ads or lessens the frequency by alot.
What's funny is I used to never block Ads on UA-cam. I only started after their Ads got so horrendously pervasive. I honestly will just stop watching anything on UA-cam if I have to go back to 15 Ads per 10 minute video. Yes, I know that could be an exaggeration, but it honestly felt like I was watching more Ads than content.
The Internet Historian is a great example of a UA-camr that makes ads enjoyable to watch. Been a premium member for a while cuz I cannot stand the many ad breaks in the vids I watch
Agree, for that they will need to use like AI to personalize the ads, but maybe we are far from that
I run add block because its free and UA-camrs have their own adds for 95% of their finicals. Dont be a chump. 🙃
@@En_Joshi-Godrez True, but another thing to mention is that I use the background play on mobile and download vids for travel
NORD VPN!
Flashitz do a good job too
They've rolled it out. I use adblock because I'm sick of UA-cam's lack of oversight with ads, because they will consistently allow ads for blatant scams on the platform.
the internet is unusable without AdBlock these days. almost every website is full of more ads than content... it does my head in. The longest ad ive seen on youtube was 45MINUTES... insane.
Yeah it's insane especially for slow connections. You have advertisers all wanting to send their HD content when you have a limited connection and it's slow as shit. In those scenarios you pretty much HAVE to use an adblocker
@@total_epicness6776 Set up Brave for the ahem Elders. went on to check if there were any essential updates for it opened the browser for a basic speed test.... 587GB saved since install. Time saved 48 hours.
two hours. unskippable. it was at hte end of a video thankfully. but it was about twice the length of the video i was watching. it was insane. it was literaly just really loud music a black background, and yellow text zooming in and out. not even to the beat of the music. this was more than *ten years ago* and the adds have gotten *worse* since then. that was the last straw for me.
Why is it the consequences of our actions and not the consequences of their actions for advertisers that we turn to ad-blockers in the first place, shoving as many ads as they can in our faces at every opportunity, if only they would do it in moderation but they're literally incapable, maximising profits at our expense.
Mate you dint expense nothin. It's just an annoyance you just deal with the annoyance for free stuff.
I've also yet to skip a sponsor segment; I genuinely enjoy the way some have incorporated sponsor segments into their content.
I'd consider LTT's method to be the baseline of doing it well, and someone like Mern (he Skyrim mods) or FlashGitz (e.g. The fate of all weebs) to be the benchmark of doing a phenomenal promotion.
Otherwise I adblock everything everywhere. It's extremely sad that adblock is the ONLY reason I haven't been pwned once in the last 20 years, which is extremely telling of Google's complete lack of vetting.
I always skip unless it's dbrand just because they make genuinely entertaining segments.. eh I'd also watch any that that one hot guy does, but he doesn't do them basically ever
i will use adblock daily, but i always watch sponsor segments. i feel obligated to give the channel my view time since i'm blocking yt ads on their videos, but also sponsor segments aren't actually malicious or annoying; they don't stop me from viewing the content and don't last ages, and i know for a fact it's just one. i don't have to worry about am i going to get 1, 2, or 5 sponsor segments in a row.
I skip every sponsor segment that I can. I already pay for YT Premium, and I will NOT watch ads while paying for an ad-free product.
Blocking ads is not privateering, it's protecting yourself.
It can be both, and it is. I use Adblock, but i'm under no illusions that what i'm doing is refusing to pay the cost which is being asked, it is somewhat similar to piracy. Anyone who uses adblock but refuses to accept that they are just consuming something which asks a price, and refusing to pay that price, is deluding themselves and frankly it's pretty childish. Own it!
@SSH God, imagine if shopkeepers did this irl.
"Give me $12 a month in exchange for my crappy products you can't buy any where else or I'll secretly take all my information about you online and sell it to corporations for ad revenue!"
Legally it might be valid, ethically it is not.
It's not and likely never will be "privateering".
Privateers are (were) private ships / sailors that are takining military action against specific flagged vessels / crews unter the written authorisation of a government.
For using ad blockers to become "privateering", a government would need to issue letters of marque to every single individual or company authorising the specific action of using ad blockers against a specific nation.
Pirating on the other hand, is individuals taking what they want because they can.
Long live Captain Jack...
@Sounder The point you're missing is that you're not being held ransom, you're choosing to use the service, then refusing to pay either of the prices offered.
I don't like ads either, I don't particularly like UA-cam, but until something better comes along I'll pay the price asked to watch the thing that brings me joy
@SSH I think a lot of us feel a little entitled about a simple platform that became a platform through us (the users) then got sold to the highest bidder to change into a ongoing consumption machine. As long as it technically is legal, but arguably imoral, what makes it different to what youtube is doing that is also technically legal, but arguably imoral?
The problem with youtube ads right now, at least in my opinion, is that watching 30 seconds of ads for each video without the option to skip in most cases is just frustrating. Especially since not once have youtube ads ever shown me something that might be interesting or useful. To be fair that is my experience on mobile since i have ad-blocker on my PC but i don´t think it would be much different on there. Personally had i always the option to skip all of the ads after 5 seconds i would be much more open to this change. Especially since ads are extremely loud (way louder than the video i am watching) and that just pisses me off like nothing else...
you can do nothing and eventually it will choose for you .............
The other thing I've noticed is that I'll get two ads at the start, then one minute in the same two ads. Then probably those two ads again later in the video. Guys, you're making this experience worse to send a message you've already sent - if I didn't want the product the first time you're unlikely to change my mind.
There's also some channels that take the absolute piss with how many ads they have on their channel.
Not to mention even if you're paying for UA-cam premium, you still have to watch three or four ads from in video sponsorships, self-promotion and sometimes the entire videos are sponsored.
@@coryvallad7578 Yeah, you are 100% correct, especially since i have no background in programming and app development my personal power in this situation is zero. But i do agree with the people saying that this will become a race between youtube and people who develop the apps.
the adblock vs ads arms race has been going strong for years. this is just a new chapter.
It hasnt been a race. They havent cared for years, now they care
I used to have a plugin that automatically pressed ‘skip ad’ and closed the pop up ads. Then during the time when the ads were straight up scams, fraud or adult content I said “stuff you” and enabled uBlock Origin.
If UA-cam stopped me from using an adblocker it would honestly do me some good. I watch too much UA-cam.
Definitely agree with the philosophy of make ads content. I will watch a Denis or Martincitopants sponsor segment all the way through.
yea same here…the quality of the ads suck which is why i started blocking ads more aggressively about a year ago
@@smkslpsd not sure how that makes me a good person, but thanks?
I absolutely agree with this. The problem is youtube isn't meant to give users a choice it's meant to addict users so they watch more ads. Premium is just business class for airlines. It's only there because everyone behind you is suffering. Give me a platform where I can how many hours the recommender will feed me videos per week.
I think you meant "Martincitopants B O A T" segment
Ironically this might just be me but when ads pop up on UA-cam it honestly makes me want to buy the product even less. Especially if it's a sponsor segment in the video then I especially don't buy it. May just be me though.
That’s probably quite common as the ad / company is causing you an inconvenience and it feels like a nuisance - therefore triggering not a positive feeling.
Bad products need to be visible for the consumers, good products not because the users know they are good. That’s the fact, and you don’t want to buy bad products.
Not just you
Same here. And even if I see an ad for something I might be interested in, I'll go out of my way to find an alternative product from a company that didn't shove an ad down my throat.
And yeah, I realise that's a bit silly. I mean, if I didn't know of a particular type of useful product before, and only learned about it through an ad, why would I want to punish the company that brought it to my attention? Well, honestly, because I don't want to add to the "annoy people with ads, make more money" positive feedback loop. I know I'm not making much of a difference. But if everyone thinks "I'm not making any difference" and just goes along, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I always felt that way about TV ads since I was a kid. And yet it seems to be working.
A really savage move from UA-cam would be to allow creators to decide if they want to allow ad block or not
UA-cam still hasn't quite hit the mark yet for me but there were 8 unskippable ads on a 10 minute video yesterday which started making me consider stopping watching UA-cam. My solution is that I don't use ad blockers but I also don't use a website if the ads are annoying enough to me to want to use an adblocker. Pretty much I look for pages with the least ad annoyance.
8 on one video and you are not there yet? omg you are either insanely patient or or the biggest sheep ever... that's insane... that's like 1 ad per 1 minute of video... a 10min video should have 1 ad in the beginning AT BEST... and nothing else...
I stopped using AdBlock on UA-cam for several years, when they started stacking multiple ads at the beginning of videos I went right back. UA-cam brought this on themselves. I'm sure people will find ways around this, and I'll be first in line when a solution arrives. I watch UA-cam significantly less than I used to, so it really wouldn't be difficult to cut out if it comes to it.
People can only find so many workaround solutions to avoiding ads before the UA-cam web developers find a draconian method to stopping 99% of attempts of blocking ads.
I think Linus seriously under estimates the people willing to look elsewhere for the information that they need to do a repair job. UA-cam isnt the only place to search.
Block ads everywhere, not being slammed with a sales pitch for something all the time is good for your mental health going back and watching broadcast tv now is just mind numbing
Yup. Can't even follow the narrative anymore because they keep interrupting it with obnoxious crap that totally pulls you out of the experience and breaks the pacing. Just as the show gets some momentum going, on comes the emergency brake and the whole thing comes to a screeching halt.
I find it funny that cable tv is $100 a month and you still have to watch 5 mins of commercials every 10-15 mins (sometimes more)
@@squidwardo7074 Oh, this. So this!
Yeah Everytime I'm around people watching free TV it actually makes me physically unwell to have to suffer through the ads. It's like the opposite of quitting a drug; once you're out of the constant bombardment by ads you can't really get back into it without feeling the equivalent of withdrawal symptoms
If UA-cam demands you see ads, you should be able to sue them for falling prey to a predatory ad.
You can't sue the billboard company on the highway
@Alex It's not a perfect world.
@@NeptuneSega I think you CAN sue the billboard company if it an AD distracting or misleading enough.
@@NeptuneSega you can though and then laws got made so flashing lights cant be used on them in nearly every state... except one commie state.
@@that_heretic you should be responsible for compensating UA-cam for the data they serve YOU from their servers. You can do that by watching ads or paying for Premium.
This whole situation is just like... seeing who can have their hand on top last, they're just slapping each other in an endless cycle until someone gets tired of it
UA-cam gets a hefty cut from channel membership, supechat and now from paid comments.
Ads are not their only source of revenue, no matter how they try to push the idea that it is an indispensable necessity for their existence.
Also, there is a better way to do this: allow the viewer to decide on what creator's video they want to see ads.
Regardless, google is an ad business.
@@quinndtxd google is a surveillance and operation mockingbird arm of Alphabet.
@@quinndtxd and 90% of their ads have malware in them.
But it costs UA-cam money to serve you that video regardless of if you care enough to watch ads. It costs UA-cam a very small amount of money but they also make a very small amount of money on you watching the ad so it balances out. Servers, hard drives, developers and engineers aren't free. Web hosting isn't free and hosting video definitely isn't free. Public companies legally have to act in the interest of their shareholders and if UA-cam isn't making a profit then Google will be legally forced to shut it down eventually. The days of running on investor dollars and figuring out how to make money later are over. Tech companies need to be sustainable to continue to exist.
@@drabberfrog
Let's say you order a custom furniture. It will be made of x amounts of wood, y amounts of screws, hinges, etc. But to get that amount of wood, the shop would need to buy a bigger piece, then cut it down, screws may bend, and be unusable, the tools will wear down. You need to pay for all of that, plus the cost of work and energy bills.
That is understandable.
Now, if that same woodworking shop were to be run by UA-cam, they would first look at what car you drive, what kind of other furniture you have at home, how frequently you buy furniture, how you shake their hands. Put a price tag on that, then they would go to the previous shop, have your furniture made at a discount price, then resell it for you.
The honeymoon phase of a startup company is long over for UA-cam. They have figured out how to make money years ago. Now what they want to figure out is how much more they can make.
If you are not signed in, you get more ads. If you sign in, they would sell your data and habits. It doesn't really matter if you turn off targeted ads, you will still get them, only based on less data (like watch history and location information, language settings, etc.). If you watch the videos on a smart Tv, you get the most ads, then you get less on your phone, less then that on your tablet, and the least on your PC.
They also measure how many seconds of ads you have watched and how long has been since they have last played an ad on that device, then you will get served an ad based on that data - that's how you will end up with a mid-roll ad, even if the creator have turned it off. If you put the app in the background, the timer resets, and you are more likely to get an ad prematurely.
On mobile you are more likely to get unskipable ads when you are on a wi-fi network, and they generously let you have skipable ads, when you are on mobile data.
On PC, you will get banner ads on videos, while they are playing (extra annoying if you need subtitles), while you will get banner ads and clickable videos ads on your phone inserted into your recommended list, masquerading as video thumbnails.
My point? They have figured out how to finance themselves from ads long ago. Then they added superchats, then premium subscription, then channel membership, then paid comments. While they also put ads on videos of creators, who are not affiliates and are not eligible for a cut on ads.
The "cost" of people using adblock have been figured into the numbers since the beginning. They had all the numbers and metrics to set their prices appropriately. Fore example, the companies to whom they farm out their work, get a cut from ad revenue based on how many seconds you watch after the five second mark.
What they are trying to do with blocking adblock is as if a woodworking shop would build your furniture and try to force you to pay separately for all the bent nails and screws, the excess wood they had to cut, as if it was not already included in the original price they set.
So, is it "theft" if I watch a video with adblock? Yes and no, as I am not paying for it, but someone else have already "paid" for it once.
This whole debacle is not about their survival or their ability to pay the creators appropriately. It is about their greed.
Now I'll need a robot to detect when an ad starts playing and gouge my eyes out.
I didn't use adblockers for a while but started to notice a few fake ransomeware and outright scams so it became a legit security concern because of the kind of scripts that can run
annoying as it is youtube can do as they please, my concern is the dodgy websites and scammers using the same tactics to manipulate people into installing malware
I turned my adblock on when the amount of ads and unskippable ads became horrible, if the situation with ads became better I would turn my adblock off again, and I'm talking in general not only youtube, I would turn my adblock off if the ads situation became better
If I had to pay youtube premium for whatever reason in order to have an enjoyable experience on the platform regardless of the video I would consider changing platform all together (like floatplane, nebula and all that)
Fun thing for me, that in my country YT premium is unavailable, so i have no way to get rid of ads besides adblocking
I am a very big youtube watcher but if they implemented this, I would just wait until the ad blockers catchup, but if that's not possible then I would just go else where like twitch.
Wouldn't surprise me if a similar situation to twitch happens, where another huge multi-billion dollar company like stake starts to take off with private financal backing, there are actually plenty of supplymentary income streams that are possible to support the platform, they just don't want to consider them because ads have been working since it's inception.
I mean, if it were going to be 2 x ads at 5 seconds, i would turn off the adblocker, but nowadays they are up to 16-20 seconds and non skipable.. that is just annoying even more.
Heard last year, Google were experimenting with 10 x 5 seconds ads which in turn are totally insane - UA-cam Premium is $17.39 here in Denmark, i rather have the adblocker on for now.
The thing with ads, is there’s way too many scummy ads on these platforms for BS business opportunity gurus, scam products, and even scams pretending to be MrBeast, and I’m talking about the actual ads not the bot comments. I wouldn’t have a problem seeing ads if these weren’t a thing. They don’t care though they will take money from whoever pays them.
It has gotten to the point where I automatically report an ad as a HYIP scam if Elon's face appears in the first 3 seconds. I used to try to report it as trademark infringement: but apparently only Tesla is allowed to do that.
Kind of ironic when chrome has a built in adblocker for "intrusive ads"
And their help page even mention that this includes "Ad walls before you can content", looks like their products are exempted from that rule.
(Help page can be found by searching "See a site by turning off Chrome's ad blocker")
There probably will be a countermeasure to their blocking, I see blocking adblocker as a good incentive to finding a countermeasure, since it's an interesting technical challenge and I'm definitely not giving any money to a service that is trying to be obnoxious to me.
I feel like if the ad business model was to be paid when the ad lead to a purchase instead of when its viewed, we may had have less annoying ones. Sponsor in video for instance aren't generally annoying, they tend to be at the beginning or the end of the video, and if you're not interested in the content of the ad you can just skip forward. If all ads were similar, I'm sure adblock would be way less prevalent.
Well youtube in particular has a lot more reason to be hated, thay may make you reticent to support them in anyway.
well YT is owned by Google but still operates as its own entity, Chrome blocking ads, and YT blocking ad blockers seems to make sense as far as I can tell. This makes Chrome better, and YT more profitable, so it's really the opposite of ironic. It's exactly what one would expect from a business. Chrome doesn't care about the profits of websites it doesn't own, why should they? Those sites can block ad blockers too if they really want.
The whole reason people use adblockers on youtube is BECAUSE they added too many ads.
Fun fact as long as ads were not obnoxious I didn't use an adblock, that was for like 15+ years of using the Internet. As long as a video has a banner on the bottom, as long as every 4-5 videos there is a 3-5 seconds add with video and sound, as long as a web page has non-adult ads on the sides but does not interrupt the content, as long as scrolling a supposedly family friendly platform like UA-cam does not tries to invite you click on adult websites I'm ok. The moment any of that goes above the threshold like I am forced to use an adblock. Besides I actually asked many creators "how much do you earn per each viewer that doesn't use adblock? I'll give you twice that" it turns out that is roughly a couple of dollars per year per creator... Soooo the 16 dollars per month for UA-cam is actually unreasonable.
Remember when Linus say ad block is piracy a few years ago. Not to mention Linus don't know how ad blocks work.
The issue with the biggest companies on the planet doing things to avoid being unsustainable is that they are always sustainable and more importantly, their profit margins increase every year. It reminds me of top companies increasing prices in order to “fight inflation” even tho their profit growth in one year greatly exceeds inflation. What’s really interesting is these companies reaching all time highs even after you accounted for Inflation
One of the things about capitalism I never understood, really. As long as a company earns enough profit to break even, after deducting all desirable expenditures (wages, R&D to improve their products, advertising, facility management, legal, ...), it's healthy as far as I'm concerned. I can even understand the desire to make some decent amount of profit, so the company can build up reserves to survive an economic downturn, or to prepare to grow, within reasonable bounds. What I don't understand is this mentality that "making profit year after year is not good enough; every year we need to make more profit than the last".
@@EvenTheDogAgrees capitalisms sole goal is simply exponential growth. they don’t give a flying fuck about how unsustainable that is. they’ll just keep trying to grow, making things worse for the customer, until they abandon them for something better and they go bankrupt. and then the cycle continues. except now because we’re all so broke and the wage gap is exponentially increasing that cycle goes faster and faster and soon enough america is going to die purely from corporate greed.
Ok cool but UA-cam is the opposite of sustainable. The only reason they've lasted this long is because they have google to back them up.
@@EvenTheDogAgrees Its primarily because of public trading and stock market. They have a duty to investors to try to keep growing and are punished otherwise. Not being sustainable doesn't matter and ethics only come into play if its serious enough and noticed enough otherwise company "ethics" are just to get whatever targeted group to approve and buy more of their stuff for example Disney with their support for LGBT. Its not like they actually care, they just are making enough minor efforts to make it seem like they care enough so people will consume their products.
@@EvenTheDogAgrees It's definitely a major flaw of the system. The simplified reason is that, especially for publicly traded companies, stocks are valued by multiples of their earnings based on their growth rate. Tech companies are typically valued as "high growth", or high multiple companies. However, this is a double-edged sword, because if they stop growing, even if they're still profitable, their multiple will be diminished. Going from a 20x multiple to a 10x multiple means shareholders have their wealth cut in half. Since shareholders vote on how a company operates, this effectively means the growth can never stop, even if it's pointless and even if it's unsustainable.
I would be fine with unblocking ads for the sake of the creators but after realizing that barely any of the money goes to creators and most ost it goes to UA-cam, I stopped feeling bad about blocking ads.
I'm not vouching for ads, but UA-cam shares something like almost 50% of their ad revenue with their creators which absolutely dumps on any other platform's revenue sharing
@@Kromface Could you cite a source for that? I would love to know more about revenue share differences between yt, odysee and such
@@ardishco for "watch page" (non-shorts) videos, 55% of ad revenue goes to the creator, youtube keeps 45%. this is listed on the youtube help page titled "UA-cam partner earnings overview" under "What's my revenue share?" > "Revenue share rates" > "Watch Page Monetization Module"
to the people saying creators don't get paid fairly on UA-cam you have to remember the creators don't pay
-engineers
-maintenance
-hardware
-electricity
-bandwidth
-marketing
- support
etc...
The fact that they get paid at all is amazing and UA-cam is the highest or one of the highest paying platforms. Yes the creators make the content, but this should not be taken as a secure career path because it can go downhill just as fast as this bubble started to grow. There's other platforms they can go upload their stuff to, and I guarantee you it wont generate them anything near what UA-cam does. UA-cam created an opportunity for them so they should be grateful and they get paid their fair share. Walmart would of been most of their careers path anyways
@@NeptuneSega Yeah, that's kind of a risk you have to take when you start a multi-billion dollar video-hosting service that is (at least partially) kept afloat through trust funds. But hey, maybe all those pesky content creators should just switch platforms, _then_ it wouldn't cost UA-cam so much to host all these parasites, right?
I have a feeling ad blocking isn't going anywhere. Someone will just find a way around it. Not arguing for or against it.
if they do it like twitch does it. or the way twich did it before i left that site. then it is unlikely anyone can get around to blocking ads. twitch make the adds part of the stream it basically like hijacking a streamers live stream and injecting ads in the video.
@@THE16THPHANTOM ads on twitch are blocked for me when I'm on my pc... Though I am not on twitch very much either.
If they start deleting accounts that do it probably not.
@@Furiends That's okay I don't use any google services. And this is a throwaway account that I won't be missing.
@@user-xk9rc1xl2jNothing to do with what the OP said and doesn't change my point at all. Excellent commentary.
I have been looking for a way to curb my UA-cam addiction. UA-cam themselves coming in clutch 💪